Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations

Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
Updated February 1, 2008
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry 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:
FY2008 Appropriations
Summary
The agriculture appropriations bill includes all of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), except the Forest Service, plus the Food and Drug
Administration. Jurisdiction for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC) remains with the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee, but was
moved to the Senate financial services subcommittee in FY2008.
The FY2008 agriculture appropriations bill was combined with 10 other
appropriations bills into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
The consolidated bill passed the House on December 17, 2007, passed the Senate on
December 18, 2007, and was signed by the President on December 26, 2007.
The act provides $90.8 billion in total funds for agriculture and related agencies,
including $18.1 billion in official discretionary appropriations, and $72.7 billion in
mandatory funds. The discretionary amount is 1.6% greater than the amount in
FY2007 (+$281 million), although “gross” discretionary appropriations actually
available to agencies grew 5.3% to $19.5 billion. Mandatory spending decreased
about $7 billion overall from FY2007. Mandatory transfers for the farm commodity
programs decreased $10 billion because of less need for price-triggered income
support, while food stamp benefits rose about $2.2 billion (+4.2%).
The enacted appropriation for FY2008 provides notable increases above
FY2007 for conservation (+$85 million, +10%), meat and poultry inspection (+$38
million, +4.3%), agricultural research (+$38 million, +3.4%), animal and plant health
programs (+$16.5 million, +1.9%), agricultural statistics (+$15 million, +10%), and
the Food and Drug Administration (+$143 million, +9.1%). Rural development
funding decreased $166 million (-6.6%) from FY2007, but remained higher than the
Administration’s request. The law removes the delay on implementation of country-
of-origin labeling for meat, and requires labeling to begin by September 2008.
The act contains disaster assistance to cover certain crop and livestock losses for
all of 2007 by extending the eligibility date for crop and livestock losses to December
31, 2007. (The Iraq War supplemental enacted in May 2007 covered losses through
February 2007.) CBO estimates that the additional disaster authority will cost $602
million ($592 million for crops and $10 million for livestock), which is included in
the cost of the bill.
The act also extends most provisions of the 2002 farm bill until March 15, 2008.
The extension is expected to be sufficient for conference negotiations to resolve
differences between the House- and Senate-passed farm bills. The farm bill extension
states that, unless otherwise excepted, 2002 farm bill provisions in effect in
September 2007 shall continue until March 15, 2008. Important among the relatively
short list of programs that are not extended are the farm commodity programs for the

2008 crop year.

Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameTelephoneE-mail
Coordinator; bill status;
Commodity Credit Corporation;Jim Monke7-9664jmonke@crs.loc.gov
Farm Service Agency
Crop insurance andRalph Chite7-7296rchite@crs.loc.gov
disaster assistance
Agricultural research, extension,Jean M. Rawson7-7283jrawson@crs.loc.gov
and economics
Meat and poultry inspection;Geoffrey S. Becker7-7287gbecker@crs.loc.gov
Agricultural Marketing Service
Conservation; animal and plant
health; grain inspection, packers,Renée Johnson7-0248rjohnson@crs.loc.gov
and stockyards
Rural developmentTadlock Cowan7-7600tcowan@crs.loc.gov
Domestic food assistanceJoe Richardson7-7325jrichardson@crs.loc.gov
Agricultural trade and food aidCharles E. Hanrahan7-7235chanrahan@crs.loc.gov
Food and Drug AdministrationSusan J. Thaul7-0562sthaul@crs.loc.gov
Commodity Futures TradingMark Jickling7-7784mjickling@crs.loc.gov

Commission

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Components of Agriculture Appropriations.............................1
USDA Activities..............................................1
Related Agencies..............................................3
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending.............................3
Action on FY2008 Appropriations....................................5
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161)................5
Temporary Extension of the 2002 Farm Bill.....................6
House Action.................................................7
Senate Action.................................................7
Funding and Policy Issues.......................................7
Earmarks ................................................9
USDA Agencies and Programs......................................10
Farm Service Agency..........................................10
FSA Salaries and Expenses.................................11
FSA Farm Loan Programs..................................11
Commodity Credit Corporation..................................12
Crop Insurance...............................................14
Disaster Assistance...........................................14
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Economics...................15
Agricultural Research Service...............................16
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.....16
Economic Research and Agricultural Statistics..................17
Meat and Poultry Inspection....................................17
Horse Slaughter Amendment................................18
Marketing and Regulatory Programs..............................18
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)............18
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).20
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)........................21
Conservation ................................................22
Discretionary Programs....................................23
Mandatory Programs......................................23
Rural Development...........................................24
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP)...............24
Rural Housing Service (RHS)...............................24
Rural Business-Cooperative Service..........................25
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)...............................26
Domestic Food Assistance......................................27
Programs under the Food Stamp Act..........................28
Child Nutrition Programs...................................29
The WIC Program........................................30
Commodity Assistance Programs............................31
Nutrition Program Administration............................32
Special Program Initiatives.................................32
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid.................................34

Food and Drug Administration (FDA).................................35
Food .......................................................36
Food Safety.............................................36
Nutrition ................................................36
Human Drugs................................................38
Specified Funding Increases................................38
Issues Highlighted........................................38
Animal Drugs and Feeds.......................................38
Cross-Cutting Topics..........................................38
Specified Funding Increases................................38
Issues Highlighted........................................39
Restrictions on Use of Appropriated Funds.....................39
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).......................40
List of Figures
Figure 1. USDA Outlays, FY2007 Estimated............................2
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2007 Enacted..2
Figure 3. Mandatory and Discretionary Appropriations ...................5
List of Tables
Table 1. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: FY1999-FY2008..4
Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2008 Agriculture Appropriations.......6
Table 3. Agriculture Appropriations: FY2008 Action and FY2007 Enacted....8
Table 4. FY2008 Earmarks Disclosed by Congress......................10
Table 5. FSA Farm Loan Appropriations..............................12
Table 6. Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Operations...............13
Table 7. FDA Appropriations and User Fees, by Program Area............37
Table 8. USDA and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2008 Action and FY2007 Enacted .............................41

Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2008 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
The FY2008 agriculture appropriations bill was combined with 10 other
appropriations bills into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
The consolidated bill passed the House on December 17, 2007, the Senate on
December 18, 2007, and was signed by the President on December 26, 2007.
The act provides $90.8 billion in total funds for agriculture and related agencies:
$18.1 billion in official discretionary appropriations, and $72.7 billion in mandatory
funds. The discretionary amount is 1.6% greater than the amount in FY2007 (+$281
million), although “gross” discretionary appropriations actually available to agencies
grew 5.3% to $19.5 billion. Mandatory spending decreased about $7 billion overall
from FY2007. Mandatory transfers for the farm commodity programs decreased $10
billion because of less need for price-triggered income support, while food stamp
benefits rose about $2.2 billion (+4.2%).
The act also extends most provisions of the 2002 farm bill until March 15, 2008.
The extension is expected to be sufficient for conference negotiations to resolve
differences between the House- and Senate-passed farm bills. The farm bill extension
states that, unless otherwise excepted, 2002 farm bill provisions shall continue until
March 15, 2008. Among the relatively short list of programs that are not extended are
the farm commodity programs for the 2008 crop year.
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, USDA spending 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.
USDA estimated that its outlays in FY2007 would be $93 billion. Food and
nutrition programs comprise the largest mission area with $55 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).

Figure 1. USDA Outlays, FY2007 Estimated
^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷^E^s^ti^m^a^t^e
^$^92.⁸^bi^l^lⁱ^oⁿ
^F^a^r^m^&^f^o^r^eⁱ^gn^agrⁱ^c^ul^t^u^re
^22.^6%
^N^a^t^u^r^a^l^r^e^s^our^c^e^s
^F^o^{od &}^nut^rⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ^8.^9%
⁵⁹^.⁷^%
^R^u^ra^{l de}^v^e^lo^pm^eⁿ^t
^3.^2%
^R^e^s^ear^c^h
^2.^9%
^M^a^r^k^etⁱ^{ng &}^r^e^g^u^l^a^t^o^r^y
^1.^9%^F^o^o^d^s^a^fe^ty
^0.⁹^%^S^o^u^r^c^e^:^CR^S^,^u^sⁱⁿ^g^US^DA^d^a^t^a
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2007 Enacted

^Tⁱ^t^l^e^V:^F^o^r^eⁱ^gn^f^ood^as^sⁱ^s^t^anc^e^Tⁱ^tl^e^V^I^{: F}^D^A⁺^C^F^T^C
^1.^5%^1.^7%^F^Y²⁰⁰⁷
^$⁹⁷^.⁵^b^illi^oⁿ
^Tⁱ^t^l^e^I^:^A^g^ri^c^u^l^t^ur^al^p^r^og^r^a^m^s
^34.^9%
^Tⁱ^tl^e^IV^:^D^o^m^e^stⁱ^c^f^o^o^d^a^s^sⁱ^s^t^aⁿ^c^e
^58.^5%
^Tⁱ^tl^e^II^:^C^oⁿ^s^e^r^v^a^ti^oⁿ
^0.^9%
^Tⁱ^tl^e^II^I^:^R^u^r^a^l^d^e^v^e^l^o^p^m^eⁿ^t
^2.^6%
^S^our^ce:^C^R^S^,^usⁱ^{ng H}^ouse^aⁿ^{d S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^A^ppr^op^rⁱ^atⁱ^o^ns^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^{e da}^t^a

The second-largest mission area, with an expected $21 billion (23%) in outlays,
is farm and foreign agricultural services. This mission area includes the farm
commodity price and income support programs of the Commodity Credit
Corporation, certain mandatory conservation and trade programs, crop insurance,
farm loans, and foreign food aid programs.
Other USDA activities include natural resource and environmental programs
(9% of the total), rural development (3%), research and education programs (3%),
marketing and regulatory programs (2%), and food safety (1%).
Nearly two-thirds of the outlays for natural resources programs goes to the
Forest Service (about $5.4 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” that 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 Services (HHS)
and, in the House, the Commodity Future Trading Commission (CFTC, an
independent financial markets 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 at these agencies as medical and drug issues have grown in FDA and non-
agricultural futures markets have grown at 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 (sometimes referred to as entitlement 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. The 2002 farm bill — and its
expected successor, the 2007/08 farm bill, H.R. 2419 — determine most of the
parameters for this mandatory spending.

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 spending is
classified as mandatory, which by definition occurs independently 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 and
price conditions, and weather patterns (Figure 3).
Although these programs have mandatory status, many of these accounts receive
funding in the annual agriculture appropriations act. For example, the food stamp
and child nutrition programs are funded by an annual appropriation based on
projected spending needs. Supplemental appropriations generally are made if these
estimates fall short of required spending. The Commodity Credit Corporation
operates on a line of credit with the Treasury, but receives an annual appropriation
to reimburse the Treasury and to maintain its line of credit.
The other 20% of the agriculture and related agencies appropriations bill is for
discretionary programs. 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: FY1999-FY2008
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Fiscal Year
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Mandatory 41.0 62.0 58.3 56.9 56.7 69.7 68.3 83.1 79.8 72.7
Discretionary 13.7 13.9 15.0 16.3 17.9 16.8 16.8 16.8 17.8 18.1
Total 54.7 75.9 73.3 73.2 74.6 86.6 85.1 99.8 97.6 90.8
Percent discretionary25%18%20%22%24%19%20%17%18%20%
^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 an}^d^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Q^uar^t^e^r^l^y^.
^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
^Ad^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,^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^ta^l
^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
^M^aⁿ^dat^o^r^y
^$6⁰
^$5⁰
^$4⁰
^$3⁰^Dⁱ^s^c^retⁱ^o^nary
^$2⁰
^$1⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁸
^Fⁱ^s^c^al^y^e^ar
^So^u^r^c^e^{: C}^R^S
Action on FY2008 Appropriations
The agriculture appropriations bill includes all of USDA (except the Forest
Service), plus the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health¹
and Human Services, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161)
The FY2008 agriculture appropriations bill was combined with 10 other
appropriations bills into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).
The bill passed the House on December 17, 2007, the Senate on December 18, 2007,
and was signed by the President on December 26, 2007 (Table 2). The conference
report is available as a committee print, not as a numbered committee report.²
¹ Jurisdiction over CFTC appropriations is assigned differently in the House and Senate.
In the House, appropriations jurisdiction for CFTC remains with the agriculture
appropriations subcommittee. In the Senate, jurisdiction moved financial services
appropriations subcommittee with the FY2008 appropriations cycle. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008 put CFTC appropriations with agriculture appropriations.
² Committee Print of the House Committee on Appropriations on H.R. 2764 / Public Law

110-161 [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/appropriations/08conappro.html].

