Appropriations for FY2005: U.S. Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2005:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
and Related Agencies
Updated December 9, 2004
Ralph M. Chite, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

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 13 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://www.crs.gov/ products/ appropri ati ons/ apppage.shtml ].

Appropriations for FY2005: U.S. Department of
Agriculture and Related Agencies
Summary
On November 20, 2004, the House and Senate approved the conference
agreement on the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818, H.Rept.
108-792), which combined nine annual appropriations bills into one measure. The
President signed H.R. 4818 into law (P.L. 108-447) on December 8, 2004. Division
A of the act provides the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies with
$85.28 billion in budget authority for FY2005, which is $1.3 billion below FY2004
and $2.0-$2.3 billion above the FY2005 House-passed (H.R. 4766) and Senate-
reported (S. 2803) bills, and the Administration’s FY2005 request.
An estimated $66.4 billion, or nearly 80%, of the total FY2005 spending in
Division A is for mandatory USDA programs, primarily farm commodity support
programs and various nutrition programs. The mandatory total for FY2005 is $1.45
billion below FY2004, mainly because improved farm commodity prices have
required reduced spending for farm commodity support authorized by the 2002 farm
bill. FY2005 mandatory spending is approximately $2 billion above the
recommendations of the House, Senate, and the Administration, mainly because of
a revision in nutrition program funding needs subsequent to these recommendations.
For all discretionary programs, USDA and related agencies receive $16.98
billion for FY2005, before taking into account the effect of a 0.8% across-the-board
rescission on all discretionary accounts required by P.L. 108-447. Discretionary
spending is the category over which appropriators have direct control in annual
spending bills. The pre-rescission discretionary total is about $140 million above the
enacted FY2004 level and the FY2005 House level, $210 million above the Senate
level, and $413 million above the Administration request. Once it is applied, the
rescission likely will bring FY2005 spending close to the FY2004 and House level
of $16.84 billion.
In order to meet an FY2005 discretionary allocation that was close to the
FY2004 enacted level, appropriators, as in past years, placed limitations on
authorized levels of spending in the 2002 farm bill for various mandatory
conservation, rural development, and research programs. P.L. 108-447 reduced
authorized FY2005 mandatory spending levels for these programs by a total of about
$1.2 billion, and applied those savings toward meeting the discretionary allocation.
Among the provisions that were deleted by conferees in the final law were a
Senate provision that would have relaxed licensing rules for businesses seeking to
travel to Cuba to promote and sell agricultural products; and a House provision that
would have prohibited FDA from enforcing the current law that bans importation of
prescriptions drugs by parties other than drug companies.

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of ExpertiseNameDivisionTelephone
USDA Budget/Farm Spending and CoordinatorRalph M. ChiteRSI7-7296
ConservationBarbara JohnsonRSI7-0248
Agricultural Trade and Food AidCharles E. HanrahanRSI7-7235
Cuba TradeRemy JurenasRSI7-7281
Agricultural ResearchJean M. RawsonRSI7-7283
Agricultural Marketing
Grain Inspection, Packers and StockyardsGeoffrey S. BeckerRSI7-7287
Food Safety
Animal and Plant Health InspectionJames MonkeRSI7-9664
Farm Credit
Rural DevelopmentTadlock CowanRSI7-7600
Domestic Food AssistanceJean Yavis JonesRSI7-7331
Joe RichardsonDSP7-7325
Food and Drug AdministrationDonna U. VogtDSP7-7285
Commodity Futures Trading CommissionMark JicklingG&F7-7784
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science and Industry; DSP = Domestic Social Policy;
G&F = Government and Finance

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
USDA Spending at a Glance.........................................1
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending.............................2
FY2005 Agriculture Appropriations Action.............................4
Commodity Credit Corporation...................................5
Crop Insurance ...............................................6
Farm Service Agency...........................................7
FSA Salaries and Expenses..................................7
FSA Farm Loan Programs...................................8
Conservation .................................................9
Discretionary NRCS Programs...............................9
Selected Mandatory Conservation Programs....................11
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid.................................12
Discretionary Programs....................................13
Mandatory Programs......................................14
Cuba Travel Amendment...................................15
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.....17
Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS)..............................18
Food Safety.................................................19
Marketing and Regulatory Programs..............................20
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)............20
Agricultural Marketing Service..............................24
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration.........25
Rural Development...........................................26
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP)...............27
Rural Business-Cooperative Service..........................28
Rural Utilities Service.....................................29
Rural Housing Service.....................................29
Food and Nutrition Programs....................................30
Food Stamps............................................31
Child Nutrition...........................................31
WIC Program............................................32
Commodity Assistance Program (CAP).......................33
Senior Farmers’ Market Program............................34
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).................................35
Counterterrorism .........................................35
Food ...................................................36
Prescription Drugs and Biologics............................37
Medical Devices..........................................39
Women’s Health.........................................39
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).......................39

List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Gross Outlays, FY2003............2
List of Tables
Table 1. USDA and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1997 to FY2005....3
Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2005 Appropriations for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies.................4
Table 3. FDA Counterterrorism Funding, FY2004-FY2005...............36
Table 4. USDA and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2005 Congressional Action and Administration Request vs.
FY2004 Enacted..............................................41

Appropriations for FY2005: U.S. Department
of Agriculture and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On December 8, 2004, the President signed into law the FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818), which combines nine annual
appropriations bills into one measure. Division A of P.L. 108-447 contains $85.3
billion in FY2005 funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Related
Agencies, including $16.9 billion in discretionary spending. The total appropriation
does not reflect the effect of a provision that requires a 0.8% across-the-board
rescission in all discretionary spending in the measure.
USDA Spending at a Glance
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) carries out its widely varied
responsibilities through approximately 30 separate internal agencies and offices
staffed by some 100,000 employees. USDA is responsible for many activities
outside of the agriculture budget function. Hence, spending for USDA is not
synonymous with spending for farm programs.
USDA gross outlays for FY2003 (the most recent fiscal year for which data are
available) were $81.53 billion, including regular and supplemental spending. The
mission area with the largest gross outlays ($41.3 billion, or 50% of spending) was
for food and nutrition programs — primarily the food stamp program (the costliest
single USDA program), various child nutrition programs, and the Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The second largest
mission area in terms of total spending is for farm and foreign agricultural services,
which totaled $24.3 billion, or 30% of all USDA spending in FY2003. Within this
area are the programs funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (e.g., the
farm commodity price and income support programs and certain mandatory
conservation and trade programs), crop insurance, farm loans, and foreign food aid
programs.
Total USDA spending in FY2003 also included $7.0 billion (9%) for an array
of natural resource and environment programs, approximately three-fourths of which
was for the activities of the Forest Service, and the balance for a number of
discretionary conservation programs for farm producers. (USDA’s Forest Service
is funded through the Interior appropriations bill; it is the only USDA agency not
funded through the annual agriculture appropriations bill.) USDA programs for rural
development ($2.9 billion in gross outlays for FY2003); research and education ($2.4

^T^h^e^fⁱⁿ^a^l^v^e^r^sⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^C^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t⁽^P^.^L^.^{108-447, H.R}^.⁴⁸¹⁸⁾
^con^t^aiⁿ^s^{a 0.8% r}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{of al}^l^di^s^c^r^e^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^r^y^accouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e m}^e^as^u^r^{e. F}^Y^{2005 appr}^oprⁱ^a^t^e^d
^levels^{cited in this}^r^e^por^{t do not r}^e^fl^{ect the effects}^{of this}^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on.

billion); marketing and regulatory activities ($2.3 billion); meat and poultry
inspection ($735 million); and departmental administrative offices and other
activities ($576 million) accounted for the balance of USDA spending.
Figure 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Gross Outlays, FY2003
--- Billion $ ---
^Ad^mⁱⁿ^&^Mⁱ^s^c
^0.7^%^Ru^r^a^l^De^v^e^l^op^me^nt
^$0^.57⁶^3.⁵^%
^Fa^r^m^{& F}^o^reⁱ^{gn A}^g^$2^.8⁹
²⁹^.8^%
^$2⁴^.²⁷⁷
^Ma^r^k^e^tⁱⁿ^{g &}^R^e^gu^l^a^t^o^r^y
^2.9^%
^$2^.35¹
^R^e^se^ar^c^h
^2.⁹^%
^$2^.38²
^Foo^{d &}^N^u^t^rⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ^N^a^t^u^ra^{l R}^e^s^o^u^r^ces
⁵⁰^.7%^8.6^%
^$4^1.2⁹⁵^$⁷^.⁰²³
^Fo^o^d^S^a^fe^t^y
^0.⁹^%
^$0^.735
^S^o^u^rce:^U^S^D^A^O^f^fⁱ^ce^O^f^B^u^d^g^et^aⁿ^d^P^r^o^g^ra^m^Aⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending
Approximately three-fourths of total spending within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture is classified as mandatory, which by definition occurs outside the control
of annual appropriations. Currently accounting for the vast majority of USDA
mandatory spending are: the farm commodity price and income support programs
(including ongoing programs authorized by the 2002 farm bill and emergency
programs authorized by various appropriations acts); the food stamp program and
most child nutrition programs; the federal crop insurance program; and various
agricultural conservation and trade programs.
Although these programs have mandatory status, many of these accounts
ultimately receive funds in the annual agriculture appropriations act. For example,
the food stamp and child nutrition programs are funded by an annual appropriation
based on projected spending needs. Supplemental appropriations generally are made
if and when these estimates fall short of required spending. An annual appropriation
also is made to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for losses it incurs in

financing the commodity support programs and the various other programs it
finances.
The other 25% of the USDA budget is for discretionary programs, which are
determined by funding in annual appropriations acts. Among the major discretionary
programs within USDA are Forest Service programs; certain conservation programs;
most of its 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. Funding for all
USDA discretionary programs (except for the Forest Service) is provided by the
annual agriculture appropriations act. Funding for Forest Service programs is
included in the annual Interior appropriations act.
Table 1. USDA and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY1997 to FY2005
(budget authority in billions of dollars)
FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05
Discretionary $13.05 $13.75 $13.69 $13.95 $15.07 $16.02 $17.91 $16.84 $16.98
Mandatory $40.08 $35.80 $42.25 $61.95 $58.34 $56.91 $56.70 $63.69 $68.29
Total Budget$53.12$49.55$55.94$75.90$73.41$72.93$74.61$80.53$85.27
Authority
^S^o^u^rce:^H^ous^e^A^ppr^opr^ia^tions^C^o^m^m^itte^e^.
^Note:^Iⁿ^c^l^ude^s^r^e^g^u^la^r^a^nnua^{l a}^ppr^opr^ia^tions^f^o^r^a^ll^of^U^S^D^A⁽^e^x^c^e^p^t^the^For^e^s^t^Se^r^v^ic^e⁾^{, the}^{Food a}^{nd D}^r^ug^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^{tion, a}ⁿ^d
^the^C^o^m^m^odity^Futur^e^s^T^r^a^d^ing^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^{on. Ex}^c^l^ude^s^a^{ll m}^a^nda^tor^y^e^m^e^r^g^e^nc^y^s^upple^m^eⁿ^ta^{l a}^ppr^opr^ia^tions^{. T}^h^e^FY^{2003 le}^v^e^l
^r^e^f^l^e^c^t^s^the^0.65%^a^c^r^os^s^-^the^-^boa^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on a}^pplie^{d to a}^{ll dis}^c^r^e^tiona^r^y^pr^og^r^a^m^s^f^unde^{d in the}^FY²⁰⁰³^C^ons^olida^t^e^d
^A^ppr^opr^ia^tions^A^c^t⁽^P^.L^.^108-⁷⁾^,^e^x^c^e^p^t^f^o^r^the^W^I^C^pr^og^r^a^m^w^h^ic^{h w}^a^s^s^p^e^cⁱ^fⁱ^c^a^lly^e^x^e^m^pte^d^{. T}^h^e^FY^{2004 le}^v^e^{l r}^e^f^l^e^c^t^s^the^0.59^%
^a^c^r^os^s^-^the^-^boa^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on to a}^{ll non-}^de^f^e^ns^e^,^dis^c^r^e^tiona^r^y^a^c^c^ounts^,^w^{ithout e}^x^c^e^p^{tion. T}^h^e^FY^{2005 le}^v^e^{l doe}^s^not^y^e^{t re}^f^l^e^c^t^the
^0.8%^a^c^r^os^s^-^the^-^boa^r^d^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^{on to a}^{ll dis}^c^r^e^tiona^r^y^a^c^c^ounts^r^e^quir^e^{d in the}^FY^{2005 om}^nibus^m^e^a^s^ur^e⁽^P^.L^{. 108-}⁴⁴⁷⁾^.
A key distinction between mandatory and discretionary spending involves how
these two categories of spending are treated in the budget process. Congress
generally controls spending on mandatory programs by setting rules for eligibility,
benefit formulas, and other parameters rather than approving specific dollar amounts
for these programs each year. Eligibility for mandatory programs is usually written
into authorizing law, and any individual or entity that meets the eligibility
requirements is entitled to the benefits authorized by the law. Spending for
discretionary programs is controlled by annual appropriations acts. The 13
subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees originate bills
each year which decide how much funding to devote to continuing current activities
as well as any new discretionary programs.

