HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.crs/govcazu0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
01;0i E.$~ &
Updated May 15, 2017
Reductions to Mandatory Agricultural Conservation Programs
in Appropriations Law
Federal spending for agricultural conservation programs-
which assist agricultural producers with correcting and
preventing natural resource concerns-generally takes two
forms: (1) discretionary spending provided through annual
appropriations acts and (2) mandatory spending authorized
and paid for in multiyear legislation (e.g., farm bills).
Historically, mandatory agricultural funding was reserved
for the farm commodity programs, but it has expanded in
recent years to include conservation, rural development,
research, and bioenergy programs. This expansion has
generated both concern and support. Some consider the
expansion to be beyond the scope of the authorizing
committee's jurisdiction, while others prefer the stability of
mandatory funding to that of the appropriations process.
Large backlogs of interested and eligible producers led to
new and expanded farm bill conservation programs with
mandatory spending authority beginning in the mid-1980s.
Currently, the level of mandatory spending for conservation
is roughly five times that of discretionary agricultural
conservation spending.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79)
reauthorized mandatory spending for a number of
agricultural conservation programs through FY2018.
The rise in the number of agricultural programs with
mandatory budget authority established by the authorizing
committees has not gone unnoticed or untouched by
appropriators. In recent years, appropriations bills have
reduced some mandatory program spending below
authorized levels. These reductions, estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office, are commonly referred to as
changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS).
CHIMPS can offset discretionary spending that would
otherwise be above discretionary budget caps.
CHIMPS = Changes In Mandatory Program Spending
Similarly, authorizing committees have also reduced
mandatory spending levels from their initially enacted
levels. Authorizers may make such reductions either to
offset spending increases for other mandatory programs
within their jurisdiction or to get credit for budget
reconciliation requirements. Authorizing committee
CHIMPS are not discussed in this document.
C H kg C o n e-rY i o-, ..
Mandatory conservation spending has generally increased
annually. Nonetheless, the full potential of authorized
mandatory conservation spending has not been realized
because many conservation programs have been reduced or
capped through annual appropriations acts since FY2003.
Many conservation program CHIMPS are at the request of
the Administration. Both the Bush and the Obama
Administrations have requested reductions in recent years
(Figure 1). The mix of programs and the amount of
reduction vary from year to year.
,ugh , Lav
When appropriators limit mandatory spending, they usually
do not change the text of the authorizing law. Their action
has the same effect as changing the law but only for the one
year to which the appropriation applies. Appropriators put
limits on mandatory programs by using language such as
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section
of Public Law [ ... ] in excess of $[ ... ].
Figure I. Estimated Mandatory Conservation
Program Funding
$ Billions
M Authorized Requested X Actual
6. q . ..
4I
3
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2Ol6S2O[7 est.
Fiscal Year
Source: CRS.
Notes: Reductions below authorized levels include CHIMPS and
sequestration. FY20 14 includes CHIMPS prior to enactment of the
2014 farm bill.
.. R ,.. ... R e :~ ..... ,,
Unlike CHIMPS, which apply only to the current fiscal year
and do not typically change or permanently cancel the
statutory funding authority, a rescission is a permanent
cancellation of funds. The 2014 farm bill amended
mandatory funding provisions for several conservation
programs, allowing unobligated funds from previous years
to be carried forward until expended or expired. Prior to
this carryover provision, most mandatory conservation
.O 'T
mppm qq\
p\w -- , gn'a', go
a
'M I
11LIANJILiN,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govcazu0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)