The agriculture provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act were not
controversial. Debate over the bill primarily concerned funding for the war in Iraq.
Temporary Extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act extends certain provisions of the 2002 farm bill until March 15,
2008 (Division A, Sec. 751). The duration of the extension is expected to be
sufficient for conference negotiations to resolve differences between the House- and
Senate-passed farm bills. A new farm bill is expected to become effective for the
2008 crop year for most of the supported farm commodities, and for other programs
for the remainder of FY2008 and beyond.
The extension states that, unless otherwise excepted, 2002 farm bill provisions
in effect on September 30, 2007, shall continue until March 15, 2008. Three
conservation programs are funded at specific levels (Farmland Protection Program
at $97 million/year, Ground and Surface Water Conservation at $60 million/year, and
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program at $85 million/year). The dairy and sugar
programs are included in the extension. The dairy price support program would have
expired December 31 and would have been replaced with costlier support provisions
in permanent law. Price support loan programs for wool and mohair also are
extended since those crop years begin on January 1.
Programs that are not extended include the direct, counter-cyclical, and
marketing loan programs for the 2008 crop year for all other supported commodities,
peanut storage payments, agricultural management assistance for conservation,
community food projects in the food stamp program, the rural broadband program,
value-added market development grants, federal procurement of biobased products
(2002 farm bill, Sec. 9002), the biodiesel fuel education program (Sec. 9004), and the
renewable energy systems program (Sec. 9006).
For more information about farm bill extension and expiration, see CRS Report
RL34154, Possible Expiration of the 2002 Farm Bill, by Jasper Womach.
Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2008 Agriculture Appropriations
^{Agriculture Appropriations}^B^ill^Coⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^ated^A^p^p^r^op^ri^ati^oⁿ^s^A^c^t
^Subco^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e
^A^p^p^r^oval^C^o^m^mⁱ^{ttee A}^p^p^r^oval^Explaⁿ^-^A^p^p^r^oval
^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^atory^Public
^Pas^s^age^Pas^s^age^Statem^ent^La^w^H^o^use^S^ena^t^e^H^o^u^se^Sena^t^e^H^o^use^S^ena^t^e
^H^.^R^.^3161,^S^.^1859,^H.R^.³¹⁶¹^C^o^m^m^ittee^P.L^.^110-
^H.R^e^p^t^.^S.Rep^t^.^p^rⁱⁿ^{t o}ⁿ^H^.^R^.²⁷⁶⁴^H^.^R^.²⁷⁶⁴¹⁶¹
^110-²⁵⁸^110-¹³⁴^H^.^R^.²⁷⁶⁴
^vv^vv^vv^Vo^{te o}^f^29-⁰^Vo^{te o}^f^{237 -}¹⁸^—^Vo^{te o}^f^{253 -}¹⁵⁴^Vo^{te o}^f^{76 -}¹⁷
^7/^12/⁰⁷^7/^17/⁰⁷^7/^19/⁰⁷^7/^19/⁰⁷^8/^2/⁰⁷^Jan^.²⁰⁰⁸^12/^17/⁰⁷^12/^18/⁰⁷^12/^26/⁰⁷
^Source:^CRS.
^No^tes:^{vv =}^voⁱ^c^e^vo^t^e^.

House Action
The House of Representatives passed the FY2008 agriculture appropriations bill
(H.R. 3161, H.Rept. 110-258) on August 2, 2007, by a vote of 237-18, far short of
the 435 seats in the House. Many Members of the minority party did not cast votes
on final passage of the bill because of a controversy over floor procedures that was
separate from the content of the bill.
The full Committee on Appropriations reported the bill on July 19, 2007, by
voice vote, after subcommittee markup a week earlier on July 12.
Floor Proceedings Controversy. On the floor, when the bill initially was
under an open rule (H.Res. 581), only two amendments were adopted before the bill
was pulled from the floor. Both amendments reduced appropriations for the
Secretary of Agriculture’s office by a marginal amount ($150,150, or 3%) and debate
time was used to discuss another bill that was not being given floor time. Because
of the diversion, the agriculture appropriations bill was pulled from the floor and
returned two days later under a more restrictive rule (H.Res. 599). Under the new
rule, a manager’s amendment with six non-monetary amendments was considered as
adopted, including a provision to remove a proposal that would have limited the
transportation of horses across state lines for purposes other than slaughter. Twelve
other amendments were allowed for floor consideration, but none were adopted.
Most of these amendments would have eliminated earmarks or reduced funding.
As floor debate on the bill was nearing completion, there was a motion to
recommit the bill to committee. As some Members were changing their vote, the
vote was closed with the motion failing, but the tally subsequently showed the
motion receiving sufficient votes to pass. The outcome was not reconsidered, and
many Members of the minority party chose not to vote on final passage of the bill as
a show of protest. The House passed H.R. 3161 by a vote of 237-18.
Senate Action
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the bill (S. 1859,
S.Rept. 110-134) on July 19, 2007, by a vote of 29-0. This was the same day that the
House full committee reported its bill. Subcommittee markup in the Senate occurred
two days earlier on July 17. The agriculture appropriations bill, along with four other
appropriations subcommittee bills, did not reach the Senate floor.
Funding and Policy Issues
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, provides $90.8 billion in total
funds for agriculture and related agencies: $18.1 billion in official “net” discretionary
appropriations, and $72.7 billion in mandatory funds. The discretionary amount is

1.6% greater than the amount in FY2007 (+$281 million), although “gross”

discretionary appropriations before scorekeeping adjustments grew 5.3% from $18.5

billion in FY2007 to $19.5 billion in FY2008 (Table 3).³ Mandatory spending
decreased about $7 billion overall — farm bill appropriations for the farm
commodity programs decreased $10 billion (-44%) because of less need for price-
triggered income support, and mandatory food stamp program benefits rose about
$2.2 billion (+4.2%).
Table 3. Agriculture Appropriations:
FY2008 Action and FY2007 Enacted
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
Enacted
F Y 2007 F Y 2008 change
fromAdm i n. Hous e- Senat e - Enacted
CategoryFY2007EnactedRequestPassedReportedless 0.7%
Total before adjustments:
“Gross” discretionary 18.518.319.219.119.55.3%
Mandatory 79.0 71.5 71.5 71.5 71.5 -9.5%
Subtotal 97.5 89.9 90.7 90.6 91.0 -6.7%
Official score, after scorekeeping adjustments:
“Net” discretionary17.817.818.818.718.11.6%
^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.
As stand-alone bills, the House and Senate versions contained about $1 billion
more in net discretionary spending than FY2007, about $700 million more than
eventually enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The Administration’s
request was for virtually no increase, and thus the bills drew a veto threat from the⁴
White House. The Administration also opposed prescription drug importation as
allowed in the House bill and had raised a veto threat over the issue in previous
years’ bills.
The enacted appropriation for FY2008 provides notable increases above
FY2007 for conservation (+$85 million, +10%), meat and poultry inspection (+$38
million, +4.3%), agricultural research (+$39 million, +3.4%), animal and plant health
programs (+$16 million, +1.9%), agricultural statistics (+$15 million, +10%), and
the Food and Drug Administration (+$143 million, +9.1%). Rural development
funding decreased $166 million (-6.6%) from FY2007, but remained higher than the
Administration’s request. The law removes the delay on implementation of country-

³ Because of accounting practices such as limiting the ability of certain mandatory programs
to spend their authorized amounts, the discretionary amounts that the appropriators actually
provide to agencies is higher than the bill’s official discretionary amount. Thus, the
agriculture appropriations bill has two sets of numbers for discretionary spending: (1) an
official “net” discretionary amount against which the 302(b) allocation is measured for
purposes of meeting budgetary requirements and (2) a “gross” discretionary amount actually
made available to agencies that is somewhat higher by virtue of “scorekeeping adjustments.”
⁴ Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3161,”
July 31, 2007 [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr3161sap-h.pdf].

of-origin labeling for meat, and requires labeling to begin by September 2008. The
“common computing environment,” formerly funded as a separate account ($108
million in FY2007), received no funding for FY2008, but increases were provided
to appropriate agency accounts (e.g., Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources
Conservation Service).
The Senate bill was higher than the House bill for the Agricultural Research
Service, animal and plant health inspection, some domestic food programs, foreign
food aid, and FDA. The Senate bill contained less than the House bill for rural
development, and the cooperative state research program, and slightly less for
conservation. See Table 8 at the end of this report for a tabular summary of funding
for each agency at various stages during the appropriations process.
The Administration released its FY2008 budget request on February 5, 2007,
seeking $17.8 billion in discretionary spending for agencies funded through the
agriculture appropriations bill (the same as for FY2007, 1.5% less than the FY2008
enacted amount, 5.2% less than the House version, and 4.7% less than the Senate
version). Both the House and Senate agriculture appropriations subcommittees held
hearings on the Administration’s request in the spring of 2007.
Regarding overall funding guidelines, the House and Senate passed a concurrent
FY2008 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 21) on May 17, 2007. To guide spending at
the subcommittee level, the House Appropriations Committee approved a
discretionary 302(b) allocation of $18.817 billion for the agriculture bill (H.Rept.
110-236), and the Senate Appropriations Committee allowed $18.709 billion
(S.Rept. 110-133). Although the 302(b) allocation in the Senate is less than the
House, the difference is approximately equal to the budget for the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, which is not in the Senate bill. Thus, for the
agriculture and FDA programs that are in both bills, the 302(b) allocations are nearly
identical.
Earmarks. Under new earmark disclosure rules adopted by both the House
and Senate in 2007, the explanatory statement for the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act includes a “Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressional Directed
Spending Items.” The list is self-identified by Congress and includes the agency
name, project title, name of the Member(s) sponsoring the earmark, and the amount.
The act says that the explanatory statement should be considered like a
conference committee report with respect to the allocation of funds. However,
earmarks specified in a conference report generally are not considered to have the
same force of law as if they were in the text of the law itself. In the past, executive
branch agencies usually have followed such directives since they regularly testify
before Congress as part of the appropriations cycle and do not wish to explain to
appropriators why congressional directives were not followed.
For the FY2008 agriculture appropriations law, the explanatory statement
identifies 623 earmarks totaling $400 million, as summarized in Table 4. Many of
the earmarks represent the restoration of funding for congressionally designated
research grants and construction projects that were suspended in FY2007 under the

terms of the FY2007 long-term continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). Of the 623
earmarks, only three are in the text of the consolidated act.
For FY2009 and future appropriations, President Bush issued Executive Order
13457 on January 29, 2008, instructing agencies not to follow earmark directives in
non-statutory sources. That is, future earmarks are not to be honored unless they are
in the text of the law.
Table 4. FY2008 Earmarks Disclosed by Congress
AgencyNumberAmount($1,000)In lawtext^a
Coop. State Research, Educ., and Extension Svc.268135,536 —
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)171149,194 —
National Resources Conservation Service11571,500 —
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service5627,336 —
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)88,194 —
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Admin.23,900 —
Food and Nutrution Service (FNS)12,4751
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)11,8751
Rural Development (RD)12,6001
Total for agriculture and related agencies623402,6103
^So^urce^:^CRS,^usi^ng^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee Pr}ⁱⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e H}^ous^{e C}^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on Appr}^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^{on H}^.^{R. 2764 /}
^Publⁱ^c^L^a^w^{110-161, D}ⁱ^vi^sⁱ^{on A,}^{pp. 106-}^140,^[^h^ttp://^www.^g^p^o^acces^s^.^g^o^v^/^con^g^r^es^s^/^h^o^u^s^e/
^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^/^08con^appro.h^t^m^l^].
^{a. Iden}^tⁱ^fⁱ^e^{d by}^C^R^S^af^t^e^{r com}^p^ariⁿ^g^P.L^.^110-^{161 t}^o^t^h^{e ex}^pl^an^at^ory^s^t^at^em^en^t^.
USDA Agencies and Programs
The appropriations bill for agriculture and related agencies covers all of USDA
except for the Forest Service. This amounts to about 94% of USDA’s total
appropriation. The Forest Service is funded through the Interior appropriations bill.
Farm Service Agency
USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is probably best known for its role in
administering the farm commodity income support and disaster assistance programs.
In addition, FSA also administers USDA’s direct and guaranteed farm loan programs,
certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service), and certain international food assistance and export credit
programs (in cooperation with the Foreign Agriculture Service).