FY2005 Agriculture Appropriations Action
As the first step in the FY2005 budget and appropriations process, the Bush
Administration released its budget request on February 2, 2004 for all federal
department, agencies, and programs. The Administration’s budget contained an
FY2005 appropriations request of $82.9 billion for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and Related Agencies (which includes all of USDA except the Forest
Service, and also includes the Food and Drug Administration and Commodity
Futures Trading Commission). The FY2005 requested total was down $3.65 billion
from the enacted FY2004 level of $86.6 billion, primarily because of an anticipated
reduced need in FY2005 to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for its¹
realized losses. An estimated $66.3 billion, or nearly 80%, of this requested
spending is for mandatory programs administered by USDA (primarily the CCC,
crop insurance, and most food and nutrition programs). Actual spending for these
programs is highly variable and is driven by program participation rates and
prevailing economic and weather conditions. The balance of the FY2005 spending
request ($16.6 billion) was for discretionary programs, compared with an enacted
FY2004 appropriated level of $16.8 billion. It is this category of spending for which
appropriators have direct control over annual spending levels.
Table 2. Congressional Action on FY2005 Appropriations for
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies
Subcommittee
Markup Conf erence
CompletedHouseHouseSenateSenateConferenceReport ApprovalPublic
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t LawH ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
^H^.^R^.^4766;^S^.^2803;^H^.^R^.^4818,^Vo^{te o}^f^P.^L^.
^H.R^e^p^t^.^Vo^{te o}^f^S.Rep^t^.^{H. R}^e^p^t^344-⁵¹^Vo^{te o}^f^108-⁴⁴⁷
^108-⁵⁸⁴^389-³¹^108-³⁴⁰^108-^792*^{— 1}^65-³⁰
^6/^14/⁰⁴^9/^8/⁰⁴^7/^7/⁰⁴^7/^13/⁰⁴^9/^14/⁰⁴^N^o^actⁱ^oⁿ^11/^20/⁰⁴^11/^20/⁰⁴^11/^20/⁰⁴^12/^8/⁰⁴
^*^On^Nov^.^{20, 2004, th}^{e f}ⁱⁿ^a^{l v}^e^rs^ion^of^th^{e FY2005 ag}^ricu^ltu^re^{appropriation}^s^{bill w}^a^sⁱⁿ^cor^poratedⁱⁿ^{to th}^{e con}^f^eren^ce
^ag^reem^en^{t on}^th^{e con}^s^{olidated a}^ppropriation^s^{bill (H.R}^{. 4818) f}^o^{r FY2005.}
^*^*^P^e^ndⁱ^ng
The agriculture subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee
completed markup of the FY2005 agriculture appropriations bill on June 14, 2004,
and a markup by the full House Appropriations Committee followed on June 23. The
committee officially reported the bill (H.R. 4766, H.Rept. 108-584) on July 7, 2004.

¹ All FY2004 figures cited in this report (including the table at the end) have factored in the
effect of a 0.59% across-the-board rescission to all non-defense, discretionary accounts, as
mandated by the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199).
^T^h^e^fⁱⁿ^a^l^v^e^r^sⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^C^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t⁽^P^.^L^.^{108-447, H.R}^.⁴⁸¹⁸⁾
^con^t^aiⁿ^s^{a 0.8% r}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{of al}^l^di^s^c^r^e^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^r^y^accouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e m}^e^as^u^r^{e. F}^Y^{2005 appr}^oprⁱ^a^t^e^d
^levels^{cited in this}^r^e^por^{t do not r}^e^fl^{ect the effects}^{of this}^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on.

The full House approved the measure on July 13, 2004, after adopting fourteen
amendments.
Senate subcommittee action on its version of the FY2005 bill was completed on
September 8, 2004, and the full committee reported the bill (S. 2803) on September
14. The only amendment adopted in the Senate subcommittee was a general
provision that would relax restrictions on travel to Cuba to promote and sell U.S.
agricultural products. This provision was subsequently deleted by conferees. In full
committee markup, an offered amendment to require mandatory country of origin
labeling for fresh meats and produce to begin on January 1, 2005, was defeated. No
floor action was taken on S. 2803.
A conference agreement was reached on the differences between the House-
passed bill (H.R. 4818) and the Senate-reported measure (S. 2803). On November
20, 2004, the conference agreement was folded into an FY2005 consolidated
appropriations bill (H.R. 4818, H.Rept. 108-792), along with eight other annual
appropriations bills. The President signed the omnibus bill into law (P.L. 108-447)
on December 8, 2004.
The following sections of this report review the major provisions in the FY2005
conference agreement for USDA and related agencies as finally enacted, and compare
the FY2005 funding levels with the House-passed and Senate-reported measures, the
Administration’s FY2005 request, and the enacted FY2004 levels (P.L. 108-199).
Also, see the table at the end of the report for a tabular summary comparison.
Commodity Credit Corporation
Most spending for USDA’s mandatory agriculture and conservation programs
was authorized by the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), and is funded through USDA’s
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The CCC is a wholly owned government
corporation. It has the legal authority to borrow up to $30 billion at any one time
from the U.S. Treasury. These borrowed funds are used to finance spending for
ongoing programs such as farm commodity price and income support activities and
various conservation, trade, and rural development programs. The CCC has also been
the funding source for a large portion of emergency supplemental spending over the
years, particularly for ad-hoc farm disaster payments, and direct market loss
payments to growers of various commodities which were provided in response to low
farm commodity prices.
The CCC must eventually 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, which would render the corporation unable to
function. Congress generally provides this infusion through the regular annual
USDA appropriation law. Because of the degree of difficulty in estimating its
funding needs, which is complicated by crop and weather conditions and other

uncontrollable variables, the CCC in recent years has received a “current indefinite
appropriation,” which in effect allows the CCC to receive “such sums as are
necessary” during the fiscal year for previous years’ losses and current year’s losses.
As in past years, the CCC will receive an indefinite appropriation (“such sums
as necessary”) for FY2005. The Administration estimates the required FY2005
appropriation at $16.452 billion, compared with a revised estimate of $22.937 billion
for FY2004. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447 , H.R.
4818) concurs with this request. The estimated appropriation for FY2005 is not a
reflection of expected outlays for FY2005, but is instead an estimate of the required
reimbursement to the CCC for its losses incurred primarily in FY2003. Although the
estimated FY2005 appropriation is nearly $6.5 billion below the estimated FY2004
appropriation, the reduction is not because CCC spending is being cut by Congress.
Instead, it is primarily attributable to improved farm commodity prices in recent
years, which have contributed to a reduction in required spending for farm
commodity support under the 2002 farm bill.
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. Most
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 funds all other expenses of the program, including
premium subsidies, indemnity payments, and reimbursements to the private insurance
companies. Annual spending on the crop insurance program is difficult to predict in
advance and is dependent on weather and crop growing conditions and farmer
participation rates.
In its FY2005 budget request, the Administration requested such sums as are
necessary for the mandatory-funded Federal Crop Insurance Fund, and estimated this
appropriation at $4.095 billion, up from the revised FY2004 appropriation of $3.765
billion. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818)
concurs with this request. Legislative enhancements (P.L. 106-224) made to the crop
insurance program in 2000 have greatly increased the federal subsidy of farmer
premiums. The increased subsidy coupled with program losses associated with
disasters in various parts of the country have contributed to increased program costs
in recent years.
For the discretionary component of the crop insurance program, P.L. 108-447
provides $72.0 million for RMA salaries and expenses, up slightly from the enacted

FY2004 appropriation of $71.0 million, but well below the Administration’s FY2005
request for $91.6 million. Approximately three-fourths (or $15.5 million) of the
requested increase would have funded various information technology (IT)
initiatives. The Administration had requested an $8.3 million increase in total RMA
funding for FY2004, mostly to cover proposed IT initiatives. However, the enacted
FY2004 level was just $800,000 above the enacted FY2003 level.
Over the past few years, the Administration’s budget contained legislative
proposals to limit the amount of federal subsidy that accrues to the private insurance
companies participating in the program. None of these proposals were adopted, and
the FY2005 request did not contain any legislative initiatives pertaining to the crop
insurance program. Instead, USDA earlier this year completed negotiations on a new
standard reinsurance agreement (SRA), which became effective on July 1, 2004. The
SRA contains the terms and conditions under which USDA provides subsidies and
reinsurance on eligible crop insurance contracts sold or reinsured by the private
companies. The newly adopted SRA is expected to reduce program costs by $22
million in 2005 and $36 million in 2006 and subsequent years, through lower
subsidies to private insurance companies and increased private risk-sharing. For
more information on the new SRA, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on
Agriculture, “Federal Crop Insurance: Standard Reinsurance Agreement,” at
[ http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebagr83.html] .
Farm Service Agency
While the Commodity Credit Corporation serves as the funding mechanism for
the farm income support and disaster assistance programs, the administration of these
and other farmer programs is charged to USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). In
addition to the commodity support programs and most of the emergency assistance
provided in recent supplemental spending bills, FSA also administers USDA’s direct
and guaranteed farm loan programs, certain conservation programs and domestic and
international food assistance and international export credit programs.
FSA Salaries and Expenses. This account funds the expenses for program
administration and other functions assigned to the FSA. These funds consist of
appropriations and transfers from CCC export credit guarantees, from P.L. 480 loans,
and from the various direct and guaranteed farm loan programs. All administrative
funds used by FSA are consolidated into one account. The FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818) provides $1.305 billion for all FSA
salaries and expenses. (This includes $1.007 billion appropriated directly to FSA and
another $298 million transferred to FSA primarily to administer its farm loan
programs.) The appropriated amount is higher than the FY2004 appropriation of
$1.266 billion, about equal to the Senate-reported level (S. 2803), but below the
$1.352 billion in the House-passed bill (H.R. 4766) and the Administration request
for $1.317 billion. The House-passed bill was higher because an adopted House floor
amendment transferred nearly $53 million to FSA salaries and expenses from

USDA’s Common Computing Environment account, which was not agreed to in the
final appropriations law.
Several years ago, FSA funding levels were bolstered by carryover funding from
supplemental acts that allowed FSA to increase staffing to administer farm bill
commodity support programs. The Administration notes that these carryover funds
are now dwindling and need to be compensated for with an increase in regular
appropriations to maintain county office staff levels. Report language accompanying
the FY2004 House appropriations bill instructed USDA not to shut down or
consolidate any local FSA offices unless rigorous analysis proves such action to be
cost-effective. The FY2005 House committee report (H.Rept. 108-584) reinforces
this policy.
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 farm loans are used to finance the purchase of farm real estate, help
producers meet their operating expenses, and help farmers financially recover from
natural disasters. Some of the 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 caused by farmer non-repayment of the loans. The amount
of loans that can be made, the loan authority, is several times larger.
P.L. 108-447 provides an appropriation of $157.8 million to subsidize the cost
of making $3.747 billion in direct and guaranteed FSA loans. An additional $301.8
million is appropriated for salaries and administrative expenses to carry out the loan
program, most of which is included by transfer in the total FSA salaries and
expenses.
The enacted FY2004 loan subsidy was $195.5 million to support FSA loans
totaling $3.246 billion. Thus, P.L. 108-447 provides a loan subsidy that is 19%
below the FY2004 level, but loan authority is increased in FY2005 by 15%. The
ability to increase loan authority while decreasing the appropriation is possible due
to two factors: USDA adjustments in historical loan costs and loan repayment ratios,
and relatively bigger increases in the lower-cost unsubsidized guaranteed loan
programs. The Administration had requested an FY2005 loan subsidy of $161
million to cover $3.8 billion in loans.
P.L. 108-447 follows both the House and Senate bills in not funding the
Administration’s request for $3.2 million to cover $25 million in emergency loan
authority. In recent years, the emergency loan program has operated from carryover
funds, but USDA expected to consume the remaining carryover in FY2004. Also,
P.L. 108-447 maintains boll weevil eradication loan authority at its FY2004 level

($100 million, up $40 million from the Administration request, with no additional
loan subsidy), and adds language that pink bollworm qualify for the boll weevil
eradication loan program.
Most of the $500 million increase in overall loan authority in the final law is a
50% increase in farm ownership loans. The authority for direct farm ownership loans
increases by 63% (to $210 million in FY2005) and the authority for guaranteed farm
ownership loans increases by 48% (to $1.4 billion). Guaranteed loans with no
interest subsidy require a smaller appropriation than interest-subsidized or direct
loans. Thus, with the loan repayment ratio adjustments mentioned above, the $456
million increase in guaranteed farm ownership loans costs only $2.3 million in
additional loan subsidy.
Nearly all of the $37.7 million decrease in loan subsidy in P.L. 108-447 is in the
direct lending programs (farm ownership and operating loans). Because of the
performance ratio adjustments, the loan subsidy for direct farm ownership loans
decreases by 60% ($17 million) despite the 63% increase in loan authorization. The
loan subsidy for direct operating loans decreases by 25% ($23 million) despite a
more modest 6% increase in loan authorization.
P.L. 108-447 effectively transfers funds from the unsubsidized guaranteed
operating loan program to the subsidized guaranteed operating loan program.
Although both types of operating loans are guaranteed, buying down the interest rate
costs USDA more. Loan authority for the unsubsidized program decreases by $93
million while authority for the subsidized interest program increases by $20 million.
In recent years, the subsidized guaranteed operating loan program has been the most
oversubscribed program among the FSA loans.
For more information about agricultural credit in general, see CRS Report
RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
Conservation
Agricultural conservation spending includes both discretionary and mandatory
programs, which are administered for the most part by USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service. (The major exception is the Conservation Reserve Program,
administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency). Discretionary conservation
spending has totaled over $1 billion annually in recent years. Mandatory
conservation spending, funded by the Commodity Credit Corporation, is estimated
to total over $3 billion in FY2004. This section does not discuss USDA Forest
Service spending. For information on Forest Service funding, please see CRS Report
RL32306, Appropriations for FY2005: Interior and Related Agencies.
Discretionary NRCS Programs. Discretionary programs are those which
are funded through annual appropriations bills. The FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818) provides $999.9 million in NRCS

