Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2019 Appropriations

Summary: The Agriculture appropriations bill funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except for the Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and—in even-numbered fiscal years—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Summary: Agriculture appropriations include both mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary amounts, though, are the primary focus during the bill's development. The largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; rural development; FDA; foreign food aid and trade; farm assistance program salaries and loans; food safety inspection; animal and plant health programs; and salaries and expenses for administering conservation programs.

Summary: On February 15, 2019, Congress passed and the President signed the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-6, H.Rept. 116-9). This action, more than four months into the fiscal year, followed three continuing resolutions and a 34-day partial government shutdown.

Summary: The official discretionary total of the enacted FY2019 Agriculture appropriation is $23.03 billion, which is $35 million more than enacted in FY2018 (+0.2%) on a comparable basis that excludes the CFTC. The enacted total is $6.3 billion more than the Administration requested (+38%), $55 million more than was proposed in the House-reported bill (+0.2%), but $194 million less than in the Senate-passed bill (-0.8%).

Summary: Among the primary differences that account for the overall $35 million discretionary increase for FY2019 over FY2018 are an increase in agricultural research (mostly for construction) by $387 million (+13%) to $3.4 billion, an increase in FDA appropriations by $269 million (+10%) to $3.1 billion, an increase in WIC funding by a net $200 million (accounting for changes in the amount of carryover balances rescinded and in the base appropriation), an increase in five other program areas by a combined $78 million, and a decrease in rural development by reducing extra appropriations that were made in FY2018 for water and wastewater programs (-$425 million) and rural broadband (-$475 million).

Summary: The appropriation also carries $129 billion of mandatory spending that is largely determined in separate authorizing laws. The mandatory spending increased by $6 billion not because of congressional action this year but because of changing economic and program conditions. The annual change was mostly due to higher costs for crop insurance (+$6.5 billion), greater reimbursement for the Commodity Credit Corporation (+1.1 billion), and lower outlays for child nutrition (-$1.1 billion) and SNAP (-$0.5 billion). With mandatory and discretionary spending appropriations combined, the FY2019 agriculture total is nearly $152 billion.

Summary: The Consolidated Appropriations Act and its underlying bills also contain policy provisions that affect how the appropriation is delivered. These provisions affect disaster programs, rural definitions, industrial hemp, animal regulations, nutrition programs, dietary guidelines, CFTC, and tobacco products.

Summary: Sequestration on mandatory accounts—a process that reduces federal spending through automatic across-the-board reductions—also continues to affect agriculture spending.

Status of FY2019 Agriculture Appropriations

Congress passed and the President signed the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act on February 15, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 , H.Rept. 116-9 ). This action, more than four months into the fiscal year, followed three continuing resolutions (CRs) and a 34-day partial government shutdown ( Table 1 ).

In 2018, both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported FY2019 Agriculture appropriations bills ( H.R. 5961 on May 16, 2018, and S. 2976 on May 24, 2018). The Senate amended and passed its version as Division C of a four-bill minibus ( H.R. 6147 on August 1, 2018). In January 2019, during the partial government shutdown, the House passed various combinations of agriculture appropriations bills in an attempt to reopen the government ( H.R. 21 , H.R. 265 , H.R. 648 ). The Senate did not consider the measures until the Consolidated Appropriations Act moved in February 2019. See Figure 1 and Appendix B for more timeline context.

The higher discretionary budget caps in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 ) facilitated development of the appropriation amounts. The official discretionary total of the enacted FY2019 Agriculture appropriation is $23.03 billion, $35 million more than was enacted in FY2018 (+0.2%; Table 2 ) on a comparable basis that excludes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The enacted total is more than was proposed in the House-reported bill but less than in the Senate-passed bill.

The appropriation also carries mandatory spending—though that is largely determined in separate authorizing laws—that totals nearly $129 billion. Thus, the overall total of the FY2019 Agriculture appropriation is about $152 billion.

The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—funds all of USDA, excluding the U.S. Forest Service. It also funds the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and, in even-numbered fiscal years, CFTC.

Jurisdiction is with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and their respective Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The bill includes mandatory and discretionary spending, but the discretionary amounts are the primary focus during the bill's development. The scope of the bill is shown in Figure 2 .