FSA Salaries and Expenses. This account funds expenses for program
administration and other functions assigned to the FSA. Transfers are received for
administration of CCC export credit guarantees, P.L. 480 loans, and the farm loan
programs. All administrative funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account.
For FY2008, the enacted appropriation after rescission is $1.430 billion, $93 million
(+7.0%) more than in FY2007, but $118 million less than the Administration’s
request. The House-passed bill provide $1.440 billion and the Senate-reported bill
$1.478 billion.
The explanatory statement for the enacted appropriation prohibits USDA from
closing (or developing a plan to close) any FSA county office before a new farm bill
is enacted. This is slightly less restrictive than the House-passed bill, which would
have continued statutory language inserted in the FY2006 appropriations law that
restricted the ability of USDA to close any county office without public hearings and
notification to Congress, or closing county offices until six months after a new farm
bill is enacted. The Senate-reported bill did not address county office closure. This
restriction on county office closure reflects language in stand-alone bills such as H.R.
1648, H.R. 1649, and S. 944 that would limit the ability of USDA to close county
offices.
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 FY2008, the enacted appropriation follows the Senate bill and provides
$148.6 million to subsidize the cost of making an estimated $3.427 billion in direct
and guaranteed FSA loans. This represents an 8.6% decrease in loan authority from
FY2007, but is not as low as the Administration requested (Table 5). Direct loan
authority decreases 5.6% from FY2007 (all accounted for by a decrease in direct
operating loans, even though direct farm ownership loans increase). Guaranteed loan
authority decreases 9.7% (with nearly equal decreases in guaranteed ownership and
unsubsidized operating loans). Over the past decade, Congress and the
Administration generally have devoted more resources towards the guaranteed loan
program, so the increase in direct farm ownership loans is contrary to this trend.
No new funds or authority are provided 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.
For more information about agricultural credit in general, see CRS Report
RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Farm Bill Issues, by Jim Monke.

Table 5. FSA Farm Loan Appropriations
(dollars in millions)
FY2008
Enacted
FY2007Enacted changeAdmin.less
Description:Enactedfrom FY2007Request0.7%
Direct Loans
Ownership: Subsidy8.710.09.91.213.7%
Auth. 207.6 223.9 222.3 14.7 7.1%
Operating: Subsidy75.279.973.0(2.2)-3.0%
Auth. 643.5 629.6 575.1 (68.4) -10.6%
Indian land: Subsidy0.40.10.1(0.3)-70.7%
Auth. 2.0 4.0 3.9 1.9 96.6%
Boll weevil: Subsidy1.90.00.0(1.9)-100.0%
Auth. 100.0 59.4 100.0 0.0 0.0%
Subtotal: Subsidy86.790.183.0(3.7)-4.2%
Aut h . 955.1 920.8 901.3 (53.8) -5.6%
Guaranteed Loans
Ownership: Subsidy8.04.85.0(3.1)-38.4%
Auth. 1,386.0 1,200.0 1,238.7 (147.3) -10.6%
Operating, unsubsidized:28.124.224.6(3.5)-12.4%
Auth. 1,138.5 1,000.0 1,017.5 (121.0) -10.6%
Operating, subsidized:27.433.436.08.631.5%
Auth. 271.9 250.0 270.0 (1.9) -0.7%
Subtotal: Subsidy63.562.465.62.13.2%
Auth. 2,796.4 2,450.0 2,526.1 (270.3) -9.7%
Total: Subsidy150.2152.5148.6(1.6)-1.1%
Auth. 3,751.5 3,370.8 3,427.4 (324.0) -8.6%
Source: CRS, using tables from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Commodity Credit Corporation
Although the Farm Service Agency administers the farm income support and
disaster assistance programs, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the
funding mechanism for payments to farmers. Most spending for USDA’s mandatory
agriculture and conservation programs was authorized by the 2002 farm bill (P.L.
107-171), and those provisions are up for reauthorization this year. For more
information, see CRS Report RL33934, Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action
in the 110^th Congress, coordinated by Renée Johnson.
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that has the legal authority
to borrow up to $30 billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury. These borrowed
funds finance spending for programs such as farm commodity price and income

subsidies and various conservation, trade, and rural development programs.
Emergency supplemental spending also has been paid from the CCC over the years,
particularly for ad hoc farm disaster payments, for direct market loss payments to
growers of various commodities in response to low farm commodity prices, and for
animal and plant disease eradication efforts.
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, which
can be different because of the cushion of credit available through the Treasury line
of credit. Outlays (e.g., payments to farmers) in FY2008 will be funded initially
through the borrowing authority of the CCC and reimbursed to the Treasury through
a separate (possibly future) appropriation. For FY2008, USDA projects that CCC net
expenditures will be $10.7 billion, down from an estimated $11.4 billion in FY2007
and an actual $20.1 billion in FY2006 (Table 6). This decrease is due to less need
for price-triggered farm commodity subsidies since market prices are high.
For FY2008, the enacted appropriation concurs with the Administration request
for an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”) for CCC, which is
estimated to be $12.983 billion.
Table 6. Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Operations
(millions of dollars)
F Y 2005 F Y 2006 F Y 2007 F Y 2008
Description Ac t u al Ac t u al Estimate Estimate
Statutory borrowing authority30,00030,00030,00030,000
Borrowing authority available at
beginning of year21,26510,83113,58023,907
+ Appropriations
(“such sums as necessary”)
Initial estimate in approp. bill16,45225,69023,09812,093
Actually transferred to CCC12,45625,431 tbdtbd
- CCC net expenditures-20,657-20,146-11,419-10,794
- Other CCC activity (P.L. 480
and transfers to other agencies)-2,233-2,536-1,352-2,185
= Borrowing authority available
at end of year10,83113,58023,90723,022
^Source:^USDA^,^C^o^m^m^odi^t^y^Es^tⁱ^m^at^es^Book,^“^O^u^t^pu^t^7:^C^C^C^Fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱⁿ^g^S^t^at^u^s^{,” (Ju}^l^y^{15, 2007).}
^No^tes:^t^{bd = t}^o^{be det}^e^rmⁱⁿ^ed.

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.
For the salaries and expenses of the RMA, the FY2008 omnibus appropriations
act provides $76.12 million (after the 0.7% rescission), which is slightly below the
FY2007 appropriation of $76.66 million and about 3.5% below the House, Senate,
and Administration proposed FY2008 levels. Most of the requested increase was to
cover RMA pay increases and increase its staffing. Although the regular annual
appropriation for FY2008 is below FY2007, RMA funding is bolstered by a general
provision that allows RMA to use up to $11.166 million in mandatory funds to
strengthen its ability 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 each of the regular FY2006 and FY2007 RMA appropriations for data
mining and related activities. The House-passed version of the pending farm bill
(H.R. 2419) would permanently fund these activities with mandatory funding of $11
million in FY2008, and $7 million in FY2009 and subsequent years.
Separately, appropriators concurred with the Administration estimate of an
FY2008 appropriation of $4.818 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.
For more information on crop insurance provisions in the pending farm bill, see
CRS Report RL34207, Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance: 2007 Farm Bill
Issues.
Disaster Assistance
In May 2007, Congress completed action on the FY2007 Iraq war supplemental
appropriations act (P.L. 110-28) which included a Congressional Budget Office
(CBO)-estimated $2.8 billion in emergency agricultural disaster assistance, primarily
for crop and livestock losses in any one of the last three years — 2005, 2006, or early
2007. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161), contains authority
(Division A, Section 743) for USDA to make crop and livestock assistance available
for all 2007 losses. P.L. 110-28 had originally limited eligible 2007 losses to crops
planted before February 28, 2007, and livestock losses occurring before that date.

However, P.L. 110-161 extends the eligibility date for both to December 31, 2007.
Producers are still required to choose payments for one of the last three years’ losses.
CBO estimates that the extension of disaster assistance to all 2007 crop and
livestock losses increases the cost of 2005-2007 assistance by $602 million ($592
million for crops and $10 million for livestock) for total estimated assistance of $3.4
billion, including $2.14 billion for crop loss assistance and $1.24 billion for livestock
feed and mortality losses. Since Congress provided “such sums as necessary” to fund
the disaster payment formulas in the enacted measure, additional funds are available
if the estimates are short. All assistance is considered emergency spending and is not
subject to budgetary offsets.
For more information, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster
Assistance.
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 many years during the
FY1999-FY2006 period, appropriations conferees 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.
The enacted FY2008 appropriations bill represents a compromise between
House and Senate funding levels, and provides a total of $2.59 billion for USDA’s
research, extension, and economics mission area. This amount represents a $57
million increase (+2.2%) from the FY2007 funding level of $2.53 billion. The
increase, in turn, largely represents the restoration of funding for congressionally
designated research grants and construction projects that were suspended in FY2007
under the terms of the FY2007 long-term continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5).
Agricultural Research Service. The enacted bill provides a total of $1.17
billion for USDA’s in-house science agency, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS
had $1.13 billion in FY2007). Of the total, the bill allocates $1.12 billion to support
ARS research projects and $46.7 million for the construction and renovation of
buildings and facilities. Under P.L. 110-5, no funding was provided for ARS
construction projects in FY2007.
Amended bill report language calls for the reinstatement of approximately 150
research projects that were redirected or terminated in FY2007 as the result of P.L.
110-5, but concurs with the President’s request to direct savings from certain project
terminations to higher priority research in the areas of food safety, renewable energy,
and honey bee colony collapse disorder, among other things.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. The
enacted bill provides a total of $1.184 billion for the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) in FY2008, about $1 million (+0.1%)
more than than FY2007. CSREES is the agency that sends federal funds to land
grant Colleges of Agriculture. For the extramural research and education programs
component of CSREES, the enacted bill provides essentially level funding of $668.3
million ($671.4 million in FY2007). In addition, the bill provides $453 million for
the educational outreach programs of Cooperative Extension ($450 million in
FY2007); $55.9 million for integrated research and extension projects ($55.2 million
in FY2007); $11.8 million for the endowment fund for the 1994 tribal land grant
colleges ($12 million in FY2007); and $6.4 million for the outreach program for
socially disadvantaged farmers ($5.9 million in FY2007).
Appropriators did not concur with the Administration’s annual request to cut
funding for Special Research grants and Federal Administration research and
extension grants that are not awarded through a peer-reviewed, competitive process.
The final bill provides roughly $130 million for such grants for FY2008. In FY2007,
P.L. 110-5 prevented appropriated funds from being spent on Special and Federal
Administration grants and redirected them to state research and extension programs
under the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts (i.e., the formula-funded programs) and to
competitive research. Under P.L. 110-5, the National Research Initiative (NRI)
competitive grant program received $190.2 million in FY2007. The FY2008 bill
provides $190.9 million.

Economic Research and Agricultural Statistics. The enacted FY2008
appropriations bill provides $77.4 million for USDA’s Economic Research Service
(ERS), a 3% increase from FY2007 ($75.2 million). For the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS), the bill includes $162.2 million ($147.3 million in
FY2007), and directs the agency to use up to $52.4 million of that amount for
ongoing work on the Census of Agriculture.
Meat and Poultry Inspection
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducts mandatory
inspection of meat, poultry, and processed egg products to ensure their safety and
proper labeling. The enacted bill provides $930.1 million for FSIS in FY2008, the
level in the House-passed bill and approximately $500,000 less than in the Senate-
reported bill. FSIS inspection programs were among the few discretionary accounts
in the enacted bill that are explicitly exempted from across-the-board reductions. The
congressional appropriation is to be supplemented in FY2008 by an estimated $135
million in existing user fees. As in past years, the final measure does not assume the
adoption of new user fees; this year, the Administration was seeking another $96
million in such fees, although not beginning until FY2009.
The earlier, accompanying House report states that an increase of $6.5 million
is to fill inspector vacancies; the Senate report notes that its funding level will enable
FSIS to hire 78 additional inspectors and 13 additional investigative staff in FY2008.
The House report makes note of $5 million provided for enforcement of humane
slaughter rules, and the Senate report recommends funding to provide 83 full-time
positions for this purpose. Both reports note the provision (in the legislation itself)
of $3 million to continue the related tracking system for humane slaughter.
Section 736 of the enacted bill prohibits FSIS from beginning to implement a
risk-based inspection system (RBIS), which was to start with 30 processing
establishments this year. Under RBIS, inspection resources are to be allocated based
upon the relative risk of the product type and upon the safety record of the individual
plant. The prohibition is to remain in effect until the data used to support the plan
are thoroughly reviewed by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG), its findings
provided to the appropriations committees, and any OIG issues fully addressed by
FSIS.
The enacted bill (in Section 733) includes language that first appeared in the
House version that prohibits the use of funds to implement rules to permit some
poultry product imports from China. A final FSIS rule, published in the April 24,
2006, Federal Register, 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. A series of recent incidents have
raised further safety concerns about the many foods, medicines, and other products
now coming from China, which the House report cites in delaying the poultry rule.
(See also CRS Report RL34080, Food and Agricultural Imports from China, by
Geoffrey S. Becker.)