discretionary funding (as compared to the FY2004 level of $1.027 billion.)
Appropriations for major conservation programs are discussed below.
^!Conservation Operations (CO). This account funds assistance to
the public and local governments for conservation. P.L. 108-447
provides $837 million, about $10 million less than the FY2004
enacted level and less than either the House-passed (H.R. 4766)
level of $854 million or the Senate-reported (S. 2803) level of $846
million. The conference report to P.L. 108-447 states that member-
requested projects funded in FY2004 are not continued in FY2005,
unless the final measure specifically mentions those projects.
^!Technical Assistance. P.L. 108-447 rejects the Administration’s
request for a new FY2005 discretionary account that would fund
technical assistance (TA) for two mandatory programs — the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP). TA funding for mandatory conservation programs,
which is derived from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),
was capped in the 1996 farm bill. Costs have since exceeded the
cap. To cover the CRP and WRP TA costs that exceed the cap,
USDA is borrowing funds from other so-called “donor” programs,
upsetting constituents of those programs. P.L. 108-447 includes
identical language in each discretionary account prohibiting use of
funds in that account for any mandatory farm bill conservation
program TA (including CRP and WRP). Although the House
adopted a floor amendment to H.R. 4766 that would have fixed the
problem, the amendment was dropped in conference. On December
7, 2004, Congress completed action on S. 2856, which limits the
transfer of funds between conservation programs for TA and
requires each program to pay for its own TA. If the President signs
the measure, it will restrict CCC funding for TA to the specific
program for which that funding was made available, effectively
prohibiting borrowing TA funding from “donor” programs. The bill
would also lift the 1996 TA funding cap, so all CRP and WRP TA
would come from the CCC rather than other conservation programs.
CRP is expected to have high TA costs when 22 million CRP acres
expire beginning in 2007. For a discussion on technical assistance
funding, see CRS Issue Brief IB96030, Soil and Water Conservation
Issues.
^!Other Accounts. P.L. 108-447 provides $75.6 million for watershed
and flood prevention operations, compared with the FY2004 enacted
level of $86.5 million. It also provides $27.5 million for the
watershed rehabilitation account (the FY2004 enacted level was
$29.6 million.) For the watershed surveys and planning account,
H.R. 4818 provides $7 million (the FY2004 enacted level was $10.5

million.) For the resource conservation and development account,
H.R. 4818 provides $51.6 million, the same as the FY2004 enacted
level.
Selected Mandatory Conservation Programs. In theory, mandatory
conservation programs are not governed by the annual appropriations process
because their funding is mandated by other laws. (For example, the 2002 farm bill
(P.L. 107-171) authorizes funding from 2002 through 2007 for mandatory
conservation programs.) In practice, appropriators often place limits on mandatory
spending in annual appropriations bills. Reductions in mandatory spending are
scored as savings, which may be used to offset other spending.
Compared with the FY2005 authorized funding levels, cuts to mandatory
conservation programs totaled $545 million in P.L. 108-447. The table below lists
some mandatory conservation programs limited by conferees. These include the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which provides cost-sharing to
install structural and land management practices; the Conservation Security Program
(CSP), which pays farmers to conserve natural resources over part or all of a farm;
the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), which provides financial assistance
to develop wildlife habitats; the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), which is funded
in terms of enrolled acres rather than by dollars, and assists producers to protect
wetlands; the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), which assists with purchasing
conservation easements for agricultural land; the Ground and Surface Water
Conservation Program (GSWC), which helps fund irrigation efficiencies, particularly
in the Great Plains states; and the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, which
provides financial assistance to rehabilitate aging small dams originally built by
NRCS.
P.L. 108-447 did not address some mandatory programs. Hence, these programs
are considered fully funded at their authorized levels. These include the $2 billion
Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to retire land from production;
the Klamath Basin program, a subprogram of EQIP that funds water conservation in
western states; the Grasslands Reserve Program, which assists landowners to restore
grasslands while maintaining the land’s suitability for grazing; and the Agricultural
Management Assistance program, which provides assistance to certain states for
various conservation activities. P.L. 108-447 also contains general provisions
making funding available through NRCS’s Emergency Watershed Protection
Program for damage from fires initiated by the federal government.
For more information on USDA conservation programs, see CRS Issue Brief
IB96030, Soil and Water Conservation Issues.

FY2004FY2005Senate:House:Final Law:
Enacted Aut hor i ze d F Y 2005 F Y 2005 F Y 2005
Appropri-Funding AllowedAllowedAllowed
Programations:in the 2002FundingFundingFunding
AllowedFarm BillLevel LevelLevel
Funding(P.L. 107-(S. 2803)(H.R.(P.L. 108-447,
Level171)4766) H.R. 4818 )
EQIP$975$1.2 billion$1.025$1.01$1.017 billion
million billion billion
CSP$41.4No statedNo stated$194$202.4 million²
million limit limit million
WHIP$42$85 million$47$ 60$47 million
million million million
WRP189,177200,000154,500175,000154,500 acres³
acres acres acres acres
FPP$112$125$112$112$112 million
million million million million
GSWC$51$60 million$51$60 million$51 million
millionmillion
Smal l $0 $150⁴ $0 $0 $0
Watershed million
Rehab.
Program
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid
For USDA’s international activities that require an appropriation (discretionary
programs), the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818)
provides $1.533 billion, $29.8 million more than enacted in FY2004. Much of the
increase is accounted for by an increased appropriation for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education Program (see below). The final total for USDA’s

² CSP was authorized without any funding limit in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, §2001).
However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated an unlimited FY2005 CSP
program would cost $282 million (CBO March 2004 baseline).
³ CBO estimates this limit will save $69 million.
⁴ The 2002 farm bill allows any unexpended funds for the small watershed rehabilitation
program to be carried forward to subsequent years. Although the FY2005 authorized level
for the program is $55 million, $150 million would have been available in FY2005, since
appropriators prohibited the spending of the authorized FY2003 ($45 million) and FY2004
($50 million) funds. Appropriators scored the full $150 million as savings in the FY2005
appropriations act.
^T^h^e^fⁱⁿ^a^l^v^e^r^sⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^C^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t⁽^P^.^L^.^{108-447, H.R}^.⁴⁸¹⁸⁾
^con^t^aiⁿ^s^{a 0.8% r}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{of al}^l^di^s^c^r^e^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^r^y^accouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e m}^e^as^u^r^{e. F}^Y^{2005 appr}^oprⁱ^a^t^e^d
^levels^{cited in this}^r^e^por^{t do not r}^e^fl^{ect the effects}^{of this}^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on.

international activities is $12.3 million more than requested by the President. In
addition to such discretionary programs as P.L. 480 foreign food aid, USDA’s
international activities also include mandatory programs (e.g., export market
promotion), with the latter funded through the borrowing authority of the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC). The Administration has estimated that the combined total
of discretionary and mandatory programs for FY2005 would be $6.6 billion, up $183
million from the FY2004 Administration estimate.
Discretionary Programs. Discretionary international programs include
commodity sales and humanitarian donations under P.L. 480 (or Food for Peace) and
the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program (FFE), authorized in
the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171). Historically, P.L. 480 has been the main vehicle
for providing U.S. agricultural commodities as food aid overseas. FFE makes
available commodity donations and associated financial and technical assistance to
carry out school and child nutrition programs in developing countries.
For P.L. 480, the final appropriations act contains an FY2005 appropriation of
$1.303 billion, almost $15 million less than enacted in FY2004 and just over $5
million more than requested by the President. The lower FY2005 appropriation for
P.L. 480 is explained almost entirely by a reduction in P.L. 480 Title I loan subsidies
and ocean freight differential grants. (Title I provides direct loans to low-income or
transitional countries for the purchase of U.S. farm commodities). The total
appropriation to P.L. 480 includes $1.182 billion, or $2.5 million less than enacted
in FY2004, for humanitarian commodity donations under P.L. 480 Title II. In report
language, the conference committee makes clear that it expects “the Administration
to abide by the statutory set-aside for non-emergency food aid programs.” The 2002
farm bill (P.L. 107-171) increased this statutory set-aside, the volume of P.L. 480
Title II commodities earmarked for non-emergency assistance, to 1,875,000 metric
tons. The committee reminds USDA that if additional emergency assistance above
the appropriated level is needed, the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Emerson Trust (see
below) is available for that purpose.
For the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and child nutrition
program (FFE), P.L. 108-447 provides $87.5 million, $37.8 million more than
enacted in FY2004. Both the House-passed (H.R. 4766) and Senate-reported (S.
2803) appropriations measures had recommended substantially increased funding for
FFE: H.R. 4766 by $25 million and S. 2803 by $50 million. The increased funding
level for FFE is partially offset by reductions in the Title I loan account. Conferees
also rescinded $191.1 million in P.L. 480 funds carried forward to FY2005 from
previous years, which appropriators scored as savings in the measure.
USDA’s other major discretionary account is the Foreign Agricultural Service
(FAS), for which the conferees appropriated $137.8 million, $6.4 million more than
enacted in FY2004. FAS administers all of USDA’s international activities with the
exception of P.L. 480 Title II, which is administered by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID). P.L. 108-447 provides $4 million to cover

expenses for administering CCC export credit guarantees (which are mandatory
activities). The President’s budget and House and Senate appropriations reports
estimate that in FY2005, these administrative costs will support programs that
finance $4.5 billion of U.S. agricultural exports.
In a general provision, P.L. 108-447 appropriates $2.5 million for Bill Emerson
and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships. These fellowships, which finance training
for hunger-related activities both domestically (Emerson) and abroad (Leland), are
provided through the Congressional Hunger Center.
Mandatory Programs. Other food aid programs are mandatory (for which
an annual appropriation is not required), including Food for Progress (FFP), the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and Section 416(b) commodity donations. The
President’s budget envisions $149 million of CCC funding for FFP. That program
level (plus some funding from P.L. 480 Title I) is expected to provide the minimum
400,000 tons of commodities in FFP established in the 2002 farm bill. No
commodities were released from the Emerson Trust in FY2004, but in FY2003, $212
million of commodities and related services were provided through the Trust, which
is primarily a commodity reserve, used to meet unanticipated food aid needs or to
meet food aid commitments if domestic supplies are unavailable. The President’s
budget makes no estimate of releases from the Trust in FY2005, but notes that
500,000 tons are available for emergency food assistance. About 1.6 million metric
tons of wheat and $109 million in cash are currently in the Trust. For Section 416(b)
commodity donations, the President’s budget projects a program level of $147
million ($15 million for ocean freight and overseas distribution costs and $132
million in commodity value). P.L. 108-447 contains a general provision stipulating
that, to the extent practicable, $25 million of Section 416(b) commodities be made
available to foreign countries to assist in mitigating the effects of HIV/AIDS. The
House bill (and the President’s budget request) had omitted this provision, which had
been included in the FY2004 and previous appropriations measures. USDA indicates
that only nonfat dry milk will be available for distribution under Section 416 in
FY2005.
A number of USDA’s export-related programs (including CCC export credit
guarantees, mentioned above) are also mandatory and thus do not require an
appropriation. Under the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) and the Dairy Export
Incentive Program (DEIP), USDA makes cash bonus payments to exporters of U.S.
agricultural commodities to enable them to be price competitive when U.S. prices are
above world market prices. EEP has been little used in recent years, and no EEP
bonuses were provided in FY2004. Reflecting this program experience, the
President’s budget assumes a program level of $28 million in FY2005, compared
with $478 million authorized by the 2002 farm bill. Consequently, USDA retains
some flexibility to increase the level of EEP subsidies because of the mandatory
authorization. For DEIP, the Administration expects a program level of $53 million
for FY2005, compared with a current estimate of $22 million for FY2004. For
export market development, the budget proposes $125 million for the Market Access

Program (MAP) and $34 million for the Foreign Market Development Program.
Both of these estimates are identical to amounts proposed in the FY2004 budget for
USDA. The MAP request, however, is $15 million less than authorized in the 2002
farm bill. Previous efforts to reduce MAP spending have proved unsuccessful, but
neither the final FY2005 appropriations act nor reports accompanying H.R. 4766 and
S. 2803 address this issue. A Chabot amendment to H.R. 4766 that would have
prohibited any MAP spending in FY2005, but was defeated by a vote of 72-347 on
the House floor.
For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB98006, Agricultural Export and
Food Aid Programs.
Cuba Travel Amendment. P.L. 108-447 did not adopt language included in
the Senate-passed version of the FY2005 agriculture appropriations bill that would
have relaxed the licensing requirement for U.S. exporters seeking to travel to Cuba
to explore opportunities and finalize sales of agricultural and medical products.
Amendment supporters argued that the Administration has used the rules to delay or
refuse to issue travel licenses to those seeking to make farm product sales to Cuba.
Just before conferees completed work, Administration officials signaled that
including in the bill any provision to weaken existing sanctions against Cuba (such
as restrictions on commercial exports of agricultural and medical goods) would result
in a presidential veto. Identical language was included in the Senate-reported version
of the FY2004 agriculture appropriations bill, which was also deleted in conference.
For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10061, Exempting Food and
Agriculture Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions: Status and Implementation.
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 performs research in support of USDA’s action and regulatory
agencies, and 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) is the agency through which USDA sends federal
funds to land grant Colleges of Agriculture 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, has remained flat for almost 30 years (supplemental funds appropriated
since September 11, 2001, specifically have supported anti-terrorism activities, not
basic programs). Furthermore, current financial difficulties at the state level are
causing some states to reduce the amounts they appropriate to match the USDA
formula funds (block grants) for research, extension, and education (100% matching
is required, but most states have regularly appropriated two to three times that

amount). A combination of cuts at the state and federal levels can result in program
cuts felt as far down as 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 FY2001 through FY2005, annual agriculture appropriations acts
have prohibited the use of those mandatory funds for the purposes the Agriculture
Committees intended; however, from FY1999 through FY2002, and in FY2004 and
FY2005, final agriculture appropriations acts have allocated more funding for
ongoing REE programs than were contained in either the House- or Senate-reported
versions of the bills. Nonetheless, once adjusted for inflation, these increases do not
translate into significant growth in spending for agricultural research. Agricultural
scientists, stakeholders, and partners express concern for funding over the long term
in light of high budget deficit levels and lower tax revenues.
Agricultural Research Service. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations
Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818) provides $1.299 billion in total for ARS activities (up
$153 million from FY2004). This amount is $40 million higher than the House-
passed bill, $36 million higher than S. 2803, and $133 million higher than the
Administration’s request.
Within the total, the conferees compromised on the House and Senate
differences concerning the split between research funding and laboratory construction
funding. They allocated $187.8 million for construction, an amount $14 million
below the House-passed bill (H.R. 4766) and $15 million more than the Senate-
reported measure (S. 2803). This leaves $1.1 billion available for research projects,
which is $53.9 million more than the House provision and $20.6 million more than
in the Senate bill.
P.L. 108-447 reflects the Senate provision on ARS construction funding: $122
million goes toward completing the modernization of the National Centers for
Animal Health in Ames, Iowa (originally expected in October 2007). Another $65.8
million is distributed among 22 additional locations. As requested by the
Administration, the House bill would have directed all of its requested allocation for
ARS facility construction ($178 million) to go to the Ames project. Improvement of
the facility is part of the Administration’s multi-agency Food and Agriculture
Defense Initiative, which is intended to prepare these sectors against, and provide
quick response in the event of, a terrorist attack on production agriculture or the food
distribution system. ARS operates the lab jointly with the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, whose National Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab is located at the
site. Language in the conference report urges ARS to develop a prioritized master
plan for all of its aging infrastructure to help appropriators allocate funds; until such
a plan exists, appropriators will demand to see an annual prospectus for each request.