The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently:

Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and receives most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget resolution process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary. Mandatory spending —though carried in the appropriation and usually advanced unchanged—is controlled by budget rules during the authorization process. Spending for so-called entitlement programs is set in laws such as the 2018 farm bill and 2010 child nutrition reauthorizations.

In the FY2019 Agriculture appropriations act, discretionary appropriations are 15% ($23 billion) of the $152 billion total. Mandatory spending carried in the act comprised $129 billion, about 85% of the total. About $106 billion of the $129 billion mandatory amount is attributable to programs in the 2018 farm bill. Some programs are not in the authorizing jurisdiction of the House or Senate Agriculture Committees, such as FDA, WIC, or child nutrition ( Figure 2 ).

Within the discretionary total, the largest discretionary spending items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); agricultural research; rural development; FDA; foreign food aid and trade; farm assistance program salaries and loans; food safety inspection; animal and plant health programs; and salaries and expenses for the conservation programs ( Figure 2 ).

The main mandatory spending items are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, and other food and nutrition act programs), child nutrition (school lunch and related programs), crop insurance, and farm commodity and conservation programs that are funded through USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). SNAP is referred to as an "appropriated entitlement" and requires an annual appropriation. Amounts for the nutrition program are based on projected spending needs. In contrast, the CCC operates on a line of credit. The annual appropriation provides funding to reimburse the Treasury for the use of this line of credit.

Recent Trends in Agriculture Appropriations

Over time, changes by title of the Agriculture appropriations bill have generally been proportionate to changes in the bill's total discretionary limit, though some activities have sustained relative increases and decreases. Agriculture appropriations peaked in FY2010, declined through FY2013, and have been higher since then ( Figure 3 ). Comparisons to historical benchmarks, though, may be tempered by inflation adjustments ( Figure 4 ). In FY2018, USDA reorganization affected the placement of some programs between Titles I and II of the bill.

The stacked bars in Figure 3 represent the discretionary authorization for each appropriations title. The total of the positive stacked bars is the budget authority in Titles I-VI. Prior to FY2018, it was higher than the official discretionary spending allocation (the blue line) because of the budgetary offset from negative amounts in Title VII (general provisions) and other scorekeeping adjustments that were negative, mostly due to limits on mandatory programs and rescissions.

The Trump Administration released its FY2019 budget request on February 12, 2018. USDA concurrently released its more detailed budget summary and justification, as did the FDA, and the independent agencies of the CFTC and the Farm Credit Administration (FCA). The Administration also highlighted some of the proposed reductions and eliminations separately.

From these documents, the congressional appropriations committees evaluated the request and began to consider their own bills in the spring of 2018. For accounts in the jurisdiction of the Agriculture appropriations bill, the Administration's budget proposed $17 billion, a 25% reduction from FY2018 ( Table 2 , Figure 3 ).

The timing of the Administration's budget request for FY2019 preceded Congress enacting the final, omnibus FY2018 appropriation in March 2018. Therefore, amounts in the FY2018 column of the Administration's budget documents are based on FY2017 and the CR and are different from the enacted FY2018 levels that came later and as shown in this report.

Discretionary Budget Caps and Subcommittee Allocations

Budget enforcement for appropriations has both procedural and statutory elements.

The procedural elements are associated with the budget resolution and are enforced through points of order. Typically, each chamber's full Appropriations Committee receives a top-line procedural limit on discretionary budget authority, referred to as a "302(a)" allocation, from the Budget Committee via an annual budget resolution. The Appropriations Committees then in turn subdivide the allocation among their subcommittees, referred to as the "302(b)" allocations.

The statutory elements impose limits on discretionary spending in FY2012-FY2021 and are enforced through discretionary budget caps and sequestration (2 U.S.C. 901(c)). The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25 ) set discretionary budget caps through FY2021 as a way of reducing federal spending. Bipartisan Budget Acts (BBAs) in 2013, 2015, and 2018 ( P.L. 113-67 , P.L. 114-74 , and P.L. 115-123 , respectively) have avoided sequestration on discretionary spending—with the exception of FY2013—by raising those caps.

In February 2018, the BBA raised the FY2019 cap on nondefense discretionary spending by $68 billion and the cap on defense spending by $85 billion. It also provided language to execute (or "deem") those higher caps for the appropriations process without following the usual procedures for an FY2019 budget resolution.