Horse Slaughter Amendment. The enacted bill (in Section 741) would
continue a prohibition against using appropriated funds to inspect horses prior to
slaughter for human food. Furthermore, companies could not continue inspection by
paying fees to USDA for the service. The House bill but not the Senate-reported
version had this ban. Section 741 also prohibits USDA from inspecting horses being
transported for slaughter.
USDA’s FY2006 appropriation (P.L. 109-97) also prohibited appropriated funds
for antemortem inspection costs. By barring funds for inspection, supporters of the
language had anticipated that the meat could not enter commerce under the Federal
Meat Inspection Act, and thereby such slaughter would cease. However, the three
foreign-owned plants that then were slaughtering horses for food applied for, and
received, USDA permission to be inspected on a fee-for-service basis. The enacted
FY2008 appropriation seeks to close this funding source as well. (By the end of
2007, all three plants had closed due to actions within their respective states; see CRS
Report RS21842, Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues, by Geoffrey S.
Becker.)
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 dealing with such prominent concerns as avian influenza (AI),
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), a growing number
of invasive plant pests, and for establishment of a national animal identification (ID)
program for animal disease tracking and control (see below).
The enacted bill provides $867.6 million for APHIS salaries and expenses (after
rescission), which is less than that proposed by both the House ($874.6 million) and
Senate ($911.7 million), and also less the President’s FY2008 budget request ($945.6
million). Compared to FY2007, however, the FY2008 appropriation for APHIS is
about $16 million higher. The enacted bill also provides no funding for buildings
and facilities, instead of $4.9 million proposed by the House and Senate.
Within the APHIS appropriation, the enacted bill provides $156.1 million for
foreign pest and disease exclusion programs (before rescission), which is less than
both the House ($159.4 million) and Senate ($162.8 million) proposals, as well as the
Administration’s request ($182 million). Also within the total APHIS appropriation,
the enacted bill provides $236.9 million for plant and animal health monitoring and
surveillance activities, which is also less than the House ($237.0 million) and Senate
proposals ($250.1 million), and the Administration’s request ($296.3 million). Total
APHIS appropriations for pest and disease management is provided at $367.2
million, which is lower than the Senate proposal ($379.6 million) but higher than the
House proposal ($359.0 million) and the Administration’s request ($333 million).
The enacted bill provides an additional $113.6 million for animal care, scientific and
technical services, and management.

The budget includes collection of more than $200 million in existing user fees
and trust funds in FY2008 in addition to the appropriated monies. The
Administration had again proposed new user fees of $9 million, to pay for some of
the agency’s animal welfare activities, but not beginning until FY2009. The enacted
bill does not allow these new fees. The committees further specify that no funds be
used to issue a final rule in furtherance of, or to otherwise implement, the USDA
proposed rule on cost-sharing for APHIS’s animal and plant health emergency
programs (68 Federal Register, 40541, July 8, 2003).
Emerging Plant Pests. The enacted bill provides $127.9 million for the
emerging plant pests (EPP) account within the pest and disease management
spending area, well above the FY2007 level of $98.5 million. The EPP budget is
allocated as follows: $20.0 million for Asian long-horned beetle (including $353,000
for Illinois); $35.6 million for citrus health; $23.2 million for glassy-winged
sharpshooter; $9.6 million for potato cyst nematode; $30.7 million for emerald ash
borer (including $1,500,000 for Illinois); $5.3 million for sudden oak death; $1.5
million for Karnal bunt; $371,000 for hydrilla control in Virginia (including
$333,900 for a cooperative agreement with the Lake Gaston Weed Control Council
and $37,100 for a cooperative agreement with the Tri-County (Smith Mountain) Lake
Administrative Commission);⁵ $234,000 for olive fruit fly (CA); $1.0 million for
light brown apple moth; and $423,000 for miscellaneous pests. Total EPP
appropriations for FY2008 are somewhat more than the Senate proposal ($126.5
million) but less than the House proposal ($131.2 million) and the Administration
request ($132.3 million).
The committees encourage APHIS to ensure that adequate funding is made
available for Asian long-horned beetle activities in New York, and also to help states
with new emerald ash borer outbreaks, citing concerns in Maryland and Wisconsin.
The committees also encourage APHIS to direct funding for sudden oak death
(Phytopthora ramorum) in the areas of research, development, and testing of new
systems of nursery pest and disease management and programs of inspection and
regulation; for surveying; and for diagnostic tools. Finally, the committees request
a report, within 120 days of the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
that “examines the effectiveness of current regulatory and inspection efforts; delivers
an assessment of the potential risk from infected plant material; and the risk posed
by the importation into the United States of P. ramorum host and associated host
plants and the interstate movement of such plant material.”
Avian Influenza. The enacted bill provides $67.4 million (total) for avian flu
activities in APHIS, which is higher than the Senate proposal ($61.3 million) but
lower than the House proposal ($73.8 million). Of this, $51.7 million is for the
highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) program, which is higher than the
Administration’s request of $47.5 million and is an increase of $4.5 million over
FY2007 for domestic surveillance and preparedness under the HPAI program. The
House committee report noted that $118.7 million has been provided for HPAI since

2006, and the committee requested a report on how these funds have been spent. The

⁵ APHIS is directed to provide technical assistance to these entities in carrying out control
efforts, and report back to the committees by May 1, 2008, on the status of these projects.

enacted bill also provides $15.7 million for low pathogen avian influenza (LPAI). Of
this amount, $750,000 is for avian influenza preparedness activities in Connecticut.
(For more on avian flu, see CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza in Poultry and
Wild Birds, by Jim Monke and M. Lynne Corn.)
Animal ID. Both the House and Senate committee reports question USDA’s
progress and direction in implementing a national animal identification system
(NAIS). Over several years through FY2007, about $117.8 million has gone into the
program’s development, which is aimed at enabling officials to quickly find the
sources, and contain the spread, of animal diseases like brucellosis, foot and mouth
disease, and BSE. Despite this effort, “the direction of this system remains unclear,”
notes the report on the Senate appropriations bill. The House committee report notes
that its version provides no new funding and requests that USDA provide “a
complete and detailed strategic plan for the program, including tangible outcomes,
measurable goals, specific milestones, and necessary resources for the entire
program.”
The enacted bill provides $9.8 million to continue implementation of NAIS,
which is well below the Administration’s requested appropriation of $33.2 million
for NAIS for FY2008. The conference report cites concerns about “the lack of
information provided on full costs and concerns about the use of funds to date,”
including information on how APHIS would reach its 48-hour traceback goal, and
information on how the funds for the program have been used to date. The report
states the committees’ concern that more than 50% of the obligations to date in NAIS
have been for “cooperative agreements that, until very recently, did not require that
cooperators or grantees agree to specific performance goals.” The committees are
also concerned that 25% of the funding has gone for program management.
A July 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office (National Animal
Identification System: USDA Needs to Resolve Several Key Implementation Issues
to Achieve Rapid and Effective Disease Traceback, GAO-07-592) concludes that a
number of problems have hindered effective implementation of animal ID, such as
no prioritization of the animal species to be covered to focus on those of greatest
disease concern; no plan to integrate NAIS into existing USDA and state animal ID
requirements; and no requirement that some types of critical data be provided to the
databases, such as species or age. (Also see CRS Report RS22653, Animal
Identification: Overview and Issues, by Geoffrey S. Becker.)
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
One branch of this agency establishes the official U.S. standards for inspection and
grading of grain and other commodities. Another branch is charged with ensuring
competition and fair-trading practices in livestock and meat markets. The enacted
bill provides $38.5 million for GIPSA salaries and expenses, which is lower than the
amounts proposed by both the House ($41.1 million) and Senate ($39.1 million), and
the Administration’s FY2008 request ($44.4 million). The $730 million increase
(+1.9%) compared to FY2007 is intended for increased enforcement for of the
Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S) Act in FY2008. The House report had proposed
an increase of $2 million in FY2008 for increased enforcement of the P&S Act. The
House report also requested a detailed spending plan from GIPSA on how it will
spend the increase. The Administration proposed to offset some grain inspection and

P&S activities with $22 million in user fees, beginning in FY2009, but neither the
House nor Senate report endorses this proposal.
The House committee report also makes note of what it says are deficiencies in
the agency’s oversight of the companies it is charged with regulating. Early in 2006,
GIPSA was sharply criticized by USDA’s OIG and by a number of Senators for
shortcomings in its enforcement of the act and other federal competition laws. A
long-awaited consultant’s report on livestock marketing practices, funded by a $4.5
million congressional appropriation in FY2003, was released by the agency in
February 2007. Also, some Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee have
expressed interest in addressing competition concerns in the livestock industry,
including GIPSA’s regulatory responsibilities, during debate on a new omnibus farm
bill (see also CRS Report RL33958, Animal Agriculture: 2007 Farm Bill Issues, by
Renée Johnson and 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 a substantial portion of spending by the agency. Such fees, which now
cover AMS activities like process verification programs, commodity grading, and
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act licensing, were expected to total well
above $100 million in FY2008.
The enacted bill provides $114.7 million more in federal funds, either directly
appropriated or transferred to AMS from the Section 32 account (see below). The
level reflects the across-the-board reduction in most USDA discretionary programs
of 0.7%. The final enacted level appears to be approximately $2 million above the
FY2007 enacted level. Within this total, $8.4 million is to be used for specialty crop
block grants under the AMS account. These grants are authorized by the Specialty
Crops Competitiveness 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.
For the AMS-administered Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program, the
FY2008 enacted amount is $3.8 million. The enacted bill designates $1.86 million
of this amount as a marketing grant to Wisconsin. Elsewhere within the AMS total,
$9.9 million is to be used for continuing work on the Web-based supply chain
management system.
Section 32 Rescission. Section 32 funding comes from a permanent
appropriation equivalent to 30% of annual U.S. Customs receipts. AMS uses these
additional Section 32 monies (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 a detailed explanation of this account, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and
Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program, by Geoffrey S. Becker.)
USDA-AMS historically has maintained a Section 32 contingency reserve,
which consists of otherwise unprogrammed and/or unused (i.e., carryover) funds
from the prior year. (Up to $500 million in unused funds can be carried from one

fiscal year into the next.) Over the course of a fiscal year, USDA taps this
contingency reserve to fund so-called emergency surplus removals of various fruits,
vegetables, meats, poultry, and other food commodities. These removals are aimed
at providing price support during periods of adverse market conditions. In some
years, portions of this contingency reserve may be tapped for other purposes as well,
such as farm disaster assistance. USDA has wide latitude in determining how to use
the money in this reserve.
Commodities removed from the market generally are then distributed to
domestic food assistance programs, as a “bonus” over and above any federal support
(cash and commodity) to which they are entitled under other authorities. The value
of AMS purchases of these commodities can vary widely from year to year, from $56
million in FY1996 to nearly $227 million in FY2004, for example. Nonetheless,
both the agricultural community and domestic food providers have become
accustomed to some level of support through this contingency fund.
The enacted bill for FY2008 appears to be an effort to rein in AMS’s
discretionary use of Section 32 monies. It rescinds a total of $684 million — $184
million that otherwise was projected to be available in FY2008 for surplus purchases
(called “Estimated Future Needs” in AMS budget parlance), plus $500 million in
prior unobligated balances. The committees note that even with this rescission, $297
million will still be provided for estimated future needs (i.e., the contingency fund)
in FY2008.
Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL). The 2002 farm bill (§10816 of P.L.
107-171) required COOL for fresh produce, red meats, peanuts, and seafood by
September 30, 2004. Congress has twice postponed implementation for all but
seafood (which is now in place); COOL now must be implemented by September 30,
2008. The House committee report on the FY2008 appropriation provides an
increase of $2 million for AMS to implement COOL and also lays out a time line for
rulemaking to ensure the current implementation date is met. Language
accompanying the enacted bill reaffirms the House committee requirements.
Meanwhile, provisions modifying the COOL law is in both farm bills (H.R. 2419)
passed in July 2007 by the House and in December 2007 by the Senate. The farm bill
provisions essentially would maintain the current implementation deadline of
September 30, 2008, extend coverage to several additional commodities, and ease
some compliance requirements. (For more information see CRS Report RL33934,
Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action in the 110th Congress, coordinated by
Renée Johnson, and CRS Report 97-508, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods, by
Geoffrey S. Becker.)
Conservation
The enacted bill provides increased funding for discretionary Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) programs, rejecting some of the Administration’s
proposed reductions. The enacted bill makes few changes to mandatory programs.