The conference report accompanying P.L. 108-447 mandates the continuation
of individual earmarked ARS research projects that Members have added to annual
appropriations acts in past years. The Administration maintains in its annual budget
request that a number of these should be terminated and the savings redirected to the
Administration’s high priority research initiatives, but Congress in general does not
honor these proposals.
In separate report language under the heading of the Office of the Secretary, the
conferees take USDA to task for failing to address longstanding problems with the
U.S. National Arboretum, which was put under ARS’s jurisdiction in the 1994
USDA reorganization. The conferees require the Secretary to report, within one
month of passage of the appropriations bill, on the budgeting for research, security,
and public access (among other things), and on the status of discussions with the
Arboretum’s nonprofit association concerning fundraising initiatives.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
P.L. 108-447 provides $1.171 billion in total for CSREES. This represents a $30
million increase over the House-passed bill, a $36 million increase over S. 2803, a
$58 million increase from FY2004, and a $165.6 million increase over the
Administration’s FY2005 budget request.
Of the total provided for CSREES in P.L. 108-447, $660.8 million supports
state agricultural research and academic programs. This represents about a $32
million increase over both the House and the Senate measures, and a $43 million
increase from FY2004. (This includes the formula-allocated payments to each state
and U.S. insular areas, as well as competitive and special grant programs, and
education grant programs.) Spending levels for some specific items within the
research and academic program area are as follows (numbers within parentheses are
FY2004 levels): $180.1 million for Hatch Act formula funds (same as FY2004);
$22.4 million for cooperative forestry research ($21.8 million); $37 million for
payments to 1890 (historically black) land grant colleges of agriculture ($36 million);
$181 million for the NRI competitive grant program ($165 million); and $136.6
million for special (earmarked) research grants ($111.3 million).
The conferees allocated $449.2 million in total to support state extension
education programs. This amount is $10 million more than FY2004, and $9 million
and $6 million above the House and Senate measures, respectively. Spending levels
for specific items within this program area are as follows (figures within parentheses
are FY2004 levels): $277.7 million for Smith-Lever formula funds ($279.4 million);
$87.4 million for competitively awarded extension grants (Smith-Lever 3(d)
programs), of which $58.9 million is for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
Program ($83.4 million in FY2004; $52.4 million for EFNEP); $33.1 million for
extension programs at the 1890 colleges (same as FY2004); $17 million for 1890
facilities grants ($15 million); and $22 million for earmarked extension grants ($22.3
million).

P.L. 108-447 provides $55.1 million for integrated activities (which have both
research and extension components). This is $5 million more than FY2004, but $11
million less than the House bill and $2.1 million less than the Senate provision. The
outreach program for disadvantaged farmers is to receive level funding ($5.9
million).
P.L. 108-447 makes available $3 million in interest income from the Native
American Endowment Fund to distribute to the 34 tribally controlled colleges in
FY2005, to support the development of their agricultural curricula. The report
contains $3.4 million for extension programs at tribal schools ($2.9 million in
FY2004), and $1.1 million for research ($1.7 million in FY2004).
CSREES administers two competitive grant programs that are authorized to be
funded by mandatory transfers of unobligated government funds. The largest of these
programs is the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS), which
is authorized to receive $160 million in FY2005. However, as in recent years,
appropriators have prohibited CSREES from operating the IFAFS program. For
FY2005, as in FY2004, report language instead allows the Secretary to award up to
20% of the appropriation for the National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive
grants program using IFAFS program criteria (approximately $35 million in FY2005;
$30 million in FY2004).⁵
The second CSREES grant program authorized to use mandatory funds supports
research and extension programs on organic agriculture. The 2002 farm bill (P.L.
107-171) authorizes $3 million annually through FY2007 for this program. The
conference report contains no language blocking the expenditure of those funds.
Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS). P.L. 108-447 contains $74.8 million for ERS in
FY2005. This is a $3.8 million increase over FY2004, but a slight decrease from
both the House and Senate bills ($76.6 million and $75.3 million, respectively).
Report language designates $3.5 million of the increase to support the
Administration’s request for developing a Consumer Data and Information System,
but specifically blocks House report language to fund a feasibility study of retail
stores that stock and sell food only to participants in the Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) feeding program.
P.L. 108-447 contains $129.5 million for NASS. This is a $1.3 million increase
over FY2004 and less than $1 million different from the House and Senate measures.
The conferees direct NASS to spend up to $22.4 million for ongoing work on the
most recent Census of Agriculture, as requested by the Administration, and also
provide a $2.7 million increase for continued modernization of the NASS agricultural

⁵ The goal of both programs is to support fundamental research on subjects of national,
regional, or multistate importance to agriculture, natural resources, human nutrition, and
food safety, among other things.
^T^h^e^fⁱⁿ^a^l^v^e^r^sⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^C^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t⁽^P^.^L^.^{108-447, H.R}^.⁴⁸¹⁸⁾
^con^t^aiⁿ^s^{a 0.8% r}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{of al}^l^di^s^c^r^e^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^r^y^accouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e m}^e^as^u^r^{e. F}^Y^{2005 appr}^oprⁱ^a^t^e^d
^levels^{cited in this}^r^e^por^{t do not r}^e^fl^{ect the effects}^{of this}^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on.

estimates program, which surveys farm operators to develop estimates of various
agricultural statistics.
Food Safety
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducts mandatory
inspection of meat, poultry, and processed egg products to insure their safety and
proper labeling. The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R.
4818) sets a level of $823.8 million for FSIS in FY2005, close to the Senate-reported
(S. 2803) level and a $43.9 million increase from the FY2004 enacted level. The
House-passed bill (H.R. 4766) recommended $824.7 million. The Administration
requested an FY2005 appropriation of $838.7 million for FSIS.
Congress did not accept an Administration proposal to impose new inspection
user fees of $124 million (which would require legislation to be implemented). The
proposed fees would have been collected from meat and poultry processors for
inspection services provided beyond one 8-hour shift per day. FSIS has been
authorized since 1919 to charge user fees for holiday and overtime inspections.
Income from existing user fees (plus trust funds) adds approximately $111 million
to the FSIS program level annually. The Administration has included the expanded
user fee proposal in the past two years’ budget requests, and previous administrations
have proposed that greater parts of and/or the entire inspection program be funded
through user fees. Congress has not agreed with these proposals, responding that
assuring the safety of the food supply is an appropriate function of the federal
government.
P.L. 108-447 includes language, generally as proposed by the Senate, which
directs that no less than 63 full-time equivalent positions (above the FY2002 level)
be devoted to enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and that $3
million (rather than the $4 million in the Senate bill) be provided to incorporate the
agency’s Humane Animal Tracking system into its field computer systems. Also in
P.L. 108-447, and also part of the overall total, are $17.3 million for frontline
inspectors and humane slaughter enforcement; $20.7 million for regulatory and
scientific training; $3 million for overseeing BSE-related FSIS rules; $7.2 million for
inspector training; and increases for food defense activities, including $2.1 million
for biosurveillance, $2 million for the Food Emergency Response Network, and $1.5
million for the network’s data systems support. Conferees also included $2.7 million
for Codex Alimentarius activities.
Conference report language commends FSIS for beginning to include, in its
meat and poultry recall notices, photographs of recalled products and website
addresses of their manufacturers. Conferees urge the agency to continue this practice
and also to ask manufacturers to voluntarily provide information on retail locations
of recalled products, for inclusion in the releases. For background on FSIS, see CRS
Issue Brief IB10082, Meat and Poultry Inspection Issues.

Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The largest
appropriation for USDA marketing and regulatory programs goes to the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service. APHIS is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture
from foreign pests and diseases, responding to domestic animal and plant health
problems, and facilitating agricultural trade through science-based standards.
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4766)
provides a total APHIS appropriation of $819.6 million, up $98.3 million (14%) from
FY2004, but is $13.8 million below the Administration’s request. The Senate-
reported agriculture appropriations bill (S. 2803) did not increase the appropriation
as much as the Administration requested, while the House-passed agriculture
appropriations bill (H.R. 4766) provided more than the Administration requested.
The final level includes significant new funding for avian flu and BSE activities, as
discussed in separate sections below. Nearly all of these amounts and increases are
for salaries and expenses; funding for buildings and facilities continues at the $5
million (FY2004) level.
P.L. 108-447 does not include the Administration’s legislative proposal to apply
$10.9 million of user fees for animal welfare inspection directly to APHIS accounts
(rather than to Treasury). The Administration requested similar legislation for
FY2004 and FY2003, but the House and Senate did not act on the request.
For pest and disease exclusion, P.L. 108-447 provides $152.3 million, nearly
level from FY2004 and $21 million below the Administration’s request. For plant
and animal health monitoring, the final law provides $196.6 million, up 42% over
FY2004 but $27 million below the Administration’s request. For scientific and
technical services, conferees provided $80.6 million, up 15% from FY2004 and
nearly at the Administration’s request. The animal care function is funded at the
requested $17.1 million, an increase of 2% over FY2004.
Pest and Disease Management. Another APHIS program area, pest and
disease management, receives the largest appropriation and significant congressional
attention. P.L. 108-447 provides $363.9 million, an increase of 10% ($33 million)
over FY2004. The Administration had requested a 5% reduction to $315 million.
For avian influenza, conferees followed the House-passed bill (which nearly
doubles amounts in the Administration’s request and in the Senate-reported bill) and
provides $23 million, up from $1 million in FY2004 (see section below). For boll
weevil, the Administration had requested a 66% cut, but the conference committee
cut the amount by only 6%, to $47.5 million. For Johne’s disease, the Administration
requested an 83% cut, but the conference committee maintained the level at $18.7
million. Brucellosis and noxious weeds receive small increases rather than the
requested cuts. Chronic wasting disease (CWD), scrapie, and tuberculosis receive
smaller increases than requested.

For emerging plant pests (EPP) within the pest and disease management
function, P.L. 108-447 provides $101.6 million, up 9% from FY2004. The EPP
account is used to address relatively new outbreaks. Conferees increased funding
over FY2004 levels for citrus canker, Pierce’s disease, emerald ash borer, and sudden
oak death. Funding for Asian longhorned beetle is maintained at nearly constant
levels, instead of the Administration’s proposed 69% cut. (For citrus canker, P.L.
108-447 also directs the Secretary to transfer $30 million from the Commodity Credit
Corporation for grower compensation programs. This amount is in addition to the
APHIS appropriation through EPP.)
The final law reiterates language in the House-passed and Senate-reported bills
that the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to transfer funds from the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to combat plant and animal health
emergencies. The conference report also cites the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for denying a CCC transfer for Pierce’s disease, which the committee states
was an intrusion on the Secretary’s discretion. For more background, see CRS
Report RL32504, Funding Plant and Animal Health Emergencies: Transfers from
the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Homeland Security Funding. Overall, USDA requested $511 million for
its homeland security activities in FY2005, up 166% from FY2004. Within that
amount, USDA has highlighted several programs for its newly termed “Food and
Agriculture Defense Initiative” ($381 million of the $511 million, shared among four
agencies). APHIS requested $94.4 million under the initiative for FY2005, an
increase of $49.3 million, to improve surveillance, laboratory capacity, networking,
state cooperative agreements, and vaccine banks. For more information about recent
agroterrorism appropriations, see CRS Report RL32521, Agroterrorism: Threats and
Preparedness.
Only certain agroterrorism-related items are specifically mentioned in the
Senate, House, and conference reports. P.L. 108-447 provides $2.0 million for the
Administration’s new bio-surveillance program ($5 million requested). Vaccine
banks are funded at $3 million ($6 million requested). Funding for emergency
coordinators rises to 4.0 million ($4.6 million requested). State cooperative
agreements increase by $3.6 million, select agents by $2.5 million, the national
animal laboratory network by $2.9 million. Requested funding of $7.1 million for
physical security enhancements throughout APHIS was not included in the final law.
The conferees expressed concern over agricultural border inspections and
research at Plum Island following the transfer of these activities in 2003 from USDA
to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The conference committee requests
a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) by March 1, 2005, on
coordination between USDA and DHS to protect U.S. agriculture.
Avian Flu Activities. APHIS is the lead USDA agency responsible for
controlling avian influenza. P.L. 108-447 provides $23 million for avian flu