Under these higher caps and authorities, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees proceeded to mark up the FY2019 appropriations bills. The Agriculture appropriations bills are receiving roughly the same subcommittee allocation ("302(b)" allocation) in each chamber that was used to complete the FY2018 appropriation under the BBA. For FY2019, the subcommittee allocations for agriculture appropriations are

House: $23.273 billion ( H.Rept. 115-710 , May 23, 2018), including the CFTC. Senate: $23.235 billion ( S.Rept. 115-260 , May 24, 2018), excluding the CFTC.

Appendix A discusses budget sequestration and its effects on agriculture accounts. Sequestration of discretionary accounts occurred in FY2013. Sequestration on mandatory accounts began in FY2013, continues to the present, and has been extended by the Bipartisan Budget Acts.

The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its FY2019 bill on May 9, 2018, by voice vote. On May 16, 2018, the full Appropriations Committee passed and reported an amended bill ( H.R. 5961 , H.Rept. 115-706 ) by a vote of 31-20 ( Table 1 , Figure 1 ).

The $23.23 billion discretionary total in the House-reported FY2019 Agriculture appropriation would have been $14 million less than enacted in FY2018 (-0.1%; Table 2 , Figure 3 ). Generally speaking, the House-reported bill did not include most of the reductions proposed by the Administration and continued the trend of appropriations from prior years.

Table 3 provides details at the agency level. The primary changes from FY2018 that comprised the relatively flat $14 million overall decrease in the House-reported bill—recognizing that some amounts for certain program areas were in the General Provisions—would have done the following:

Increased base FDA appropriations by $308 million (+11%). However, it did not continue to separate FDA funding for the opioid crisis that was in the General Provisions title of the FY2018 appropriation (-$94 million). Increased agricultural research (+$79 million, +2.6%) by raising appropriations for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and National Institute of Agriculture (NIFA). Increased the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) by $16 million (+1.7%). Increased the Rural Utility Service by $82 million (+13%), mostly due to higher base funding for rural water and waste disposal programs. However, the bill did not continue separate funding for rural water that was in the General Provisions title last year (-$500 million) or for telemedicine for the opioid crisis (-$20 million). It would have reduced separate funding for a broadband pilot program while continuing to fund some of it through the General Provisions title (-$50 million). Decreased discretionary appropriations for domestic nutrition assistance programs by reducing WIC by $175 million (-2.8%) and the commodity assistance programs by $15 million (-4.7%). However, the reduction scored in the General Provisions title by rescinding WIC carryover balances was smaller in FY2019, retaining more budget authority (+$500 million). Decreased the base funding in international food assistance Food for Peace grants by $100 million (-6.2%) and would not have continued the extra funding that was in the General Provisions title of the FY2018 appropriations (-$116 million).

In addition to discretionary spending, the House-reported bill also carried funding for mandatory spending—largely determined in separate authorizing laws—that would have totaled $121.82 billion, about $936 million less than in FY2018 because of automatic changes in economic conditions and entitlement enrollment rather than any change from congressional action. Thus, the overall total of the House-reported bill was about $145 billion.

As the 116 th Congress began in 2019 under a funding gap (see the heading " Government Shutdown "), the House passed various combinations of appropriations bills in an attempt to reopen the government. The Senate did not consider the measures and waited until a compromise for the Consolidated Appropriation Act moved in February 2019.

On January 3, 2019, the House passed a six-bill full-year omnibus appropriation ( H.R. 21 ), with agriculture appropriations in Division C. With few exceptions, the bill for agriculture was essentially identical to the Senate-passed Agriculture appropriations bill from the 115 th Congress (Division C of H.R. 6147 ; see under the heading " Senate Action "). On January 10, 2019, the House passed H.R. 265 , a stand-alone Agriculture appropriations bill. On January 23—two days before agreement for a third CR reopened the government—the House passed H.R. 648 , another six-bill omnibus appropriation with Agriculture appropriations in Division A.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee initially marked up a FY2019 bill on May 22, 2018, by voice vote. On May 24, the full committee passed and reported an amended bill ( S. 2976 , S.Rept. 115-259 ) by a vote of 31-0. On August 1, 2018, the Senate passed a four-bill minibus ( H.R. 6147 ) by a vote of 92-6, with agriculture as Division C ( Table 1 , Figure 1 ).