Discretionary Programs. The enacted bill provides $937.5 million for total
FY2008 discretionary NRCS programs.⁶ This is $85 million (+10%) more than that
provided in FY2007 ($852.6 million), but less than that in both the House ($980.2
million) and Senate ($972.9 million) proposals.
All the discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. For
Conservation Operations, the largest of these programs, the enacted bill $834.4
million for FY2008, which is below both the House ($851.9 million) and Senate
($863.0 million) proposals but well above the Administration’s request ($801.8
million) and the FY2007 estimate ($763.4 million). The enacted bill recognizes the
Administration’s request for an overall $20 million reduction within total
Conservation Operations spending for activities previously funded through the
Common Computer Environment account, such as conversion to wide area networks
and migration of NRCS’ core business applications, among other related activities.
The committees specify that more than $250,000 be available for alterations and
improvements to buildings and other public improvements, among other provisions
related to buildings and structures and also technical assistance.
Among other programs, the enacted bill provides no funding for the Watersheds
Surveys and Planning, consistent with the Senate proposal and the Administration’s
request; the House proposed $6.6 million for FY2008. The Administration also
requested no funding for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, as it did for
FY2007; but instead the enacted bill provides $29.8 million for the program and
identifies numerous earmarks. This is less than the amount proposed by both the
House ($37.0 million) and the Senate ($33.5 million). The committees further
specify that more than $15.5 million of funding for the Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations be available for technical assistance. The enacted bill
provides $19.9 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, consistent with the
Senate proposal but differing widely from the House proposal ($31.6 million) and the
Administration’s request ($5.8 million). The enacted bill provides $50.7 million for
Resource and Conservation Development, which is roughly comparable to that
proposed by the House and the Senate, as well as FY2007 levels, but well above the
Administration’s request to reduce funding to $14.7 million. The committees further
specify that more than $3.1 million of funding for Resource and Conservation
Development be available for national headquarters activities. The enacted bill
provides $2 million for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, consistent with the
Senate proposal and the Administration’s request; the House bill provides no
funding.
Mandatory Programs. Mandatory conservation programs are funded and
administered by two agencies. Programs of the NRCS would increase by $195
million in FY2008 to $2 billion. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) would increase by $26 million, to $2.0 billion.
The enacted bill places a limit on Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) spending, such that no more than $1 billion be spent on salaries and expenses

⁶ Including funding for the Office of the Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment.

to administer the EQIP program. The program is authorized $1.27 billion of
mandatory funds for FY2008 in P.L. 109-171.
For a more detailed funding information on individual mandatory programs, see
CRS Report RS22621, The FY2008 Budget Request for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and CRS Report RS22243, Mandatory Funding for Agriculture
Conservation Programs.
As part of a temporary farm bill extension, the Consolidated Appropriations Act
extends three conservation programs at specified annual funding levels through
March 15, 2008. These include the Farmland Protection Program ($97 million); the
Ground and Surface Water Conservation program ($60 million); and the Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program ($85 million).
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 field offices. This mission area also
administers the rural portion of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities Initiative, Rural Economic Area Partnerships, and the National Rural
Development Partnership.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P. L. 110-161) authorizes $2.33
billion in discretionary budget authority to support $16.5 billion in USDA rural
development loan and grant programs. These figures, and ones reported below,
reflect the amendment authorizing an across-the-board 0.7% rescission. The 2008
authorization for USDA Rural Development programs is about $166 million less in
budget authority than FY2007 (-6.6%). However, the 2008 bill provides
approximately $2.2 billion more in loan authority than enacted for FY2007 (+15%).
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). Authorized by the
1996 farm bill (P. L. 104-127), RCAP consolidated funding for 12 rural
development loan and grant programs into three funding streams: a Rural Community
Facilities Account administered by RHS; a Rural Business Program Account
administered by RBS, and a Rural Water and Waste Disposal Account administered
by RUS. In previous years, the RCAP account and its various programs have been
reported separately from the individual agency accounts. The FY2008 Consolidated
bill adopts the Administration’s request to report the RCAP accounts under the RHS,
RBS, and RUS program accounts. The total for the three accounts for FY2008 is
$714.2 million, down from about $737 million in FY2007. By comparison, the
Senate measure recommended a total of $704.1 million; the House bill retained the
separate budget line for RCAP and recommended $728.8 million in combined budget
authority. The individual program accounts are discussed below under their
associated agencies.
Rural Housing Service (RHS). The consolidated bill authorizes $1.33
billion in budget authority for RHS loans and grants, including $68.5 million for the
Rural Community Facilities account noted above. Budget authority for FY2008 is

approximately 12% less (-$189 million) than for FY2007. Authorized loan authority
for FY2008 is $6.1 billion, about $525 million more than FY2007 (+9.4%). The
FY2008 Rural Community Facilities account has approximately 30% less in budget
authority than FY2007 ($97.7million) and $3.5 million less in loan authorization.
The FY2008 Rural Community Facilities budget includes $20.4 in grants. The
Administration had requested that the grants portion of the Rural Community Facility
program be terminated. In addition, the Rural Community Facilities program
provides $8.2 million for the Rural Community Development Initiative and $13.9
million for Economic Impact Initiative grants.
Single-family loans (Section 502 direct and guaranteed loans) constitute the
largest RHS loan account and represent 87% of the loan authority under RHS. The
consolidated bill authorizes $5.31 billion in loan authorization for direct and
guaranteed loans under the single-family housing program, an increase of $538
million over FY2007. Loan guarantees represent the larger portion of the
authorization level ($3.64 billion). Budget authority to support Section 502 loans is
authorized at $155.9 million, $789,000 less than FY2007. The consolidated bill
authorizes $34.4 in loan authority for housing repair loans (Section 504), the same
as enacted for FY2007 (minus the 0.7% rescission) and $9.7 million in loan
subsidies. For multi-family loan guarantees (Section 538), the bill authorizes loan
levels of $129.1 million ($30.1 million more than FY2007) and $69.5 million for
Section 515 rental housing loans ($29.5 million less than FY2007). The
Administration had requested zero funding for Section 515 rental housing loans.
For the rental assistance program (Section 521), the consolidated bill authorizes
$472.7 million in budget authority, $135.3 million less than enacted for FY2007. For
mutual and self-help housing grants and rural housing assistance grants, the bill
authorizes $38.7 million for each program. For the farm labor account (Section

514/516), the consolidated bill authorizes $21.8 million for loan subsides and grants,

about $10 million less than enacted for FY2007.
For the rural housing voucher program, the bill authorizes $5.0 million, nearly
$11 million less than FY2007.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service. The consolidated bill authorizes
$177.9 million in budget authority for RBS for FY2008. Including the Rural
Business Program account, this is about $8.0 million less than enacted for FY2007.
For all rural business loan programs, P.L. 110-161 authorizes $1.27 billion in loan
authorization, $116 million (+10%) more than FY2007 (Table 8).
For the Rural Business Program account, $87.1 million in budget authority is
authorized. This figure includes appropriations of $38.7 million for Rural Business
Enterprise grants, $2.5 million for Rural Business Opportunity grants, $43 million
in loan subsides for Business and Industry loan guarantees ($993.0 million in loan
authorization), and $3.0 million for the Delta Regional Authority. Total budget
authority for the Rural Business Program account is $2.7 million more than FY2007,
mostly accounted for by increases in loan subsidies for the Business and Industry
loan program.

The bill also authorizes $8.1 million for the rural Empowerment
Zone/Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) grants programs and $35.7 million for loan
subsidies and grants under the Renewable Energy Program (Section 9006 of the 2002
farm bill).⁷ Funding for the Renewable Energy Program is almost $13 million more
than for FY2007. The Administration had requested zero funding for the EZ/EC
program.
The consolidated bill authorizes $4.4 million in Rural Cooperative Development
Grants, about the same as enacted for FY2007. Budget authority of $14.4 million to
support loans under the Rural Development Loan Fund account was also approved.
The RBS appropriation further provides $1.5 million for grants to assist minority
producers.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS). For FY2008, the consolidated bill authorizes
budget authority of $655.3 million ($8 million more than FY2007) and $9.18 billion
in loan authorization. The loan authorization level for FY2008 is $1.54 billion
(+20%) more than for FY2007. The FY2008 authorization of $97.4 million in
budget authority will support $7.78 billion in electric and telecommunication loans,
$1.7 billion more than FY2007. Authorized budget authority to support this level of
electric and telecommunication loans is $3.7 million.
The Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account represents the largest
share of spending among the three RCAP programs (approximately 78% of the total).
For the Water/Waste Water loan and grants program, the Solid Waste Management
program, Individual Well Water grants, the Water and Waste Water revolving fund,
Emergency Water Assistance grants, and the High Energy Cost grant in RUS, the bill
authorizes $555.0 million in budget authority, up $3.6 million over FY2007. This
budget authority would support somewhat more than $1 billion in direct and
guaranteed loans, about $32.8 million more than FY2007.
Under the Distance Learning/Telemedicine program, the consolidated bill
authorizes approximately $34.7 million in grant support, $5 million more than in
FY2007.
The bill also recommends $297.0 million in loan authority for broadband loans,
$197 million less than enacted for FY2007. To support these broadband programs,
the bill authorizes $6.4 million in loan subsidies and $13.4 million in grants. The
grant portion of the program is up by $5 million over FY2007, and the loan subsides
are down by $4.2 million. The Administration requested no funding for the
broadband grant program for FY2008.
For more information on USDA rural development programs, see CRS Report
RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by Tadlock Cowan.

⁷ Additional funds are also directed to the rural EZ//EC program in appropriations to various
housing and rural utility programs.

Domestic Food Assistance
Funding for domestic food assistance represents over half of the USDA’s
budget. These programs are, for the most part, mandatory entitlements: that is,
funding depends on program participation and indexing of benefit payments. These
mandatory programs include child nutrition and the food stamp programs. The three
main discretionary budget items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program), the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program (the CSFP), and federal nutrition program administration.
For FY2007, Congress provided appropriations (new budget authority) totaling
$57 billion for domestic food assistance.⁸ However, 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 federal nutrition program administrative costs — is, when FY2007 figures
are made available, likely to be less, $54.1 billion. The difference between
appropriation and spending amounts is accounted for by unused contingency
appropriations (e.g., $3 billion for food stamps), lower costs than were anticipated
when the appropriations were proposed or made, and expected carryovers into
FY2008, offset by spending financed from money available from prior years and
other USDA budget accounts (e.g., permanent appropriations used for commodity
purchases for school meal programs).
The enacted appropriation for FY2008 would provide a total of $60 billion for
domestic food assistance, about $700 million more than the $59.3 billion requested.
The enacted law total differs from the Administration’s request primarily because of
added money for the WIC program and the CSFP. It exceeds the amounts in the
House and Senate bills largely because of new funding for the WIC program.
For FY2008, the House and Senate bills would have appropriated a total of
$59.7 billion for domestic food assistance, about $400 million more than requested.
As with the enacted law, the House and Senate differed with the Administration over
WIC and CSFP funding.
The Administration proposed domestic food assistance appropriations totaling
$59.3 billion for FY2008, a $2.3 billion increase from FY2007. With major
exceptions for the CSFP (proposed from termination) and the WIC program (with
recommended limits on participation and administrative costs), the appropriation
request proposed essentially “full funding” for domestic food assistance based on the
Administration’s projects of likely participation and food costs.

⁸ Not included in this annual appropriations figure are permanent appropriations and
mandatory funding directed by child nutrition laws, 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 purposes and donated to food
assistance programs. These items are separate from, but recognized in, the regular
appropriations process. See the Section 32 discussion under the Agricultural Marketing
Service heading earlier in this report.

As with the House and Senate measures, the enacted appropriations law also
includes some food stamp and child nutrition program changes and expands funding
for the program operating free fresh fruits and vegetables in schools — see the
discussion of Special Program Initiatives at the end of this section. However, it does
not adopt most of the Administration’s proposed changes in program rules or its
recommendation to terminate the CSFP.
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 and small nutrition assistance grants in American Samoa
and the Northern Marianas (in lieu of food stamps), (3) the cost of commodities and
administration under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
(4) the cost of commodities (not distribution or administrative expenses, which are
covered under the Commodity Assistance Programs budget account) for The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP); and (5) Community Food Projects
and grants to improve access to the Food Stamp program.
For the above-noted programs covered by the Food Stamp Act, the enacted
appropriation for FY2008 provides a total of $39.8 billion, up from $38.2 billion in
FY2007 — in both cases, including a $3 billion contingency reserve for food stamps
in case current cost projections turn out to be too low. With only two small, but
significant, differences for food stamps and the FDPIR (noted below), the FY2008
enacted appropriation measure essentially matches the Administration’s budget
request for programs covered under the Food Stamp Act — as was the case in the
House and Senate appropriations bills. Under the enacted appropriation, actual
FY2008 estimated spending for Food Stamp Act programs is estimated to be less
than appropriated (unless the $3 billion reserve is used), between $36.8 and $36.9
billion. As to individual programs:
^!On the basis of projected participation and the value of indexed
benefit amounts, the Administration asked for a $37.978 billion
appropriation for the regular Food Stamp program, including a $3
billion contingency reserve and $60-$70 million to cover new food
stamp costs attendant on termination of the CSFP (see later
discussions of Commodity Assistance Programs and Special
Program Initiatives). This represented an increase of about $1.6
billion over FY2007. The enacted appropriation essentially adopts
the Administration’s request (including the reserve fund), with one
exception. It rejects the proposal to end the CSFP and thus slightly
reduces its food stamp appropriation (when compared to the
Administration’s request) to $37.916. The House and Senate also
lowered their appropriations (although by different amounts) for this
reason.⁹

⁹ Also see the discussion of Special Program Initiatives at the end of this section for
information on the CSFP termination proposal and a recommendation regarding Food Stamp
program treatment of combat-related military pay.