activities, $10.2 million more than the Administration’s request of $12.7 million, and
well above the $1 million appropriation for FY2004. In February 2004, cases of low
pathogenic avian flu were discovered in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey, and a highly pathogenic case was found in Texas. These outbreaks, now
contained and eradicated, have garnered high visibility since an unrelated and highly
pathogenic strain of avian flu began spreading throughout Asia in late 2003. In
FY2004, the APHIS avian flu program focuses primarily on controlling the spread
of low pathogenic avian flu in live bird markets. In May 2004, USDA released $13.7
million of Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds to begin a larger national
avian flu program ($10.8 million) and assist Texas with its highly pathogenic
outbreak ($2.9 million), effectively accelerating action on the Administration’s
request.
The expanded funding for FY2005 enables APHIS to establish new elements
in its low pathogenic avian influenza program. About half of the funding would be
used for indemnities to farmers when the government destroys flocks to control the
disease. Other program initiatives include cooperative agreements with states,
increased monitoring, a bird identification system, laboratory support, and vaccine
development.
For more information on avian flu, see CRS Report RS21747, Avian Influenza:
Multiple Strains Cause Different Effects Worldwide.
BSE (Mad Cow Disease) Activities. APHIS is the lead USDA agency in
conducting surveillance for and addressing bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE, or mad cow disease). The Administration’s original budget proposal called
for APHIS to receive $50 million out of a total request for $60 million for BSE-
related activities in FY2005, a response to the discovery of the first case of BSE in
the United States in December 2003. The new request compares with BSE spending
by USDA of about $24 million in FY2004 and $13 million in FY2003. Of the $60
million total, $33 million was to go to APHIS to accelerate development of a national
system to identify and trace animals from birth to slaughter, considered by many to
be an important tool for more quickly locating and containing BSE or other animal
disease outbreaks. Also part of the $60 million was a $17 million request for
collecting samples from 40,000 cattle on farms and at rendering plants in order to test
them for BSE.
Both the House committee and conference reports note that the Administration
already has transferred $69.9 million (in March 2004) from the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) to fund an expanded BSE surveillance program under which it
intends to test approximately 268,000 animals within a 12 to 18 month period
starting June 1, 2004. The CCC-transferred amount will cover all BSE testing during
that timeframe, the reports state.
The House and conference committee reports note, among other things, that the
appropriation provides the full remaining amount of increase requested for APHIS

BSE activities, which it states is $8.6 million over the FY2004 level; the Senate-
reported version included this same increase. Other BSE-related funding in the
House, Senate, and final versions includes the $33.2 million requested for
development of the national animal ID system (as the conferees noted, USDA
transferred $18.8 million from the CCC in April 2004 to get the ID program
underway). P.L. 108-447 provides not less than $2 million to fund a livestock ID
cooperative agreement with Wisconsin, and $600,000 for the Farm Animal ID and
Records (FAIR) program, in addition to other ID funds for which they might qualify.
The House committee report requests that the Secretary of Agriculture provide
quarterly reports on its BSE surveillance program, implementation of national animal
ID, and each component of its BSE response plan. The House committee expresses
concern that USDA “improperly allowed the importation of millions of pounds of
ground and processed beef from Canada [which reported its own BSE case in May

2003] for many months....”

The House committee report directs USDA’s Office of Inspector General to
provide reports on its investigation into a controversy over how the U.S. BSE cow
from Washington state was chosen for BSE testing in the first place, and on its
separate investigation into USDA’s later failure to perform such a test on a
suspicious Texas cow. Elsewhere in its report, the House committee expresses
concern that the Food and Drug Administration had not yet published its own rules
to tighten BSE safeguards, five months after they were first announced. The
committee also asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to report on its
investigation into whether news of the December 2003 U.S. BSE announcement was
leaked in advance to certain commodity traders.
During House floor consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill,
Representative Tiahrt unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would have
prohibited the use of USDA travel funds until the Department implements a program
to permit beef slaughtering establishments to test carcasses for BSE. The
amendment, which was rejected on a procedural point of order, relates to an effort
by several smaller firms (notably Creekstone Farms Premium Beef) aiming to meet
primarily Japanese market demands for 100% testing. USDA, which claims approval
authority under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act,⁶ has denied the Creekstone request, on
the grounds that such testing is not scientifically based and misleadingly would imply
that tested meat is safer than untested meat.
On the Senate side, the committee report expresses concern over USDA’s BSE
testing program, urging the Department to adopt recommendations by the Inspector
General and by outside experts that it include the testing of a “statistically significant
sample” of over 30-month-old cattle, which may have eaten materials at higher risk

⁶ The text of the act is available on the website of APHIS’s Center for Veterinary Biologics,
at [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/cvb/vsta.htm]. See also CRS Report RL32414, The
Private Testing of Mad Cow Disease: Legal Issues.
^T^h^e^fⁱⁿ^a^l^v^e^r^sⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^C^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t⁽^P^.^L^.^{108-447, H.R}^.⁴⁸¹⁸⁾
^con^t^aiⁿ^s^{a 0.8% r}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{of al}^l^di^s^c^r^e^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^r^y^accouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e m}^e^as^u^r^{e. F}^Y^{2005 appr}^oprⁱ^a^t^e^d
^levels^{cited in this}^r^e^por^{t do not r}^e^fl^{ect the effects}^{of this}^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on.

for transmitting BSE-related disease prior to a ban on such feed types in 1997.
“Testing older cattle helps calculate BSE prevalence directly from the science-based
surveillance data rather than rely on complex and potentially faulty mathematical
calculations,” the Senate report states.
Other agencies receiving BSE-related funding in the bill include FSIS ($3
million) and the Food and Drug Administration (nearly $30 million). (See CRS
Issue Brief IB10127, Mad Cow Disease: Agricultural Issues for Congress.)
Agricultural Marketing Service. AMS is responsible for promoting the
marketing and distribution of U.S. agricultural products in domestic and international
markets. P.L. 108-447 provides $95.3 million in FY2005 budget authority for AMS
compared with $93 million in the House-passed bill, $97.8 million in the Senate-
reported version, and the Administration’s FY2005 proposal of $103.1 million. The
enacted FY2004 level was $93.7 million.
Within the above total, conferees provide $3.8 million for payments for state
marketing activities, compared with an Administration request of $1.3 million. The
$2.5 million difference is for a Senate-proposed specialty markets grant to the
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture.
The Administration requested a $10 million increase in appropriated funds for
improved information technology systems to be used in USDA commodity
purchasing, which it conducts to stabilize agricultural markets and to meet the
commodity needs of domestic food programs; the conferees direct the Secretary to
take no less than $10 million from the Section 32 account (see below) to cover the
program’s cost.
The overall AMS budget authority level includes annual appropriations for
marketing services and for payments to states and territories. Nearly $16 million of
the AMS appropriation represents funds transferred from the permanent Section 32
account. Further, AMS uses additional Section 32 monies (not reflected in the above
totals) to pay for government purchases of surplus farm commodities that are not
supported by ongoing farm price support programs, and for other purposes (for
example, conferees assume that the $10 million for improved computer systems will
come from this account; see above). For an explanation of this account, see CRS
Report RS20235, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program. Also
not included in the above AMS budget authority levels are approximately $195
million in various user fees that fund numerous agency activities.
The Senate committee report states that USDA is expected to use Section 32 to
purchase surplus salmon for domestic feeding programs, and also reminds the
Department that the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) requires it to use a minimum of
$200 million each year for purchasing fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops.
The conference report also urges the Department to use Section 32 to purchase
surplus domestic salmon to stabilize the domestic industry.

P.L. 108-447 provides $2 million to AMS for activities related to organic
standards. The report urges AMS to finalize the hiring of a director for the National
Organic Standards Board, to create a Peer Review Panel to oversee USDA
accreditation for organic certifiers, and to improve scientific technical support for the
Standards Board. In separate earlier action relating to AMS, a House floor
amendment by Representative Kaptur, to transfer $6 million from USDA’s Chief
Information Officer to the Farmers Market Promotion Program, was defeated by a
vote of 213 to 206.
Country of Origin Labeling. The 2002 farm bill had mandated that retailers
begin country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh meats, produce, peanuts, and
seafood on September 30, 2004, but a provision in the FY2004 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199) delayed mandatory COOL from being
implemented by AMS for two years, to September 30, 2006 (except for seafood).
During its September 2004 markup of the FY2005 agriculture appropriation bill, the
Senate Appropriations Committee defeated, on a tie vote of 14 to 14, an amendment
that would have required mandatory COOL to begin on January 1, 2005. Conferees
did not include language in the final omnibus appropriation which would have
replaced mandatory COOL with a voluntary effort, despite speculation that they
might do so. The House Agriculture Committee had approved a voluntary COOL
bill (H.R. 4576) in July 2004 (for details see CRS Report 97-508, Country-of-Origin
Labeling for Foods).
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration. GIPSA
establishes the official U.S. standards, inspection and grading for grain and other
commodities. It also ensures fair-trading practices, including in livestock and meat
products. GIPSA has been working to improve its understanding and oversight of
livestock markets, where increasing concentration and other changes in business
relationships, (such as contractual relationships between producers and processors),
have raised concerns among some producers about the impacts of these developments
on farm prices. The House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 108-584)
accompanying the FY2005 agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 4766) notes that
funds were provided in FY2003 to study “issues surrounding a ban on packer
ownership.” The report states that the committee expects a “comprehensive update”
on the study by January 1, 2005.
Conferees provide a FY2005 appropriation of $37.3 million for GIPSA as
proposed by the Senate, but below the Administration’s request of $44.2 million.
The House-passed version provided $37.5 million for GIPSA. The Administration
was seeking the following GIPSA increases: $5 million to upgrade significantly its
information technology; $1.2 million to monitor the technologies that livestock and
meat industries use to evaluate carcass characteristics (which determine value to
producers); $1 million for “rapid response teams” to monitor livestock markets to
ensure producers are not unfairly treated in the wake of last year’s U.S. BSE finding;
and $500,000 to help resolve international grain trade problems. The Senate

committee and conference reports said the new budget authority includes $1 million
for budget increases including IT security and BSE-related activities.
In FY2004, Congress appropriated $35.7 million for GIPSA salaries and
expenses, with another $42 million in already authorized user fees anticipated for an
overall agency program level of nearly $78 million. The Administration’s proposed
increases would have raised the FY2005 program level to $86 million. To help cover
this increase, the Administration had proposed new user fees of $29.4 million (which
would require legislation to be adopted). However, neither the House nor the Senate
assumed adoption of the new fees, which also had been proposed but not accepted
for FY2004.
Rural Development
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area: the
Rural Housing Service (RHS), the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and
the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). An Office of Community Development provides
community development support through Rural Development’s field offices. The
mission area also administers the rural portion of the Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities Initiative and the National Rural Development Partnership.
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818)
provides a total appropriation of $2.43 billion for USDA rural development, which
in part supports a $10.39 billion loan authorization level for rural economic and
community development programs. The FY2005 appropriation is $14.7 million less
than enacted for FY2004. The Senate-reported (S. 2803) and House-passed (H.R.
4766) agriculture appropriations measures had recommended $7.8 million more and
$34.7 million less, respectively, in budget authority than the amount provided in the
final FY2005 act. The conferees also provide $443.1 million less in loan
authorization than the Senate measure and $119.8 million less than the House bill.
Total rural development funding in P.L. 108-447 includes $642.5 million for salaries
and expenses (including transfers), $23.4 million less than the House
recommendation and budget request and $5 million more than the Senate
recommendation.
As was the case with both the House and Senate bills, P.L. 108-447 eliminates
or limits FY2005 funding to carry out several mandatory rural development programs
authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L.107-171). For several programs, the conferees
provide discretionary funding instead for these programs, although at levels lower
than the authorized amounts. The following table summarizes the authorized funding
and the required restrictions on these mandatory programs by the House and Senate
bills, and how any differences were resolved in P.L. 108-447.