The discretionary total of the Senate-passed bill was also $23.23 billion. However, the Senate bill's total would have been $229 million more than enacted in FY2018 (+1%) on a comparable basis that excludes the CFTC, since the latter was part of the enacted FY2018 appropriation. The Senate-passed bill would have provided about $250 million more than the House-reported bill on a comparable basis that subtracted CFTC from the House bill.

Table 3 provides details at the agency level. The primary changes from FY2018 at the agency level that comprised the Senate-passed bill's overall $228 million increase were the following:

Increased base FDA appropriations by $159 million (+6%). Like the House bill, it would not have continued separate FDA funding for the opioid crisis that was in the General Provisions title of the FY2018 appropriation (-$94 million). Increased APHIS by $19 million (+1.9%), slightly more than the House bill. Decreased discretionary appropriations for domestic nutrition assistance programs by reducing WIC by $25 million (-0.4%). This was a smaller reduction than in the House bill. In the rescissions in the General Provisions title, the reduction was smaller than was rescinded in FY2018 (+$400 million). Nonetheless, the Senate bill's rescission was greater than in the House bill. Increased international nutrition assistance by raising the base funding for Food for Peace grants by $116 million (+7.2%). The extra funding that was in the General Provisions title of the FY2018 appropriations was not continued (-$116 million). Decreased funding for the four agricultural research agencies by $44 million (-1.4%), mostly by providing no funding for ARS building and facilities (-$141 million), while increasing ARS salaries and expenses (+$98 million). Decreased the extra funding for rural development compared to the amount provided in the FY2018 General Provisions (-$100 million for rural water, -$175 million for broadband). Base funding for rural development was unchanged overall.

The Senate-passed bill's mandatory spending was virtually identical to that of the House-reported bill ($121.82 billion). Its overall total of discretionary and mandatory appropriations was $145 billion.

In the absence of a final FY2019 agriculture appropriation at the end of FY2018, Congress enacted three CRs to continue government operations.

The first CR was from October 1, 2018, through December 7, 2018 ( P.L. 115-245 , Division C). The second CR continued temporary funding through December 21, 2018 ( P.L. 115-298 ). A 34-day funding gap (partial government shutdown) occurred between the second and third CRs (see the heading " Government Shutdown " for more discussion of the funding lapse). To end the government shutdown, Congress passed and the President signed a third CR ( P.L. 116-5 ) that covered the period from January 26, 2019, through February 15, 2019. At the end of the third CR, an omnibus appropriation was enacted to cover the rest of the fiscal year (see the heading " FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act ").

In general, a CR continues the funding rates and conditions that were in the previous year's appropriation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may prorate funding to the agencies on an annualized basis for the duration of the CR through a process known as apportionment. For the 81 days (22%) of FY2019 through December 21, 2018, and the 21 days of the third CR that preceded February 15, 2019, the CRs

continued the terms of the FY2018 Agriculture appropriations act (Section 101 of P.L. 115-245 ) and excluded the FY2018 change in mandatory program spending (CHIMP) on the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which was not authorized for FY2019; and provided sufficient funding to maintain mandatory program levels, including for nutrition programs (Section 110)—this is the standard approach taken in recent years' CRs, but it was additionally important for SNAP, because some authorizations in the 2014 farm bill began expiring after FY2018.

CRs may adjust prior-year amounts through anomalies or make specific administrative changes. Five anomalies specifically applied to the agriculture appropriation during the CRs:

Child Nutrition Pro grams: apportionment for a summer foods program that allowed it to be operational by May 2019 (Section 114 of P.L. 115-245 ). R ural Utilities Service: allowed a loan authorization level for the Rural Water and Waste Disposal program of $4.141 billion (Section 115). Commodity Credit Corporation ( CCC ): allowed CCC to receive its appropriation to reimburse the Treasury for a line of credit about a month earlier than usual, prior to a customary final report and audit. Many farm bill payments to farmers were due in October 2018 in addition to USDA's plan to make supplemental payments under a trade assistance program. Without the anomaly, CCC might have exhausted its $30 billion line of credit (Section 116). Agricultural Research Service : provided an additional $42 million for operations and maintenance at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) being built in Manhattan, Kansas, and its transfer to USDA from the Department of Homeland Security (Section 117). Department of Homeland Security (DHS) : allowed DHS to transfer up to $15 million to USDA to support NBAF operations (Section 125).