^!For Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas,
the Administration’s FY2008 request included nutrition assistance
grants of $1.615 billion for Puerto Rico, $6.5 million for American
Samoa, and $9.4 million for the Northern Marianas. The amounts
for Puerto Rico and American Samoa represent small increases from
FY2007; the figure for the Northern Marianas is the same as in¹⁰
FY2007. The enacted appropriation agrees with the
Administration’s figures, as did the House and Senate bills.
^!The Administration’s FY2008 budget for the FDPIR asked for
$79.6 million, a $2 million rise from FY2007. The enacted
appropriation adds some $6 million to this amount for administrative
and distribution expenses of program operators (generally, Indian
tribal organizations), bringing the total to approximately $88
million; the House and Senate bills included a similar amount.
^!As with the Administration’s budget proposal and the House and
Senate bills, the enacted appropriation includes $140 million for the
acquisition of commodities for TEFAP, as required by law.¹¹ This
represents no increase from FY2007.
^!As with the Administration’s proposal and the House and Senate
measures, the enacted appropriation includes funding for
Community Food Projects and food stamp access grants — at $5
million each (no change from FY2007).
Child Nutrition Programs. Appropriations under the Child Nutrition budget
account fund a number of programs and activities covered by the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These include the School
Lunch and Breakfast programs, the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP),
the Summer Food Service program, the Special Milk program, assistance for related
state administrative expenses, procurement of commodities for child nutrition
programs, state-federal reviews of the integrity of school meal operations
(“Coordinated Reviews”), “Team Nutrition” and food safety education initiatives to
improve meal quality and safety in child nutrition programs, and technical assistance
to CACFP operators.¹² Funding for a program offering free fresh fruits and

¹⁰ The grants to Puerto Rico and American Samoa are annually indexed, as stipulated in the
Food Stamp Act. Northern Marianas’ grant is periodically negotiated with the
Commonwealth.
¹¹ This amount for TEFAP commodities does not include significant additional “bonus”
commodities that typically are provided to the program, nor does it include payments for
TEFAP administrative and distribution expenses (which are funded under the Commodity
Assistance Programs budget account).
¹² With one exception (the free fresh fruit and vegetable program in schools), programs and
activities supported by funding provided outside the scope of the regular annual
appropriations process are not covered in this report. Permanent appropriations (Section 32
and CCC funds) pay for commodities acquired by the AMS and the CCC and donated to
(continued...)

vegetables in some 400 schools in 14 states and on 3 Indian reservations is discussed
later in the section on Special Program Initiatives.
On the basis of projections of participation and the indexed value of child
nutrition subsidies, the Administration proposed an FY2008 appropriation of $13.897
billion for all child nutrition programs, an increase of some $550 million over the
amount available for FY20007.¹³ As to individual program areas, the Administration
proposed the following for FY2008, all figures (except the last four, which are not
dependent on program participation and subsidy levels) up noticeably from
FY2007:¹⁴
^!School Lunch program: $8.181 billion.
^!School Breakfast program: $2.390 billion.
^!CACFP: $2.289 billion.
^!Summer Food Service program: $311 million.
^!State administrative expenses: $176 million.
^!Commodity procurement: $518 million.
^!Special Milk program: $15 million.
^!Coordinated Reviews: $5.5 million.
^!Team Nutrition and food safety initiatives: $11 million.
^!CACFP technical assistance: $2 million.
The enacted appropriation provides a total of $13.901 billion for FY2008, $4
million more than requested; the added funding is for Team Nutrition and food safety
activities. While the Senate bill proposed an appropriation matching the
Administration’s request, the House included $6 million more for Team Nutrition
and food safety.
The WIC Program. The enacted appropriation provides $6.020 billion for the
WIC program, $816 million above the amount made available for FY2007, $633
million more than the Administration’s request, $400 million higher than the House
bill, and $300 million above the Senate’s measure. The higher amount primarily

¹² (...continued)
child nutrition programs. Child nutrition authorizing laws (the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act) direct mandatory spending for the Food
Service Management Institute, an information clearinghouse, and certain grants for technical
assistance and pilot projects. Commodity donations financed through Section 32 and the
CCC typically total well over $400 million a year. Spending on activities mandated by child
nutrition laws (other than the fresh fruit and vegetable program) is expected to be some $11
million in FY2008. Directed mandatory spending on the fruit and vegetable program is set
at $9 million a year; this program is discussed later, in the section on Special Program
Initiatives.
¹³ These amounts do not include significant support from other budget accounts — e.g.,
Section 32 permanent appropriations to acquire commodities for child nutrition programs
— and mandatory funding directed by child nutrition laws.
¹⁴ The following amounts for each program area are new funds made available from
spending on each one. However, these funds generally may be shifted amount the programs
if needed. Specific comparable program-by-program spending amounts for FY2007 are not
yet available.

reflects the most current estimates of program needs and seeks to assure that there are
sufficient funds to serve all those eligible who wish to participate and that food cost
and participation estimates available since the Administration presented its budget
(and the House and Senate acted) are taken into account. While the WIC program
appropriation is discretionary, it is not subject to the enacted appropriations law’s

0.7% rescission of USDA discretionary appropriations.

In addition, the enacted appropriation (1) rejects two Administration proposals
that would have reduced the need for appropriations: limiting WIC eligibility and
capping grants for nutrition services and administration (see the later section on
Special Program Initiatives),¹⁵ (2) sets aside up to $30 million for improving state
WIC agencies’ management and information systems (if the money is not needed to
support WIC caseload and the contingency fund has not been tapped), and (3) turns
down an Administration provision to increase the size of the contingency fund above
$150 million. These actions also were taken in both the House and Senate measures.
Commodity Assistance Programs. The Commodity Assistance Program
budget account supports several discretionary programs and activities: (1) the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP); (2) funding for administrative and
distribution costs under The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP); (3) the
WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program; (4) commodity assistance for certain
nuclear-affected zones in the Marshall Islands; and (5) commodity assistance in the¹⁶
case of natural disasters.
For FY2008, the Administration proposed a major change affecting this budget
account; it recommended terminating the CSFP (which was appropriated $107¹⁷
million in FY2007). As a result, its appropriations request for Commodity
Assistance programs was $70 million, $107 million less than the FY2007 figure of
$177 million. The budget request for the remaining program areas asked for FY2008
funding at essentially the FY2007 level: $49.5 million for TEFAP administrative and
distribution expenses, $19.8 million for the WIC farmers’ market initiative, and a
total of some $1 million for nuclear-affected zones and commodity disaster
assistance.
The enacted appropriation rejects the proposal to terminate the CSFP and
appropriates a total of $212 million for Commodity Assistance programs, over $30
million above the FY2007 amount and $142 million more than the Administration’s
budget request. Money for the CSFP is increased greatly, from $107 million
(FY2007) to $141 million, while funds for TEFAP, WIC farmers’ markets, and

¹⁵ For example, the Administration expected some $145 million in savings from its proposal
to cap nutrition services and administration grants.
¹⁶ Funds for acquiring commodities for TEFAP are appropriated through the Food Stamp
Act appropriation (i.e., $140 million a year). Assistance for nuclear-affected areas of the
Marshall Islands is authorized by amendments to the Compact of Free Association with the
Republic of the Marshall Islands. The Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition program is funded
through permanent appropriations ($15 million a year) made available outside the regular
appropriations process.
¹⁷ Also see the discussion of Special Program Initiatives at the end of this section.

nuclear-affected zones (and disasters) are set at levels very close to the
Administration’s request ($50 million, $20 million, and $1 million respectively).
The House and Senate bills differed only in how much to increase the appropriation
for the CSFP, with the House raising it to $150 million and the Senate upping it to
$128 million. It is anticipated that the enacted appropriation amount will allow for
maintenance of current CSFP participation levels and entry of some additional CSFP
projects.
The Commodity Assistance Program appropriation is discretionary. As such,
it is subject to the enacted law’s 0.7% rescission of USDA discretionary
appropriations, which lowers the total to $210 million, removing $1 million from the
CSFP amount, and reducing each of the remaining programs slightly (effectively, to
levels asked for by the Administration).
Nutrition Program Administration. This budget account covers spending
on federal costs for administering all the domestic food assistance programs noted
above, special projects for improving the integrity and quality of nutrition programs,
and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP). Discretionary funding
for the Congressional Hunger Center (and its hunger fellowships) also has typically
been provided through this account.
For FY2008, the enacted appropriation provides $143 million for nutrition
program administration, including $2.5 million for the Congressional Hunger Center.
This budget account is discretionary, and, as such, is subject to the law’s 0.7%
rescission of USDA discretionary appropriations (lowering the total to $142 million).
In FY2007, $140 million was appropriated, but no money was provided for the
Hunger Center.
The Administration asked for a significant increase to $149 million (including
money for salary increases and new initiatives dietary standards related and food
stamp modernization projects), but incorporated no funding for the Congressional
Hunger Center. The House bill increased funding to a total level approximating the
Administration’s $149 million request (but included funding for the Hunger Center),
while the Senate measure lifted the appropriation to $147 million (including money¹⁸
for the Hunger Center).
Special Program Initiatives. In addition to regular appropriations, the
enacted appropriations measure includes (or rejects) changes in program rules, new
or expanded initiatives, and other provisions affecting domestic food program — as
did the Administration’s request and the House and Senate bills.
Programs under the Food Stamp Act. The enacted appropriations law
continues a requirement to disregard combat-related military pay as income to
military families applying for or participating in the Food Stamp program (typically
included in appropriations laws). The Administration did not propose this as part of

¹⁸ In the House bill, the appropriation for the Congressional Hunger Center was included in
Title VII (General Provisions) of the bill.

its appropriations request, but did support it as part of its omnibus 2007 farm bill
package. On the other hand, the House bill included it, while the Senate bill did not.
The Administration proposed money to fund special transitional food stamp
benefits for, and outreach effort to, those losing benefits from CSFP (see below).
The enacted appropriations law rejects this, as did the House and Senate bills. As a
result, food stamp funding provided in the law is slightly less than requested.
Child Nutrition Programs. Title VII (General Provisions) of the enacted
appropriations law includes two changes affecting child nutrition programs.
^!It makes simplified Summer Food Service program rules
applicable in all states. These rules (allowed to be used in 26 states
and Puerto Rico) are intended to encourage expansion of the summer
program by freeing program sponsors from a requirement that they
provide detailed documentation of their expenses in order to receive
standard program per-meal subsidy rates; this matches rules for the
regular school meal programs. This was included in the House bill,
but not the Senate measure.
^!It provides $9.9 million (in addition to the mandatory $9 million a
year provided in child nutrition law and unspent funding from
previous years) to allow for the limited expansion of the program
offering free fresh fruits and vegetables in schools to selected
schools in all states, including the 14 currently participating states.
All money would be available through FY2009, and up to 5% of the
new funding could be set aside for related federal administrative
expenses. The House bill provided an extra $21 million; the Senate
bill would have allowed currently participating states to continue
temporarily by using available unspent funding.
The House bill included one additional initiative that was not adopted in the
final law — adding one state (West Virginia) to the seven states in which federal
subsidies are given for suppers served in after-school programs.
The WIC Program. The Administration proposed two important changes in
the WIC program; both are rejected in the enacted appropriations law, as they were
in the House and Senate bills. One recommendation would have denied automatic
WIC eligibility to Medicaid participants with income above 250% of the federal
poverty income guidelines. The second would have placed a cap on the amount of
the per-person grant states get to administer the WIC program and provide nutrition
education and other services; the cap would have been set noticeably below the
FY2007 average grant level.
Commodity Assistance Programs. The Administration proposed to
terminate the CSFP. It contended that the program duplicates benefits provided
under the Food Stamp and WIC programs and provided for special food stamp
benefits and outreach efforts for the elderly population that makes up almost all of
the CSFP caseload. The enacted appropriation rejects this recommendation and
substantially increases funding for the CSFP (as did the House and Senate bills).