ProgramFY2005Level AllowedLevel AllowedLevel AllowedConference
Authorizedby Senate-by House-by ConferenceDifference
Fundingreported billpassed bill Agreementfrom FY05
Level *(S. 2803)(H.R. 4766)(P.L. 108-447,Authorized
H.R. 4818) Level
Rural Strategic$100 million$0$0$0 - $100 million
Investment
Initiative
Enhancement of$40 million$0$0$0 - $40 million
Rural Access to
Broadband
Rural Business$100 millionNo more than$0No more than- $90 million
Investment$34 million$10 million
Program
Value-added$80 million$15 million$15.5 million$15.5 million-$64.5 million
Product Market(Discretionary)(Discretionary)(Discretionary)
Development
Grants
Rural$30 million$0 $0$0 - $30 million
Firefighters
Renewable$23 million$20 million$23 million$23 millionNo change
Energy Systems(Discretionary)(Discretionary)(Discretionary)
Bioenergy$150 millionMaximum of$0Maximum of- $50 million
Program$100 million$100 million
^*^Fⁱ^g^u^r^esⁱⁿ^t^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^au^t^h^ori^zed^col^u^mⁿ^repres^en^t^h^o^w^m^u^ch^w^o^u^l^{d be av}^ai^l^a^bl^{e u}ⁿ^d^{er cu}^rren^t^l^a^w^,ⁱⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^t^h^e
^carry^ov^{er of}^uⁿ^oblig^{ated balan}^ces^f^r^om^{prior y}^ear^s^,^h^a^{d n}^o^res^t^riction^s^been^{placed on}^s^p^en^din^g^.
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). RCAP, as
authorized by the 1996 farm bill (P.L.104-127), consolidates funding for 12 rural
development loan and grant programs into three accounts. P.L. 108-447 provides an
FY2005 appropriation of $716.0 million, $57.6 million more than recommended by
the House-passed bill and $17.4 million less than recommended by the Senate.
FY2005 funding is $38 million less than enacted for FY2004 and $174.1 more than
requested. Of the total provided by the conferees, $89.2 million is for the community
facilities account; $552.7 million for the rural utilities account; and $74.2 million for
the business development account.
Consistent with both the House and Senate bills, the conferees earmark funding
from the three RCAP accounts for various programs. The level of these earmarks is
not significantly different from similar recommendations enacted for FY2004. The
final FY2005 bill provides the following earmarks: Native American Tribes ($25
million) and tribal colleges ($4.5 million); native villages of Alaska ($26 million);
water and waste water treatment for colonias ($25 million); a circuit rider program

for water technical assistance ($13.5 million); technical assistance grants for rural
water and waste water systems ($18.3 million); the Delta Regional Authority
($1million); and $6.4 million for the rural community development initiative. The
conferees also accepted the Senate bill provision of $21.0 million for economic
impact initiative grants and $28.0 million for communities with high energy costs.
They also accepted the House bill recommendation of $22.2 million of RCAP
funding for the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community and Rural Economic
Area Partnership (REAP) programs.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service. For FY2005, P.L. 108-447
provides $84.4 million for RBS loan subsidies and grants, including $15.9 million
in rural development loan subsidies and $24.0 million in rural cooperative
development grants. These amounts are approximately the same as recommended
by the House and Senate bills and enacted for FY2004. P.L. 108-447 provides an
estimated loan authorization level of $34.2 million for the rural development loan
fund and $25 million for the rural economic development loan program account.
Conferees also provide funding to several regional development authorities: $3.4
million for Mississippi Delta counties, $1.5 million of which is earmarked for the
Delta Regional Authority; $1.5 for the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority; and
$1.5 million for the Denali Commission for solid waste management grants.
As noted above, general provisions in P.L. 108-447 prohibit funds from being
used to carry out four mandatory rural development programs under the jurisdiction
of RBS, all of which were authorized and funded by the 2002 farm bill. P.L. 108-447
cancels $80 million of the mandatory funds already available for the Value-Added
Agricultural Product Market Development grants ($40 million authorized for
FY2005 and another $40 million carried over from the previous year). The conferees
replace the mandatory funds with $15.5 million in discretionary funding,
approximately the same as recommended by the House and Senate bills and
requested by the Administration. The conferees also prohibit the expenditure of
$23.0 million in authorized mandatory funds for the Renewable Energy Systems
program, but provide $23.0 million in discretionary funds instead, the same as
recommended by the House bill. Unlike the House measure, which recommended
no funding, or the Senate measure, which recommended a maximum of $34.0
million, P.L. 108-447 provides a $10 million maximum on the use of funds to carry
out the provisions of the Rural Business Investment Fund. The Administration had
requested cancelling a portion of mandatory grant funding for this program and
reducing the cost of guaranteeing debentures from the authorized level of $280
million, down to $60 million. The conferees also prohibit any funds to carry out the
provisions of the Rural Strategic Investment Fund, which has an authorized level of
$100 million.
P.L. 108-447 also provides $12.5 million for the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise
Community and REAP Programs, as recommended by the Senate measure, rather
than the $11.4 recommended by the House bill. The Administration had requested

no funding for the program. Of the amount provided, $1 million is earmarked for
third-round empowerment zones.
Rural Utilities Service. P.L. 108-447 provides FY2005 budget authority of
$103 million for RUS, $3.6 million below the level recommended by te Senate
measure and $11.7 million more than the House bill. This appropriation supports,
in part, a loan authorization level of $5.61 billion, $959.0 million less than authorized
for FY2004. The House and Senate bills had recommended a loan authorization
level of $5.53 billion and $5.73 billion respectively.
P.L. 108-447, as in both the House and the Senate measures, also prohibits
expenditure of $40 million of the mandatory funds available ($20 million authorized
for FY2005 and $20 million in previous year’s unexpended funds) for the
Enhancement of Rural Access to Broadband Service authorized in the 2002 farm bill.
For other broadband telecommunication loans, the conferees provide loan subsidies
of $11.7 million and a loan authorization level of $550 million, $50 million less than
recommended by the Senate measure and $86 million less than the House
recommendation. P.L. 108-447 also provides $9 million in broadband grants, the
same as recommended in both the House and Senate bills. There was no
Administration request for broadband grants.
For the distance learning and telemedicine program, P.L. 108-447 provides $35
million in grants, $10 million more than the House bill and about $3 million less than
the Senate measure and the amount enacted for FY2004. For distance learning and
telemedicine loans, the conferees accepted the House bill recommendation for $50
million in loan authorization, a $250 million reduction from FY2004. The conferees
also rescind $88 million in the local television loan guarantee program.
P.L. 108-447 provides a loan authorization of $4.32 billion in direct and
guaranteed electric loans as recommended by the House bill. This loan level is $669
million less than enacted for FY2004. The conferees also provide $520 million loan
authorization level for telecommunication loans, the same as recommended by the
House and Senate bills.
Rural Housing Service. In part to support $4.72 billion in rural housing
loans, P.L. 108-447 provides $1.38 billion in budget authority for the Rural Housing
Service. Section 502 single family direct and unsubsidized guaranteed loans are the
largest programs in the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program account. For these
programs, the conferees provide $4.46 billion in loan authorization and $166.8
million in loan subsidies. The House bill recommended about $50 million more in
loan authorization while the Senate measure recommended $534 million less.
Conferees also rescind $3 million of the rural housing insurance fund and $1 million
in the rural housing assistance grants.
The final law provides $586.1 million for the Section 521 rental assistance
payments program, as recommended by the House measure, up from $574.7 million

in FY2004. For Section 515 rental housing loans, P.L. 108-447 contains $100
million in loan authorization, approximately $6 million and $10 million less than the
House and Senate bills, respectively. For Section 515 loan subsidies for rental
housing repair and rehabilitation, the final act makes available $47.1 million, about
$5.0 million more than the Senate measure and $7.5 million less than recommended
by the House bill. For Section 504 housing repair grants, conferees concurred with
the House and Senate recommended levels of $10.2 million, which is nearly the same
amount as enacted for FY2004. For Section 538 multi-family housing guarantees,
P.L. 108-447 provides funding to support $100 million in loan authorization, the
amount recommended by the House measure and approximately $15 million more
than recommended by the Senate bill. The conferees provide $3.5 million in
subsidies for this program, approximately the same as recommended by the House
and Senate bills. P.L. 108-447 also provides $34.1 million in grant and loan
subsidies for the farm labor housing program. This is slightly less than the amount
enacted for FY2004. Consistent with the Administration’s request and the House and
Senate bills, conferees prohibited a total of $30 million in available mandatory
funding for rural firefighters and emergency personnel as authorized by the 2002
farm bill ($10 million authorized in FY2005 and $20 million carried over from
FY2003 and FY2004, when mandatory funds were also prohibited by appropriators).
For more information on USDA rural development programs, see CRS Report
RL31387, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs.
Food and Nutrition Programs
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818)
includes a total of $52.53 billion for food and nutrition programs administered by
USDA. These include the food stamp and related programs, child nutrition
programs, the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and
children (WIC), and commodity donation programs for the needy and elderly. The
appropriated amount is $5.27 billion more than the amount appropriated for these
programs in FY2004, and is projected to maintain full services for the food and
nutrition programs.
The FY2005 Administration budget requested budget authority totaling $50.42
billion for all USDA domestic food and nutrition programs. The amount included
the revised Administration request submitted July 13, 2004, that added $300 million
to nutrition program funding to reflect higher than originally anticipated food costs
and participation in the WIC program.⁷
The House version of the FY2005 agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 4766),
passed the same day the Administration submitted its revised request. It

⁷ The July 13 request called for cuts in other agriculture department programs in order to
offset the WIC increase. Conferees rescinded carryover funds of $163 million from Section

32 and $191.1 million from P.L. 480 Title I food aid to offset the proposed WIC increase.

recommended a total of $50.24 billion for food and nutrition programs for FY2005,
slightly less than the Administration revised request for these programs. The Senate-
reported appropriations bill (S. 2803) would have funded these programs at a total
of $50.51 billion in FY2005, roughly $90 million more than the Administration and
$276 million more than the House-passed bill. All three proposals provided for an
increase in funding above that estimated for these programs in FY2004 ($47.26
billion), and were based on then current projections of food costs and program
participation, with no major policy changes.
The final amounts for all discretionary programs in the bill are to be reduced by
0.8%. However, most food and nutrition program funding is mandatory (e.g. food
stamps and school feeding programs), and thus is not affected by the reduction.
However, the largest of the discretionary programs, the WIC program, will have its
FY2005 funding reduced by the 0.8% rescission.
Also provided in the general provisions of P.L. 108-447 is $2.5 million for the
Congressional Hunger Center to use for Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger
fellowships. This funding is not drawn from the Food and Nutrition Service account.
Food Stamps. P.L. 108-447 includes a total of $35.15 billion for food stamp
programs, or approximately $1.5 billion more than the amount recommended by the
Administration and House and Senate. The Administration proposal and House and
Senate bills would have funded food stamp and related programs at a total of $33.6
billion in FY2005 — $2.7 billion more than projected FY2004 spending for these
programs. Nearly all of the increase ($1.4 billion) is for food stamp expenses. All
of the proposals and the finally approved law provide a $3 billion food stamp
contingency reserve fund, and $140 million to buy commodities for the Emergency
Food Assistance Program (EFAP). P.L. 108-447 provides slightly more for Nutrition
Assistance for Puerto Rico and Samoa ($1.52 billion) than was recommended by the
House and Senate ($1.45 billion).
Food stamp expenses also would fund, at an estimated cost of $77.5 million, the
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), an alternative to food
stamps for those living on or near Indian reservations. It also provides $4 million for
a bison meat purchase for the FDPIR, which was not in the Administration request,
but was in both the House and Senate bills. P.L. 108-447 also funds the new costs
($3 million) of excluding combat pay from household income used to determine
eligibility and benefits for food stamps, as was proposed by the Administration and
the House and Senate.
Child Nutrition. Child nutrition programs receive a total of $11.78 billion in
FY2005 in P.L. 108-447. The Administration budget and House-passed and Senate-
reported appropriations measures would have provided $11.38 billion for these
programs, which include the school lunch, breakfast, child and adult care, summer
food, and special milk programs, and related support. The enacted level is expected
to finance program operations at full service levels. The lower amounts

recommended by the Administration and two chambers were based on projections
that $263 million in unexpended FY2004 school lunch funding would be available
for use in FY2005. The higher funding provided by P.L. 108-447 goes primarily to
the school lunch, school breakfast and commodity programs.
No spending is proposed for the Child Nutrition Integrity Project (which
received just under $5 million in FY2004) or for the School Breakfast Pilot program,
common roots program, and child nutrition archive center, none of which were
funded in FY2004. A new performance measurement and program assessment
would have been funded at $4 million under the Administration proposal and Senate-
reported bill. The House does not refer to this in its bill or committee report (H.Rept.
108-584), but the report notes that child nutrition reauthorization legislation (which
contained performance integrity provisions as well as other program changes) had not
yet passed at the time of committee action.⁸ There is no indication of funding for this
in the final law.
WIC Program. P.L. 108-447 provides $5.28 billion for the WIC program for
FY2005. This is approximately $190 million above the Administration amended
budget request of $5.087 billion. The WIC program offers monthly food supplements
to low-income pregnant and postpartum women and children under age 5 who are
determined to be at nutritional risk. For FY2004, $4.612 billion was appropriated for
the program. The Administration estimated that its WIC funding proposal would
serve an average monthly caseload of 7.86 million, up from a projected 7.8 million
in FY2004.
The revised Administration request was $180 million more than the amount
contained in the House-passed appropriations bill ($4.907 billion), which passed the
same day that the Administration revised request was issued. The Senate committee
provided a regular FY2005 appropriation of $5.050 billion plus an emergency
appropriation of $125 million that was contingent upon an Administration request for
these as “emergency” funds. The final version contains the $125 million contingency
reserve (without the need for an emergency designation). It also redirected $37.25
million from various initiatives to meet current and anticipated increases in
participation.
Under the Administration proposal, WIC grants to states for food would have
totaled an estimated $3.7 billion in FY2005, up from $3.3 billion in FY2004. The
House Appropriations Committee did not specify the amount for food grants, but
concurred with the Administration proposal to use $14 million of the appropriated
funds for infrastructure grants and management information systems, and this
provision is included in the final law.

⁸ The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265, S. 2507/H.R.

3873) was enacted on June 30, 2004.