When an appropriation (or CR) expires and no further budget authority has been provided, a funding gap exists, which may cause operations to cease at affected agencies. In general, the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341 et seq. ) prohibits federal agencies from obligating funds before an appropriations measure has been enacted. Exceptions may allow certain activities to continue, such as for law enforcement, protection of human life or property, and activities funded by other means such as carryover funds or user fees. Programs that are funded by other authorities—such as entitlements or the mandatory programs in the farm bill—may also be affected if the program is executed using personnel whose salaries are funded by discretionary appropriations that are affected by the funding gap.

For FY2019, a 34-day funding gap lasted from December 22, 2018, through January 25, 2019. It affected agencies within the jurisdiction of seven of the 12 appropriations bills, including Agriculture appropriations. On December 19, 2018, the Senate had passed H.R. 695 , a CR that would have continued temporary funding through February 8, 2019, but the House-passed amendment to that bill on December 20 added homeland security funding for construction of physical barriers at borders and supplemental appropriations for natural disasters that the Senate did not accept.

Prior to FY2019, the previous shutdown was a two-day, weekend shutdown in January 2018, and before that a 16-day shutdown in October 2013. Before that, the next previous multiday shutdown occurred in FY1996, though agriculture appropriations were not affected that year because a stand-alone full-year Agriculture appropriation had been enacted.

In general, a shutdown results in the furlough of many personnel and curtailment of affected agency activities and services. Agencies make their own determinations about activities and personnel that are "excepted" from furlough and publish their intentions in "contingency plans" that are supervised by OMB. For agencies in the Agriculture appropriations jurisdiction, shutdown or contingency plans were published for USDA, FDA, and the CFTC.

Generally, government employees of affected agencies do not receive pay during a shutdown. Excepted employees may be required to report to work but do not receive their current pay. Exempt employees may receive paychecks during the shutdown from a separately authorized funding source that remains available. On January 16, 2019, the President signed P.L. 116-1 to guarantee back pay to furloughed and excepted employees after the government shutdown ended.

Agency Exceptions to Maintain Operations

USDA initially estimated on December 23, 2018, that 61% of its employees were excepted from furlough in the agencies that are funded by Agriculture appropriations (all of USDA except the Forest Service), which numbered 37,860 staff being excepted out of 62,288. In general, the number of excepted and furloughed personnel varies by agency and may change as a shutdown continues as funding availability changes and as new circumstances arise. A summary of how the shutdown affected the operation of different agencies between December 22, 2018, and January 25, 2019, follows:

Nearly 90% of staff in the Food Safety and Inspection Service and Agricultural Marketing Service were initially retained to continue food safety inspections of meat and poultry at processing plants and to continue commodity grading and inspection services (8,434 and 3,944 staff, respectively). About 69% of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was excepted (5,456 staff) to continue preclearance inspection for transportation between Hawaii and Puerto Rico and the mainland and to carry out quarantine and certification for imports and exports. Resources in research laboratories and facilities that could be damaged by inattention were protected by excepting 18% (1,116 staff) of the Agricultural Research Service. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) initially excepted 7,589 staff (72% out of 10,479) through December 28 but then closed county offices, thereby lowering the number of excepted employees to 27 (0.3%). As the shutdown continued, FSA announced on January 16, 2019, that it would recall about 2,500 employees to reopen FSA county offices for three days (January 17-18 and January 22). On these days, FSA provided administrative services to farmers mostly related to past activities that were obligated, including issuing tax documents, but was not to process new program applications. On January 22, USDA further announced that as the shutdown continued, FSA offices would remain open on a full-time basis (with excepted staff) from January 24 to February 8 and three days per week thereafter. This latter plan was not implemented because the shutdown ended on January 25. All 9,342 staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was exempted by using carryover funding and mandatory funding authorized in the 2014 farm bill. Near the end of the shutdown, NRCS had begun preparations to furlough much of its agency beginning on February 3, 2019, after having retained 100% of the agency since the beginning of the shutdown. By beginning to furlough some employees, NRCS intended to conserve carryover balances and focus exempted staff on carrying out certain mandatory farm bill programs. This plan was not implemented because the shutdown ended on January 25. Most of USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) programs, whether mandatory or discretionary, rely on funding provided in appropriations acts. FNS program operations during a government shutdown vary based on the different programs' available resources, determined by factors such as contingency or carryover funds and terms of the expired appropriations acts, as well as USDA's decisionmaking. Beginning in late December 2018, FNS released program-specific memoranda to states and program operators describing the status of different nutrition assistance programs during the current funding lapse. SNAP benefits for January were issued as scheduled, and on January 8 USDA announced that the expired CR allowed for an early distribution of February benefits so long as benefits were issued on or before January 20.