Agricultural Trade and Food Aid
The enacted consolidated appropriations bill includes discretionary
appropriations for USDA’s international activities which are also subject to the 0.7%
across the board recision included in the measure. P.L. 110-161 provides, after
applying the recision, a total of $1.476 billion for P.L. 480 Title II food aid and other
international programs. The House-passed FY2008 agriculture appropriations
measure (H.R. 2206) would have provided discretionary appropriations of $1.487
billion, while the Senate committee-reported bill would have provided discretionary
appropriations of $1.495 billion for international activities. The Administration’s
budget request indicates that an additional $3.3 billion would be allocated to
CCC-funded (mandatory) programs during FY2008. Since the enacted
appropriations measure imposes no restrictions on mandatory export program
spending, program levels for these activities (export subsidies, market promotion,
export credits, and some food aid) will be at farm bill authorized levels. Included in
the enacted bill is $158.4 million for the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to
administer USDA’s international programs. The Senate-reported bill proposed
$167.4 million for FAS, while the House bill’s allowance for FAS was $159.1
million.
For P.L. 480 foreign food assistance, the enacted amount is $1.214 billion. Both
the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of FY2008 agriculture appropriations
recommended $1.222 billion (including transfers to the Farm Service Agency for
salaries and expenses in connection with the P.L. 480 operations). Both bills concur
with the President’s requests for no funds for P.L. 480 Title I loans or for P.L. 480
Title III grants. Thus, all of the P.L. 480 appropriations in the enacted bill would go
for USAID-administered Title II commodity donations. Two USDA-administered
food aid programs, Food for Progress (FFP) and Section 416(b) donations, receive
mandatory funding. The President’s budget assumes $163 million of CCC funds for
FFP, which provides food aid to emerging democracies. P.L. 480 Title I funds can
be allocated to FFP, but in the absence of an appropriation for Title I, that source
would be unavailable in FY2008. Similarly, USDA anticipates that no CCC
commodity inventories would be available for distribution as food aid under Section

416(b), a program that makes surplus agricultural commodities available overseas.

The enacted 2008 appropriations measure provides $99.3 million for the
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, an
increase of $300,000 from the FY2007 enacted amount. Both chambers’
appropriations bills and the President’s budget request called for $100 million for
McGovern-Dole. Separate from the appropriations act, the House-passed farm bill
(H.R. 2419) proposes to change the funding basis for the McGovern-Dole Program
from discretionary to mandatory and to increase its annual authorized funding to
$300 million by FY2011. The Senate-passed version of the farm bill does not
include a similar provision.
The President’s budget proposed 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
to address international food crises. This change in policy was not included in the
enacted measure, nor was it included in either chamber’s appropriation bill. In
commenting on the proposal, the Senate Committee report stressed its expectation

that Title II would be used primarily for development, not emergency, assistance. In
the event of additional emergency needs, the Senate Appropriations Committee
“reminds the Department of the availability of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.”
In contrast, the House Appropriations Committee report indicates that, although it did
not include the Administration’s proposal in its version of the bill, it will consider the
proposal as part of an overall examination of food aid programs. Separate from the
appropriations act, the Senate version of the farm bill, but not the House version,
contains a provision authorizing $25 million annually for a pilot project to assess
local/regional purchases of food aid for emergency relief.
The enacted bill includes an appropriation of $5.3 million for administrative
expenses of CCC export credit programs which the President’s budget estimated
would finance U.S. agricultural exports in FY2008 of $2.444 billion. P.L. 110-161
does not include legislative language proposed by the Administration to bring CCC
export credit guarantee programs into compliance with a WTO dispute panel decision
that found such programs to be prohibited export subsidies. However, House and
Senate-passed farm bills do make these WTO compliance changes.
The President’s budget proposes that $200 million would be allocated to the
Market Access Program (MAP). The Foreign Market Development Program would
be allocated $34.5 million according to the President’s budget. For export subsidy
programs, the budget requests no funds for the Export Enhancement Program (EEP)
and just $3 million for the Dairy Export Incentive Program ($3 million in FY2007).
EEP funding is authorized at $478 million annually under the 2002 farm bill, but no
CCC funds have been allocated to the program during FY2002-FY2007. Authorized
funding levels for these CCC-funded programs could be altered by the pending farm
bill as the Senate-passed farm bill repeals legislative authority for EEP while the
House-passed bill re-authorizes spending at levels provided in the 2002 farm bill.
Both farm bills also authorize additional mandatory funding for export promotion
programs as well.
For additional information on USDA’s international activities, see CRS Report
RL33553, Agricultural Export and Food Aid Programs, by Charles E. Hanrahan.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)¹⁹
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. The agriculture appropriation
subcommittees still keep jurisdiction over the FDA budget.
FDA’s budget has two components: direct appropriations and user fees. For
FY2008, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) provides a direct

¹⁹ This section was coordinated by Susan Thaul, with added contributions from Vanessa K.
Burrows, Judith A. Johnson, Sarah A. Lister, Donna V. Porter, Bernice Reyes-Akinbileje,
and Erin D. Williams.

appropriation of $1.72 billion to FDA, $142.5 million (9.1%) more than the FY2007
enacted appropriation and $76 million (4.6%) more than the President’s request.
For the entire FDA budget (direct appropriations and user fees), Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161) provides FDA $2.27 billion, compared with
$2.07 billion in the President’s request and $2.01 billion in the FY2007
appropriation.
Table 7 displays, by program area, the budget authority (direct appropriations),
user fees, and total program levels enacted for FY2007, requested in the President’s
FY2008 budget, and enacted for FY2008.
Food
Food Safety. The enacted bill directs an increase of $56 million above the
FY2007 level in food safety funding. In the explanatory statement, the committees
specify funding levels for several food safety activities. Of the increase provided for
food safety, no less than $18.3 million is to be available immediately to hire
additional domestic and import food inspectors, including $8 million for the
deployment of inspectors with rapid response capabilities. An additional $1 million
is provided for the review of cosmetics. Furthermore, $1.5 million is to fund the
creation of a Western Region FDA Center of Excellence at the University of
California at Davis, and $3 million is to fund the National Research Initiative (NRI).
In addition to specifying how food safety money should be spent, the
committees mandate several new reports. The first is on the conclusions of an NRI-
facilitating agreement between the FDA Commissioner and the HHS Secretary,
identifying research priorities and associated research grants. Second, FDA is to
contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study of the gaps in public
health protection provided by the food safety system in this country. The study
should address the recommendations of the FDA Food Protection Plan released in
November 2007. Third, concurrent with the FY2009 budget justification, the FDA
is to provide a plan that describes a method to improve the national food safety
system, including clear, measurable benchmarks for concrete improvements in the
performance of its food safety mission. Fourth, FDA is directed to submit a plan to
the committees that fully addresses the weaknesses in the food safety system that led
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to list food safety on its January 2007
high-risk list.
Nutrition. The enacted bill includes $1.7 million for research on dietary
supplements at the National Center for Natural Products Research in Oxford,
Mississippi.
Due to concerns that the FDA may have exceeded its statutory authority when
the agency decided to allow qualified health claims for conventional foods, the
committees request a report from the GAO. The committees also urge the FDA not
to use funds provided in this bill to review requests for qualified health claims for
conventional foods or to issue letters permitting such claims through exercises of
enforcement discretion until the independent analysis is completed.

Table 7. FDA Appropriations and User Fees, by Program Area
(millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁸
^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Admⁱ^n.^Ena^c^t^e^d
^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^Area^F^unds^Ena^c^t^e^d^Request^l^e^s^s^0.7%
^BA^:^457.1^466.7^509.9
^F^oods^Fees^:^0.0^0.0
^T^o^tal:^457.1^466.7
^BA^:^315.1^324.4^353.3
^H^u^m^a^{n d}^r^ugs^Fees^:^255.2^232.4
^T^o^tal:^570.4^556.8
^BA^:^144.5^155.1^155.2
^Bi^ol^ogⁱ^c^s^Fees^:^65.7^60.8
^T^o^tal:^210.3^215.8
^BA^:^94.7^94.8^97.0
^Aⁿ^im^{al dru}^g^s^an^{d f}^eeds^Fees^:^9.5^11.5
^T^o^tal:^104.3^106.3
^BA^:^230.7^240.1^238.0
^Devⁱ^ces^Fees^:^42.2^45.3
^T^o^tal:^272.9^285.4
^T^o^xⁱ^cologⁱ^{cal res}^earch^BA^:^Fees^:^42.1^0.0^36.5^0.0^44.0
⁽^N^CT^R)^T^o^tal:^42.1^36.5
^Headqu^arters^an^d^BA^:^Fees^:^90.5^32.1^88.6^32.9^97.5
^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^th^{e C}^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^er^T^o^tal:^122.6^121.4
^BA^:^126.9^131.5^130.6
^GSA^ren^t^Fees^:^19.1^26.9
^T^o^tal:^146.0^158.4
^Oth^e^{r ren}^t^an^{d ren}^t^-^r^elated,^BA^:^67.6^98.0^88.8
ⁱⁿ^clu^dⁱⁿ^g^W^h^{ite Oak}^Fees^:^1.1^9.1
^coⁿ^s^o^lid^atioⁿ^T^o^tal:^68.6^107.1
^BA^:^0.0^0.0^0.0
^Cer^tif^icatioⁿ^f^uⁿ^d^s^Fees^:^8.5^9.5^9.5
^T^o^tal:^8.5^9.5^9.5
^Sa^la^{ries &}^Ex^p^e^nses^BA^:^Fees^:^1,569.2^433.5^1,635.7^428.3^1,714.3^549.4
^Sub^to^ta^l^T^o^tal:^2,002.8^2,064.0^2,263.7
^Build^ing^s^&^Fa^cilities^BA^:^Fees^:^5.0^0.0^5.0^0.0^2.4^0.0
^Sub^to^ta^l^T^o^tal:^5.0^5.0^2.4
^BA^:^1,574.2^1,640.7^a^1,716.7
^{FDA T}^o^ta^l^Fees^:^433.5^428.3^549.4
^To^t^a^l:^2,007.7^2,068.9^2,266.1
^Sources^:^A^d^apt^e^{d by}^C^R^S^f^r^om^F^D^A^O^p^eratⁱⁿ^g^Pl^an^f^o^{r F}^Y²⁰⁰⁷^(March^2007);^F^D^A^,^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar
^{2008 Jus}^{tification of}^Es^timates^for^Appr^opr^iations^C^o^mmittees^,^F^e^{b. 2007;}^an^d^Co^{mmittee Prin}^{t o}^f
^t^h^e^H^ous^e^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^ee^on^Appr^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^{on H}^.^{R. 2764 /}^Publⁱ^c^L^a^w^110-161^,^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^g^p^o^acces^s^.
^g^o^v^/^con^g^r^es^s^/^h^o^u^s^e/^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^/^08con^appro.h^t^m^l^].
^No^tes:
^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 = 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. D}^o^esⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e propos}^{ed u}^s^{er f}^ees^.