Funding for breastfeeding counselors would have risen from $15 million to $20
million under the Administration proposal, but remained at $15 million in the House
and Senate bills and final law. Conferees did not fund the childhood obesity
prevention projects, which received $4 million in FY2004; the Administration and
Senate recommended $5 million for FY2005. They also deleted the $20 million set-
aside for state management information systems. Neither the House nor Senate
supported the Administration proposal to strike language prohibiting the use of WIC
funds for studies and evaluations, and this restriction remained in P.L. 108-447. A
provision in FY2004 appropriations law that allowed the Secretary to restrict funding
for other activities if needed to maintain caseload was also deleted.
The House and Senate appropriators agreed, after several years of
Administration proposals, to remove funding for the farmers’ market nutrition
program (FMNP) — $22.9 million in FY2004 — from the WIC account and provide
$20 million for this program in FY2005 under the Commodity Assistance Program
(CAP) account.⁹ (See below for more on CAP funding.) Authorized under Section
17 of the Child Nutrition Act, the FMNP provides vouchers to WIC recipients and
WIC eligibles that can be used to buy fresh foods from farmers’ markets. Intended
to free up more WIC funds for food program and related expenses, the proposal to
transfer FMNP funding to another account has been opposed by some who fear that
its separation from WIC might lessen support for farmers’ markets and reduce access
to fresh farm goods by needy pregnant, women, infants and children.
Commodity Assistance Program (CAP). P.L. 108-447 provides the
$178.8 million proposed by the House for the Commodity Assistance Program (CAP)
for FY2005, instead of the $172.1 million proposed by the Senate and $169.4 million
proposed by the Administration. This is $5.9 million more than the $172.9 million
appropriated for the same programs in FY2004.¹⁰ Programs included in this budget
category are:
^!The commodity supplemental food program (CSFP), which provides
monthly food packages to low income mothers, young children, and
elderly in projects in 33 states and two Indian reservations. The
largest of the CAPs, this program is funded at the House-proposed
level of $107.7 million in the final law. The Administration would
have funded it at $98.3 million (the same as in FY2004); the Senate
would have funded it at $101 million. According to the House
report, the increased funding, together with $6.5 million in available

⁹ The Commodity Assistance Program is not authorized by statute. It is a creation of
appropriators to group together for budget purposes several programs making use of
commodities for domestic feeding.
¹⁰ The FY2005 funding includes funding for the FMNP, which was not funded in the CAP
account in FY2004. CAP received $150 million in FY2004; the FMNP received $22.9
million, thus bringing the comparable totals for these programs in FY2004 to $172.9 million.
^T^h^e^fⁱⁿ^a^l^v^e^r^sⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^C^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t⁽^P^.^L^.^{108-447, H.R}^.⁴⁸¹⁸⁾
^con^t^aiⁿ^s^{a 0.8% r}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{of al}^l^di^s^c^r^e^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^r^y^accouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e m}^e^as^u^r^{e. F}^Y^{2005 appr}^oprⁱ^a^t^e^d
^levels^{cited in this}^r^e^por^{t do not r}^e^fl^{ect the effects}^{of this}^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on.

commodity inventory for FY2005 is expected to prevent elderly
caseload slots from being cut.
^!The emergency food assistance program (EFAP), which provides
administrative grants to states to help with the costs of distributing
federally donated commodities to the needy and homeless. P.L. 108-

447 concurs with the Administration and House and Senate bills’

recommendation to fund this grant program at $50 million in
FY2005, slightly above the $49.7 million provided for this activity
for FY2004. The conferees also permitted the Secretary to transfer
up to $10 million from EFAP commodity purchases (funded from
food stamp appropriations) to administration.
^!The farmers’ market nutrition program (FMNP), which currently
provides vouchers to WIC participants and eligibles for the purchase
of fresh foods at farmers’ markets. The Administration proposed,
and the House and Senate concurred, that this funding be removed
from the WIC funding category, and instead be funded at $20
million under the CAP account, down from the $22.9 million it
received in FY2004.
^!The food donations program, which funds disaster assistance and
food assistance to the Nuclear Affected Islands.¹¹ It will be at $1.08
million in FY2005, as under the Administration request and House
and Senate proposals, up slightly from $1.075 million in FY2004.
Senior Farmers’ Market Program. Both the Administration’s budget and
the House and Senate committee reports note the transfer of $15 million in
mandatory funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) for the continued
operation of the Senior Farmers’ Market Program, which was created and funded
under Section 4402 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171). This program uses federal
funds to provide coupons for low-income senior citizens to buy fresh, unprepared
foods at farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and community supported agriculture
programs.
For more information on USDA food and nutrition programs, see CRS Report
RL31577, Child Nutrition and WIC Programs: Background and Funding.

¹¹ Funding for the Elderly Nutrition Program, formerly funded by USDA appropriations,
was transferred in FY2003 appropriations to the Department of Health and Human Services’
Office of Aging, which administers Older Americans Act programs.
^T^h^e^fⁱⁿ^a^l^v^e^r^sⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁵^C^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t⁽^P^.^L^.^{108-447, H.R}^.⁴⁸¹⁸⁾
^con^t^aiⁿ^s^{a 0.8% r}^e^s^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^{of al}^l^di^s^c^r^e^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^r^y^accouⁿ^t^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e m}^e^as^u^r^{e. F}^Y^{2005 appr}^oprⁱ^a^t^e^d
^levels^{cited in this}^r^e^por^{t do not r}^e^fl^{ect the effects}^{of this}^r^e^s^c^is^sⁱ^on.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency of the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS), is responsible for regulating the safety of
foods, drugs, biologics (e.g., vaccines), and medical devices. The agency is funded
by a combination of congressional appropriations and various user fee revenues
assessed primarily for the pre-market review of drug and medical device applications.
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818) provides
an appropriation of $1.462 billion, slightly below the House-passed (H.R. 4766) and
Senate-reported (S. 2803) levels recommended for FY2005. This appropriation is a

5.5% increase over the FY2004 enacted appropriation of $1.386 billion, but 2.2%

below the Administration’s FY2005 budget request of $1.495 billion.
In addition to appropriated funds, the total amount of user fees to be collected
each year is set in FDA’s annual appropriations act. The conferees recommend that
FDA be authorized to collect a total of $326.7 million in user fees during FY2005,
slightly more than the President requested, and 14% higher than the $286.5 million
in authorized user fee collections for FY2004. P.L. 108-447 provides a total FY2005
program level (appropriations and user fees combined) of $1.788 billion, a 7.4%
increase from the $1.665 billion available in FY2004, but a 1.8% decrease from the
$1.821 billion in the President’s request.
For the first time, the President’s FY2005 budget request did not contain an
amount for the maintenance of buildings and facilities. Both the House and Senate
and consequently the conferees concurred with this decision and no funding was
provided for this category. Without funding, FDA will absorb the costs of
maintaining its facilities with its program funds. In FY2004, Congress provided $7
million for buildings and facilities.
Counterterrorism. The FY2005 conference report contains a total of $215
million for FDA counterterrorism funding. This is 12% less than the President’s
request of $245 million, but a 22% increase over the $177.2 million appropriated in
FY2004. (See Table 3 below.) This funding is part of each program center’s request
and is included in the total appropriation approved for FDA.
Most of the increase in counterterrorism funding is for food defense. This $151
million is 16% below the requested amount of $181 million, but $34 million or 30%
more than the FY2004 appropriation of $116 million. These additional funds will
be used for the Food Emergency Response Network (FERN), a nationwide FDA-
FSIS network of federal and state laboratories capable of testing thousands of food
samples within days for certain biological, radiological, and chemical threat agents.
The increase will also fund research on food testing methods and related areas, about
97,000 food import field inspections (up 60% from the number for FY2004), and will
increase crisis management capability by boosting FDA’s rapid and coordinated
response to food threats and food-associated crises. (For more information, see CRS
Report RL31853, Food Safety Issues in the 108th Congress.)

A $5 million increase in funding for medical countermeasures will be spread
over the various categories in Table 3. Some of these medical countermeasure
activities will also be funded under Project BioShield, a program designed to help
ensure that medical products for use in the event of war or catastrophic events are
reviewed and approved quickly for safety and effectiveness. The funding also will
be used to assist companies in developing new countermeasures. It also will allow
FDA to implement regulations to provide for “emergency use authorization” when
the countermeasure is still in a developmental stage. (For more information, see CRS
Report RS21507, Project Bioshield.)
Table 3. FDA Counterterrorism Funding, FY2004-FY2005
($ thousand)
FY2005FY2005
P r ogram F Y 2004Enacted Admini stration Enacted
RequestLevel*
Food Safety and Defense$115,660$180,660$151,159
Drugs 19,062 22,062 22,062
Biologics 25,543 25,543 25,543
Device & Radiological Health 5,7315,7315,731
Toxicological Research3,1733,1733,173
Other Activities1,4091,4091,409
Rent 6,6606,660 6,660
Total $177,238$245,238$215,737
^Source:^F^D^A^’^s^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^Bu^dg^{et an}^{d Bu}^dg^{et F}^o^rm^u^l^ation^.^Decem^{ber 1, 2004.}
^*^Doesⁿ^o^{t ref}^l^{ect th}^{e 0.8% res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^.
Food. The conferees recommend that the foods program of the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition and the center’s field activities have a budget of $439
million for FY2005, the same amount recommended by the Senate, a 1.7% reduction
from the House recommendation, but a 6.8% increase over the FY2004 appropriated
level of $411 million. In addition, the conference report provides an increase of $8.3
million (or a total of $29.8 million) for programs related to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) or “mad cow” disease. In report language, the conferees direct
FDA to expedite the publication of final regulations to tighten BSE safeguards for
food, animal feed and cosmetics. They also want the agency to establish an
alternative mechanism to its prior notification and import facility registration
requirements for imports of food products that are not intended for human
consumption so they can continue to be imported for research and analytical testing.
The conference report includes $5.36 million for the food center’s Adverse Events
Reporting System (CAERS) of which $1.5 million is to be used for reports on dietary
supplements.

The conferees accepted a House amendment affecting the recall of food
products, requiring FDA to announce the Internet address of the food manufacturer
that markets the recalled product and to print a photograph of the food item on the
FDA website. The agency also would be permitted to ask for a list of retailers that
carry the recalled product.
The conference report also expects FDA to finalize both the pre-market
notification rule and related guidance documents for the labeling of genetically
modified foods by giving them a high priority, and directs FDA to educate foreign
governments on U.S. products made with biotechnology. The conferees included $3
million for the National Center for Food Safety and Technology (NCFST) in Illinois
for an ongoing cooperative agreement to improve the safety of the nation’s food
supply. The conferees also state that this $3 million “shall be exclusive of any
additional initiative funds that FDA may award to NCFST.” The conferees also
direct the FDA to support the development of tests for fruits and vegetable
contamination at New Mexico State University’s laboratory and continue support for
the Waste Management Education and Research Consortium verifying food safety
technology. The conference report wants the agency to continue funding at $250,000
the research and educational activities on shellfish safety and Vibrio vulnificus being
conducted by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission (ISSC) and to spend
$200,000 on getting states to work through the ISSC program on this safety. The
conferees recommend that FDA, with state testing programs, test farm-raised shrimp
imports and inventories for the banned antibiotic chloramphenicol and other illegal
antibiotic residues and, if tests are positive, destroy or export the shrimp.
The conferees expressed concern with mercury found in seafood and instructed
FDA to establish an educational program for physicians. In addition, it urged better
enforcement of standards on artificially dyed farmed salmon. Better inspections are
also mentioned in the conference report when it urges the agency to continue Alaskan
contracts for inspections on seafood and urges the agency’s HACCP inspections of
seafood to be culturally sensitive in Hawaii. Moreover, conferees let stand the Senate
direction for two reports from FDA: one on the collaborative relationship between
FDA, USDA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in their
support of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Service (NARMS); and
the other on survey findings of perchlorate (used in rocket fuel) in food and bottled
water.
In addition, the conference report wants to ensure that standards of identity are
enforced on milk protein concentrate imports, and are revised to include a drained
weight requirement for canned tuna. It also encourages FDA to request additional
funding in its FY2006 budget request for the agency’s Office of Nutritional Products,
Labeling, and Dietary Supplements whose responsibilities have increased in the last
few years, but whose appropriations have remained level.
Prescription Drugs and Biologics. Conferees set FDA’s human drug
program level at $498.6 million, slightly less than the President’s request of $499.5

million, but 4.7% over the FY2004 level of $476.2 million. The FY2005 drug
program would come from $293.8 million in budget authority and $204.8 million in
user fees. User fees, collected under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA),
would provide 41% of the total drug program’s funding. With this money, FDA will
add staff for the review of human drugs and pay for cost-of-living increases.
Import monitoring and inspections have taken on a more prominent role as
steadily increasing amounts of drug products are being imported under FDA’s
“personal use” import policy. The conference report leaves in both the House and
Senate report language which contains a provision that prohibits FDA from using
funds to enforce the current statute that bans importation of prescription drugs by
parties other than drug companies. (For more on this issue, see CRS Report
RL32511, Importing Prescription Drugs: Objectives, Options, and Outlook.)
Concerned about drug counterfeiting, the conference report directs FDA to work with
the drug industry to use technologies like color-shifting inks on labels and packages
of drugs and report its progress to the committee by February 1, 2005. The conferees
chastise the agency for not producing a required report last year regarding the
feasibility and cost of a monograph system for prescription drugs (i.e., guidelines
covering acceptable ingredients, doses, formulations, labeling, and testing). Products
conforming to a monograph may be marketed without FDA pre-approval while any
others must go through the New Drug Application (NDA) process. The conference
report leaves standing the Senate language claiming that FDA’s policy toward older
drugs (which could go through a new monograph system and not need to go through
the formal NDA process) may have raised prices to consumers and have become a
substantial cost on small businesses. The report directs the agency to report, no later
than 60 days after enactment, on viable alternative methods on how it will maintain
access to affordable medicines and foster a cooperative regulatory regime for small
businesses.
The conferees direct that $14.4 million be available for grants and contracts
under the Orphan Drug Act to accelerate the development and approval of orphan
drugs. The point is to encourage development of diagnostic tests for rare diseases
and explore potential surrogate endpoints and to make drugs available for serious and
life-threatening orphan diseases through the fast-track approval process.
The conferees did not accept Senate language about standards for compounded
drugs. Rather, they directed the FDA to assist involved organizations to form a
private partnership with the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) organization to
develop national standards for compounded drugs during FY2005 and asks that FDA
request funding in FY2006 to support this effort. The agency is to report on the
progress towards these objectives on a regular basis.
The conference report included a general provision that would allow
over-the-counter sales of the contraceptive “Plan B.” In May, FDA had decided not
to allow “Plan B” to be sold without a prescription. The conference report bars FDA
from using its FY2005 funding “to restrict to prescription use a contraceptive that is