Among the related agencies that are funded in Agriculture appropriations:

FDA initially retained 59% of its employees in excepted status (10,344 staff out of 17,397) based on a combination of factors including carryover funding, the need to safeguard human life, and the protection of property. For food safety inspection specifically, FDA excepted 135 employees for inspection of food facilities deemed to have the highest risk to public health. Inspections of other facilities were postponed. CFTC excepted 9% of its employees (61 staff out of 673) to address risks that could pose a threat to the functioning of the stock market and commodity markets and that could affect the safety of human life or the protection of property.

While a number of selected USDA functions may have continued during the shutdown, many others ceased operations. Examples of USDA functions that were not performed by furloughed employees included data collection and analysis that informs the commodity markets; development of regulations to implement the new farm bill that was enacted in December 2018; completing the Administration's "trade aid" payments; approving loan guarantees for commercial banks; processing and funding direct farm loans, rural development loans, and grant programs (rural housing, community facilities, rural water, rural business, and broadband); agricultural research programs and grants; and many international assistance programs.

On February 15, 2019, Congress passed and the President signed the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 116-6 , H.Rept. 116-9 ). The agriculture portion is Division B of the act.

The official discretionary total of the Agriculture appropriation is $23.03 billion, which is $35 million more (+0.2%) than was enacted for FY2018 on a comparable basis that excludes the CFTC from the FY2018 total ( Table 2 ). On that same comparable basis, the enacted total is $6.3 billion more than the Administration requested (+38%), $55 million more than was proposed in the House-reported bill (+0.2%) but $194 million less than in the Senate-passed bill (-0.8%).

The appropriation also carries mandatory spending that totals nearly $129 billion, which is determined in other authorizing laws. Thus, the overall total of the FY2019 Agriculture appropriation is about $152 billion ( Figure 2 ).

Table 3 summarizes appropriations amounts at the agency level. The primary changes that account for the overall $35 million discretionary increase in the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act are the following:

Increase in the four agricultural research agencies in Title I by $387 million (+13%) to $3.4 billion, mostly by increasing ARS building and facilities by $241 million, ARS salaries and expenses by $100 million, and NIFA by $64 million. Increase in base FDA appropriations in Title VI by $269 million (+10%) to $3.1 billion (excluding user fees) while not renewing extra funding in general provisions (Title VII) that was in the FY2018 appropriation for opioid enforcement and surveillance (-$94 million reduction to the budget score). Increase in WIC funding by a net $200 million, accounting for changes in rescissions of carryover balances and in the base appropriation. In FY2019 $500 million is rescinded from carryover balances, smaller than the rescission of $800 million in FY2018, for a comparative $300 million increase. The base WIC appropriation in Title IV is reduced by $100 million to $6.075 billion. Also, appropriations for nutrition program administration is increased by $11 million. Increase in APHIS by $29 million (+3%) to $1.014 billion. Maintain Food for Peace appropriations effectively at $1.716 billion by decreasing the base appropriation in Title V by $100 million and increasing extra funding in Title VII by $100 million. Also, salaries and expenses for the Foreign Agricultural Service are increased (+14 million). Maintain overall discretionary farm production and conservation funding in Title II (+0.5%, +$13 million) while shifting some administrative funding from program agencies into a new administrative business center. Decrease in the effective amount for rural development by essentially maintaining its base appropriation in Title III (+0.4%, +$11 million) and reducing extra appropriations that were made in the FY2018 general provisions (Title VII) for water and wastewater programs (-$425 million) and rural broadband (-$475 million). Decrease in the budgetary offset provided by other scorekeeping adjustments, mostly from smaller negative subsidies that are provided by farm and rural development loan programs. In FY2018, $481 million was offset. In FY2019, $404 million is offset (+$77 million increase in the budget score). Also, mandatory spending (+$16 million) is increased by further reducing the effect of appropriations act CHIMPS.