Human Drugs
Specified Funding Increases. The enacted bill includes an increase of
$21.2 million for drug safety, of which not less than $10 million is for the Office of
Surveillance and Epidemiology. It also includes an increase of $7.5 million for the
Critical Path Initiative, of which $2.5 million is to be available, on a competitive
basis, for contracts or grants to universities and non-profit organizations to support
individual critical path projects. Finally, the bill includes $6 million for generic drug
review and $4 million for the review of direct-to-consumer advertising.
Issues Highlighted. The committees support FDA’s review of a means by
which drugs marketed outside the present approval process, which have been in
clinical use for the past 25 years and are prescribed by doctors, may be more
efficiently vetted by the agency. FDA is encouraged to work toward the development
of a system to review this unique class of drugs.
The committees encourage FDA to ensure that the MedGuide program is
assisting patients in understanding the risks associated with certain medications to
the greatest degree possible. The committees encourage FDA to work with patient
groups, manufacturers and national pharmacy groups to address improvements in the
program, and request a report on the progress FDA is making toward MedGuide
improvements, to be completed within one year of enactment of the act.
Animal Drugs and Feeds
The committees note that on December 28, 2006, the Center for Veterinary
Medicine issued a draft risk assessment on animal cloning which concluded that food
products from cloned animals are safe to enter the food supply. The committees
strongly encourage FDA to continue the voluntary moratorium on introducing food
products from cloned animals into commerce until the agency completes a review
and analysis of comments it has received on the draft, and evaluates the need for
additional studies recommended during the public comment period.²⁰ The
committees also direct the FDA to enter into an agreement with the Economic
Research Service at USDA to study the domestic agricultural and international trade
economic implications of permitting commercialization of milk and meat from
cloned animals and their progeny into the food supply.
Cross-Cutting Topics
Specified Funding Increases. The enacted bill provides the following
increases above FY2007: $28.7 million for cost of living expenses; $4 million for
pandemic influenza preparedness; $1 million for the Office of Women’s Health;
$13.3 million for FDA’s consolidation at the White Oak campus; and $14.5 million

²⁰ The FDA published a final risk assessment on animal cloning and draft guidance for
industry, effectively lifting its moratorium, in January 2008. See CRS Report RL33334,
Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture: Status and Current Issues, by Geoffrey S. Becker and
Tadlock Cowan.

for GSA rent and other rent and rent-related activities. The bill also includes $2.5
million for buildings and facilities.
Issues Highlighted. In the explanatory statement, the committees express
their increasing concern about FDA’s use of a fund known as the central account,
managed by the Office of the Commissioner. The central account consists of funds
appropriated for use by FDA’s centers and field operations that the agency moves
into the account in order to pay for various FDA activities. Noting that the central
account has grown unchecked over the past three years, increasing by approximately
32% from FY2003 to FY2006, the Committee directs FDA to include in its annual
budget request — beginning with FY2009 — previous year, estimated current year,
and estimated budget year central account charges by FDA program area, and
center/field split for each charge applied.
The committees remind FDA that the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007 limits the number of financial conflict of interest waivers
for advisory committee members it can issue annually, and strongly encourage FDA
to continue its efforts to limit the use of financial conflicts of interest waivers to the
greatest extent possible.
The committees direct FDA to ensure that all changes it makes to the format of
its explanatory notes reflect the comments made by the Congress.
In its FY2009 budget submission, FDA is directed to provide the same level of
budget justification for its research activities in the FY2007 budget as it does other
activities.
FDA is directed to provide all reports and studies requested by the committees
in H.Rept. 110-258 or S.Rept. 110-134 or in the explanatory statement within 60
days after enactment, unless another deadline is specified.
Restrictions on Use of Appropriated Funds. The enacted bill includes
several restrictions. It prohibits the use of appropriated funds to terminate or
consolidate FDA field laboratories or inspection and compliance functions of district
offices, or to close the FDA laboratory in St. Louis, Missouri. In addition, the
explanatory statement contains a proviso prohibiting the transfer of funds to the
Reagan-Udall foundation under section 770(n) of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act.²¹

²¹ The explanatory statement refers to Section 707(n) of the act. The applicable provision
is, in fact, Section 770(n).

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
remains vested in the agricultural committees because of the market’s historical
origins as an adjunct to agricultural trade.
For FY2008, the Administration has requested $116.0 million for the CFTC, an
increase of 18.4% over FY2007’s appropriation under the continuing resolution of
$98 million. The Administration’s budget also proposes that a fee be imposed on
users of the futures markets to pay for the cost of federal regulation. To fund the
CFTC at the $116 million level, a fee of about 5¢ per transaction on the futures
exchanges would be required. Every administration since Ronald Reagan’s has
proposed a similar fee, but Congress has never enacted one. (For more information
on the futures transaction fee, see CRS Report RS22415, Proposed Transaction Fee
on Futures Contracts, by Mark Jickling.)
The enacted appropriation for FY2008 is $111.266 million (after rescission),
which is $13 million (+13.6%) more than the appropriation in FY2007. The increase
provides for an additional 17 FTEs for more oversight of futures markets, and for
information technology costs, both of which were in the Administration’s request.
It does not adopt the proposed user fees on futures transactions.
The enacted amount is between the amounts for CFTC in the House and
Senate bills. The House bill provided $102.6 million for the CFTC as an
appropriation from the general fund. The Senate amount was $116 million and was
in H.R. 2829, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act,

2008.

Table 8. USDA and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2008 Action and FY2007 Enacted
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2008
Agency or Major ProgramFY2007Enacted changeAdmin.House-Senate-
Enactedfrom FY2007RequestPassedReportedEnacted^a
Title I: Agricultural Programs
Agric. Research Service (ARS)1,128.91,037.51,140.31,194.31,167.838.93.4%
Coop. State Research Education and1,182.91,020.71,199.51,178.31,183.80.90.1%
Extension Service (CSREES)
Economic Research Service (ERS)75.282.579.376.577.42.22.9%
National Agric. Statistics Service147.3167.7166.1167.7162.215.010.2%
(NASS)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection851.2954.5879.6916.7867.616.51.9%
Service (APHIS)
Agric. Marketing Service (AMS)112.7113.1118.1110.8114.72.01.8%
Grain Inspection, Packers and37.844.441.139.138.50.71.9%
Stockyards Admin. (GIPSA)
Food Safety & Inspection Serv.892.1930.1930.1930.6930.138.04.3%
(FSIS)
Farm Service Agency (FSA) -1,337.11,548.21,440.71,478.71,430.393.27.0%
Total Salaries and Expenses
FSA Farm Loans - Subsidy Level 149.8152.3152.3149.6148.6-1.2-0.8%
Farm Loan Authority3,749.53,366.83,407.43,450.93,427.4-322.1-8.6%
Risk Management Agency (RMA)76.779.178.878.876.1-0.5-0.7%
Salaries and Expenses
Federal Crop Insurance Corp.^b4,379.34,818.14,818.14,818.14,818.1438.810.0%
Commodity Credit Corp. (CCC)^b23,098.312,983.012,983.112,983.012,983.0-10,115.3-43.8%
Other agencies and programs 561.1533.8478.3467.8452.6-108.5-19.3%
Subtotal 34,030.3 24,465.0 24,505.5 24,590.0 24,450.9 -9,579.4 -28.2%
Title II: Conservation Programs
Conservation Operations763.4801.8851.9863.0834.471.19.3%
Watershed Surveys and Planning6.106.600.0-6.1-100%
Watershed & Flood Prevention0037.033.529.829.8na
Watershed Rehabilitation Program31.35.831.620.019.9-11.4-36.6%
Resource Conservation & Dev.51.114.752.453.250.7-0.4-0.7%
Healthy Forests Reserve02.502.52.02.0na
Under Secretary, Natural Resources0.70.80.80.80.70.0-0.7%
Subtotal 852.6 825.6 980.2 972.9 937.5 85.0 10.0%

FY2008
Agency or Major ProgramFY2007Enacted changeAdmin.House-Senate-
Enactedfrom FY2007RequestPassedReportedEnacted^a
Title III: Rural Development (RD)
Salaries and Expenses161.3208.2175.4175.3168.87.54.7%
Rural Housing Service (RHS)1,520.71,148.41,416.91,363.61,331.3-189.4-12.5%
RHS Loan Authority ^b5,570.85,613.95,750.05,499.36,095.4524.69.4%
Rural Business-Cooperative Service170.2117.1205.6170.5177.97.84.6%
RBCS Loan Authority ^b1,149.11,262.31,566.81,243.51,265.2116.110.1%
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)647.2574.7675.5647.9655.38.11.3%
RUS Loan Authority ^b7,639.56,245.26,665.09,940.29,180.21,540.720.2%
RD Under Secretary0.60.70.70.70.60.0-0.6%
Subtotal 2,500.0 2,049.2 2,474.0 2,358.0 2,334.0 -166.0 -6.6%
Subtotal, RD Loan Authority14,359.413,121.413,981.816,683.016,540.72,181.315.2%
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs
Child Nutrition Programs13,345.613,897.313,903.213,897.313,901.5555.94.2%
WIC Program5,204.45,386.65,620.05,720.06,020.0815.615.7%
Food Stamp Act Programs38,161.539,838.239,816.239,779.239,782.71,621.24.2%
Commodity Assistance Programs177.670.4221.1199.1210.332.718.4%
Nutrition Programs Admin.140.3148.9146.9147.4141.71.51.1%
Office of Under Secretary0.60.70.60.60.60.0-0.7%
Subtotal 57,030.0 59,342.0 59,708.1 59,743.6 60,056.8 3,026.9 5.3%
Title V: Foreign Assistance
Foreign Agric. Service (FAS)156.2168.2159.1167.4158.42.11.4%
Public Law (P.L.) 4801,218.11,222.21,222.11,222.11,213.5-4.6-0.4%
McGovern- Dole Food for Educ.99.0100.0100.0100.099.30.30.3%
CCC Export Loan Salaries5.35.35.35.35.30.00.6%
Subtotal 1,478.61,495.71,486.61,494.91,476.5-2.1-0.1%
Title VI: FDA & Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration1,574.21,640.71,702.71,760.11,716.8142.69.1%
Commodity Futures Trading98.0116.0102.6116.0111.313.313.6%
Commission (CFTC)
Subtotal 1,672.2 1,756.7 1,805.2 1,876.1 1,828.0 155.9 9.3%
Title VII: General Provisions^c
Section 32 rescission-37.6-65.5-210.4-331.0-684.0-646.41719%
Disaster assistance and FSA salaries0.00.00.00.0622.0622.0na
Other (net)-1.1-16.0-11.316.65.97.0-640%
Subtotal -38.7-81.5-221.7-314.4-56.1-17.444.9%

FY2008
Agency or Major ProgramFY2007Enacted changeAdmin.House-Senate-
Enactedfrom FY2007RequestPassedReportedEnacted^a
RECAPITULATION
I: Agricultural Programs34,030.324,465.024,505.524,590.024,450.9-9,579.4-28.2%
Mandatory 27,494.1 17,818.0 17,818.0 17,818.0 17,818 -9,676 -35.2%
Discretionary 6,536.2 6,647.0 6,687.5 6,772.0 6,632.9 96.7 1.5%
II: Conservation Programs852.6825.6980.2972.9937.585.010.0%
III: Rural Development2,500.02,049.22,474.02,358.02,334.0-166.0-6.6%
IV: Domestic Food Programs57,030.059,342.059,708.159,743.660,056.83,026.95.3%
Mandatory 51,506.1 53,712.5 53,718.4 53,676.5 53,683.2 2,177.1 4.2%
Discretionary 5,523.9 5,629.5 5,989.6 6,067.1 6,373.6 849.8 15.4%
V: Foreign Assistance1,478.61,495.71,486.61,494.91,476.5-2.1-0.1%
VI: FDA & Related Agencies1,672.21,756.71,805.21,876.11,828.0155.99.3%
VII: General Provisions-38.7-81.5-221.7-314.4-56.1-17.444.9%
Total, Before Adjustments 97,52589,85390,73890,72191,028-6,497-6.7%
Mandatory 79,000 71,530 71,536 71,494 71,501 -7,499 -9.5%
Discretionary (gross)18,52518,32219,20219,22719,5261,0025.4%
Discretionary (net, after score-17,81217,83018,81718,70918,0932811.6%
keeping adjustments)
Other emergency appropriations, for agencies in this bill, not included above
P.L. 110-28
Agricultural assistance3,000.0
P.L. 480 Title II grants450.0
Emergency Forestry Reserve115.0
Other87.5
Subtotal3,652.5
^Source:^CRS,^usi^ng^C^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee Pri}ⁿ^t^of^t^h^{e H}^ous^{e C}^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^{ee on Appr}^oprⁱ^a^tⁱ^ons^{on H}^.^{R. 2764 /}^Publⁱ^c^L^a^w^110-161^,
^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^g^p^o^acces^s^.^g^o^v^/^con^g^r^es^s^/^h^o^u^s^{e/appropriation}^s^/08con^appro.h^t^m^l^].
^{a. T}^h^{e en}^act^{ed am}^ouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^t^a^bl^e^r^e^fl^e^c^t^t^h^e⁰^.⁷^%^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^onⁱⁿ^S^{ec. 752 of}^t^h^{e D}ⁱ^vⁱ^sⁱ^on^A^of^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2008 C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^ed
^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^A^c^{t, as p}^u^b^lish^e^dⁱⁿ^th^{e j}^oⁱⁿ^{t ex}^p^l^an^ato^r^y^statem^en^{t in}^th^e^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^.
^{b. T}^h^e^C^o^m^m^odity^C^r^{edit C}^o^rporation^an^{d th}^{e Federal C}^r^{op In}^s^u^raⁿ^{ce Fu}ⁿ^d^each^receiv^e^anⁱⁿ^defⁱⁿ^{ite appropriation}^(“^s^u^ch^s^u^m^s^,
^{as m}^a^y^b^eⁿ^ecessar^y^”)^{. T}^h^{e am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s sh}^o^wⁿ^ar^{e th}^{e estim}^{ates u}^s^edⁱⁿ^th^{e ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^ills.
^{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.