determined to be safe and effective for use without the supervision of a practitioner
licensed by law to administer prescription drugs.”
The conferees noted the public interest in the withdrawal of a widely prescribed
painkiller (Vioxx) and changes ordered in anti-depressant drug labels (SSRIs).
Noting FDA’s commissioning of an Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Academy
of Sciences’ study into post-marketing safety issues, the conferees direct the agency
to advise regularly the committees about any changes that FDA anticipates regarding
drug safety and to give them progress reports on the IOM study.
The conferees fund the biologics program in FY2005 with $124.1 million in
appropriations and authorize the collection of $40.4 million in PDUFA user fees and
$8.2 million in Animal Drug User Fees for a total program level of $172.7 million.
The total includes $300,000 for additional activity relating to flu vaccines.
The conference report also included a general provision that bars FDA from
using its FY2005 funding “to close or relocate, or to plan to close or relocate, FDA’s
Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis in St. Louis, Missouri, outside the city or county
limits of St. Louis, Missouri.”
Medical Devices. The conference report provides an appropriation of $235.1
million, which includes $25.6 million for the review of medical devices. This amount
meets one of the conditions of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act
(MDUFMA) of 2002 (P.L.107-250) which requires that FDA’s appropriation for the
medical device program meet a statutory minimum in order to implement the
program. This increase does that and will provide the resources needed to
significantly reduce review times for medical devices by allowing FDA to hire about
400 new reviewers. In addition, the conferees did not change the Senate report
language that talks about long-term safety studies of implanted medical devices and
suggests FDA create programs for post-market surveillance, long-term Phase 4
clinical trials, and registries of devices.
Women’s Health. The conferees provided the Office of Women’s Health in
the Office of the Commissioner a total of $4 million, which includes a $325,000
increase over the Administration’s request, because they support the collection of
data to study differences between diagnoses, treatment, and outcomes for given
diseases for men and women. The report further directs the use of that increase with
$250,000 for study of cardiovascular disease in women and $75,000 to continue and
expand the hormone therapy education program.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the independent
regulatory agency charged with oversight of derivatives markets. The CFTC’s
functions include oversight of trading on the futures exchanges, registration and

supervision of futures industry personnel, prevention of fraud and price manipulation,
and investor protection. Although most futures trading is now related to financial
variables (interest rates, currency prices, and stock indexes), Congressional oversight
is vested in the Agricultural Committees because of the market’s historical origins
as an adjunct to agricultural trade.
The FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818)
provides $94.3 million for the CFTC, which is $1 million above the House-passed
(H.R. 4766) level and $3.4 million above the enacted FY2004 level, but $1 million
below the Senate-reported (S. 2803) and Administration-requested levels. CFTC has
been investigating whether certain commodity traders may have had advance
knowledge of the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad-cow
disease). Report language (H.Rept. 108-584) accompanying the House-passed bill
directs CFTC to submit a report of its findings to the committee as soon as the
investigation is concluded.

Table 4. USDA and Related Agencies Appropriations,
FY2005 Congressional Action and Administration Request vs.
FY2004 Enacted
(budget authority, in millions of $)
F Y 2004 F Y 2005Adm i ni - F Y 2005Hous e- F Y 2005Senat e - F Y 2005
Agency or Major ProgramEnactedstrationPassed ReportedEnacted
(1) Request Bill Bill (1)
Title I — Agricultural Programs
Agric. Research Service (ARS)1,145.91,165.61,259.01,263.11,298.7
Coop. State Research Education
and Extension Service (CSREES)1,113.01,005.51,141.11,134.71,171.1
Economic Research Service71.080.076.675.374.8
(ERS)
National Agric. Statistics128.2137.6128.7130.3129.5
Serv.(NASS)
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) 721.3833.4836.8791.8819.6
Agric. Marketing Service (AMS)93.7103.193.097.895.3
Grain Inspection , Packers and
Stockyards Admin. (GIPSA)35.744.237.537.337.3
Food Safety & Inspection Serv.779.9838.7824.7823.8823.8
(FSIS)
Farm Service Agency (FSA) -
Total Salaries and Expenses1,272.21,320.91,357.91,305.81,309.4
FSA Farm Loans - Subsidy Level 195.5161.2158.0155.0157.8
*Farm Loan Authorization3,246.23,803.33,818.33,362.03,747.0
Risk Management Agency (RMA)
Salaries and Expenses71.091.672.072.072.0
Federal Crop Insurance Corp.3,765.04,095.14,095.14,095.14,095.1
Fund (2)
Commodity Credit Corp. (CCC)22,937.016,452.416,452.416,452.416,452.4
(2)
Other Agencies and Programs 518.8633.3394.4552.5556.9
Total, Agricultural Programs 32,848.126,934.526,927.226,986.927,093.7
Title II — Conservation Programs
Conservation Operations848.0710.4854.1845.9837.4
Watershed Surveys and Planning10.55.111.17.57.1

F Y 2004 F Y 2005Adm i ni - F Y 2005Hous e- F Y 2005Senat e - F Y 2005
Agency or Major ProgramEnactedstrationPassed ReportedEnacted
(1) Request Bill Bill (1)
Watershed & Flood Prevention86.540.286.564.075.6
Watershed Rehabilitation29.610.130.125.027.5
Program
Resource Conservation &51.650.851.650.851.6
Development
Farm Bill Technical Assistance0.092.00.00.00.0
Total, Conservation 1,027.0909.51,034.2993.9999.9
Title III — Rural Development
Rural Community Advancement
Program (RCAP)753.0542.0668.4733.4716.0
Salaries and Expenses141.0149.7171.2143.5148.5
Rural Housing Service (RHS)1,368.11,374.81,384.21,375.61,380.7
* RHS Loan Authority4,329.54,041.74,686.94,157.74,720.8
Rural Business-Cooperative83.559.082.881.484.4
Service
* RBCS Loan Authority54.759.259.259.259.2
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)101.783.391.2106.7103.0
* RUS Loan Authority6,574.53,466.15,529.05,735.05,615.0
Total, Rural Development2,447.92,209.72,398.52,441.02,433.2
* Rural Development, Total Loan10,958.77,567.010,275.29,951.910,395.1
Authority
Title IV — Domestic Food Programs
Child Nutrition Programs11,417.411,376.611,380.611,380.611,782.0
WIC Program (3)4,611.95,087.34,907.35,175.35,277.3
Food Stamp Program30,946.033,635.833,642.333,641.835,154.6
Commodity Assistance Program149.1169.4178.8172.1178.8
Nutrition Programs137.5152.2133.7142.6139.9
Administration
Total, Food Programs (3) 47,262.550,422.050,242.650,512.952,533.1
Title V — Foreign Assistance
Foreign Agric. Service (FAS)131.4143.1137.7139.2137.8
Public Law (P.L.) 4801,318.21,298.41,291.51,306.01,303.5

F Y 2004 F Y 2005Adm i ni - F Y 2005Hous e- F Y 2005Senat e - F Y 2005
Agency or Major ProgramEnactedstrationPassed ReportedEnacted
(1) Request Bill Bill (1)
McGovern- Dole Intl. Food for49.775.075.0100.087.5
Educ.
CCC Export Loan Salaries4.14.54.54.44.4
Total, Foreign Assistance 1,503.41,520.91,508.71,549.51,533.2
Title VI — FDA & Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration1,385.71,494.51,462.51,465.31,461.8
Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC)89.995.393.395.394.3
Total, FDA & CFTC1,475.61,589.81,555.81,560.61,556.1
Title VII — General Provisions22.90.0 3.08.941.2
Total, before adjustments86,761.883,586.583,670.684,053.786,190.6
Scorekeeping Adjustments (4)(176.8)(686.0)(449.0)(787.0)(914.6)
Grand Total, Including CBO
Scorekeeping Adjustments, 86,585.082,938.583,221.683,141.885,276.0
Excluding Emergency
Appropriations
Emergency Appropriations (5)175.000125.00
^Aⁿ^item^w^ith^{a sin}^g^l^{e aster}ⁱ^sk⁽^*⁾^r^e^p^r^esen^{ts th}^{e to}^{tal am}^ouⁿ^t^of^{direct an}^{d g}^u^a^ran^t^{eed loan}^s^th^{at can}^be
^m^a^d^e^gⁱ^v^eⁿ^th^e^r^e^q^u^ested^o^r^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iated^lo^an^su^b^s^id^y^lev^e^l.^On^ly^th^{e su}^b^s^id^y^lev^e^{l is in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e to}^tal
^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.
^{(1) F}^Y^{2004 en}^act^{ed l}^e^v^e^l^sⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e am}^ouⁿ^t^s^appropri^a^t^e^{d f}^o^{r U}^S^D^A^an^{d rel}^a^t^e^d^a^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^sⁱⁿ^t^h^e
^C^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^,²⁰⁰⁴^(P.L^.^108-¹⁹⁹⁾^adj^u^s^t^{ed f}^o^{r t}^h^{e 0.59%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on
^t^o^a^l^lⁿ^oⁿ^-^def^eⁿ^s^{e, di}^s^c^retⁱ^oⁿ^a^ry^prog^ram^s^{, as}^cal^cu^l^a^t^e^{d by}^C^R^S^.^T^h^{e F}^Y^{2005 en}^act^{ed l}^e^v^e^l^doesⁿ^o^t
ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e th}^{e ef}^f^{ect of}^{a m}^aⁿ^d^{ated 0.8%}^res^c^issi^oⁿ^t^o^a^{ll dis}^c^retion^a^ry^accouⁿ^t^s^f^uⁿ^d^{ed by}^th^{e F}^Y²⁰⁰⁵
^C^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^(P.L^{. 108-}^447).
⁽²⁾^Un^d^e^r^cu^r^r^eⁿ^t^law^,^th^{e Co}^m^m^o^d^ity^Cr^ed^{it Co}^r^p^o^r^atioⁿ^an^d^th^{e Fed}^e^r^a^{l Cr}^o^p^Iⁿ^su^r^aⁿ^ce^F^uⁿ^d^e^ach
^r^{eceive annually}^{an ind}^e^fⁱ^{nite ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ⁽^“^{such sum}^s^,^{as m}^a^y^b^eⁿ^ecessar^y^”)^.^T^h^{e am}^o^{unts sho}^w^{n ar}^e
^USDA^es^tim^ates^of^th^{e n}^eces^s^a^ry^{appropriation}^s^{, w}^h^ich^{are s}^u^bj^{ect to ch}^an^g^e^.
⁽³⁾^T^h^e^{FY2005 A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^requ^es^{t ref}^l^ects^{a rev}ⁱ^s^e^{d A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^requ^es^{t s}^u^bm^{itted J}^u^ly^13,^2004,
^w^h^ich^{added $300}^m^illion^{to th}^{e orig}ⁱⁿ^{al W}^I^C^requ^es^{t to}^com^p^en^s^a^{te f}^o^{r h}ⁱ^g^h^e^{r th}^an^origⁱⁿ^ally^an^ticipated
^f^{ood cos}^t^s^an^{d part}ⁱ^cⁱ^p^atⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^t^h^{e WIC}^progr^a^m^.^T^h^e^FY^{2005 S}^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^r^eport^e^{d l}^e^v^e^lⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^es^{a $125}
^m^illioⁿ^em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^f^o^r^W^I^{C th}^{at is co}ⁿ^tin^g^eⁿ^t^oⁿ^an^em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^r^e^q^u^{est f}^o^r^th^{at am}^o^uⁿ^t^f^r^o^m
^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^.
^{(4) Scorek}^eepin^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^ref^l^{ect th}^e^s^a^vⁱⁿ^g^s^or^cos^t^of^provⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^t^h^at^af^f^ect^m^aⁿ^d^at^ory^prog^ram^s^(as
^e^s^tⁱ^m^a^t^e^d^b^y^t^h^e^Co^ngr^e^ssi^oⁿ^a^l^B^u^d^g^e^t^O^ffi^c^e⁾^,^p^l^{us t}^h^e^p^e^r^m^aⁿ^eⁿ^t^a^nnua^l^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^o^{n m}^a^d^e^t^o^U^S^D^A^’s
^S^ectⁱ^oⁿ³²^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^.^F^o^{r t}^h^{e F}^Y^{2005 A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^requ^es^t^,^s^c^orek^eepiⁿ^g^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^{are u}ⁿ^o^f^fⁱ^ci^al
^es^tⁱ^m^at^es^bas^e^{d on}^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^oⁿ^bu^dg^et^docu^m^ent^s^,^an^{d do n}^o^{t ref}^l^{ect an}^of^fⁱ^{cial C}^B^{O s}^c^{ore, w}^h^ich^is
^p^e^ndⁱ^ng.

⁽⁵⁾^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^{H of}^th^{e FY2004 C}^oⁿ^s^{olidated A}^ppr^opriation^s^A^c^{t (P}^.L^.108-¹⁹⁹⁾^con^t^ain^e^{d $225}^m^illionⁱⁿ
^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r v}^a^ri^o^u^s^USDA^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^prog^ram^s⁽ⁱⁿ^c^lu^din^g^{$50 m}^illion^f^o^{r USDA}^’^s^Fores^t
^Ser^v^{ice, w}^h^ich^{is f}^uⁿ^d^ed^uⁿ^d^er^th^{e I}ⁿ^terⁱ^o^r^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^b^ill)^{. Sp}^en^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r^th^{is assistan}^{ce w}^a^{s o}^f^f^s^{et in}
^th^{e con}^f^eren^{ce ag}^reem^en^{t by}^a^m^a^nd^a^t^{ed res}^c^is^sⁱ^on^of^{$225 m}^illion^f^r^om^th^{e Federal Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y
^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^A^g^en^cy^(FEMA⁾^{. T}^h^{e FY2005 Sen}^a^te-^r^{eported appropriation}^s^bill^con^t^ain^s^a^$125^m^illion
^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^{appropriation}^f^o^{r W}^I^C^th^{at is}^con^tin^g^eⁿ^t^on^an^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^requ^es^{t f}^o^{r th}^{at am}^o^uⁿ^t^f^r^om^th^e
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^n.