Mandatory spending carried in the Consolidated Appropriations Act increased by $6 billion over FY2018 to $129 billion and was higher than estimated for the House and Senate bills. The annual change was mostly due to higher costs for crop insurance (+$6.5 billion), greater reimbursement for the CCC (+1.1 billion), and lower outlays for child nutrition (-$1.1 billion) and SNAP (-$0.5 billion).

In addition to setting budgetary amounts, the Agriculture appropriations bill has also been a vehicle for policy-related provisions that direct how the executive branch should carry out the appropriation. These provisions may have the force of law if they are included in the text of the appropriation, usually in the General Provisions, but their effect is generally limited to the current fiscal year. In some instances, the provisions may amend the U.S. Code and have long-standing effects.

The explanatory statement in the conference report that accompanies the final appropriation ( H.Rept. 116-9 ), and the House and Senate report language that accompanies the committee-reported bills ( H.Rept. 115-706 , S.Rept. 115-259 ), may also provide additional policy instructions. These documents do not have the force of law but often explain congressional intent, which the agencies are expected to follow. Indeed, the committee and conference reports may need to be read together to capture all of the congressional intent for the fiscal year:

Congressional Directives. The explanatory statement is silent on provisions that were in both the House Report ( H.Rept. 115-706 ) and Senate Report ( S.Rept. 115-259 ) that remain unchanged by this conference agreement, except as noted in this explanatory statement. The conference agreement restates that executive branch wishes cannot substitute for Congress's own statements as to the best evidence of congressional intentions, which are the official reports of the Congress.... The House and Senate report language that is not changed by the explanatory statement is approved and indicates congressional intentions. The explanatory statement, while repeating some report language for emphasis, does not intend to negate the language referred to above unless expressly provided herein.

Table 4 compares some of the major policy provisions that have been identified in the General Provisions (Title VII) of the FY2019 Agriculture appropriations bills and act. It excludes policies that may have been addressed in the report language or explanatory statement. Many of these provisions have been included in past years' appropriations laws.

Sequestration is a process to reduce federal spending through automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority. Sequestration is triggered as a budget enforcement mechanism when federal spending would exceed statutory budget goals. Sequestration is currently authorized by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25 ).

Table A-1 shows the rates of sequestration that have been announced and the total amounts of budget authority that have been cancelled from accounts in Agriculture appropriations. Table A-2 provides additional detail at the account level for mandatory accounts.

For discretionary spending, sequestration is authorized through FY2021 if discretionary defense and nondefense spending exceed caps that are specified in statute (2 U.S.C. 901(c)).

In FY2013, the timing of the appropriations acts and the first year of sequestration resulted in triggering sequestration on discretionary spending.

In FY2014-FY2018, Bipartisan Budget Acts in 2013, 2015, and 2018 (BBAs; P.L. 113-67 , P.L. 114-74 , and P.L. 115-123 , respectively) have avoided sequestration on discretionary spending. These BBAs raised the discretionary budget caps that were placed in statute by the BCA and allowed Congress to enact larger appropriations than would have been allowed.

For FY2019, the BBA in 2018 similarly provides a higher discretionary cap that may avoid sequestration (see " Discretionary Budget Caps and Subcommittee Allocations ").

For mandatory spending, sequestration is presently authorized through FY2027, having been amended and extended by acts that were subsequent to the BCA (2 U.S.C. 901a(6)). That is, sequestration continues to apply annually to certain accounts of mandatory spending and is not avoided by the BBAs ( Table A-1 ).

The original FY2021 sunset on the sequestration of mandatory accounts has been extended four times as an offset to pay for avoiding sequestration on discretionary spending in the near term or as a general budgetary offset for other authorization acts:

1. Congress extended the duration of mandatory sequestration by two years (until FY2023) as an offset in BBA 2013. 2. Congress extended it by another year (until FY2024) to maintain retirement benefits for certain military personnel ( P.L. 113-82 ). 3. Congress extended sequestration on nonexempt mandatory accounts another year (until FY2025) as an offset in BBA 2015. 4. Congress extended sequestration on nonexempt mandatory accounts by another two years (until FY2027) as an offset in BBA 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 Division C, §30101(c)).

Some farm bill mandatory programs are exempt from sequestration. Those expressly exempt by statute are the nutrition programs (SNAP, the child nutrition programs, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program) and the Conservation Reserve Program. Some prior legal obligations in the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and the farm commodity programs may be exempt as determined by OMB.

Generally speaking, the experience since FY2013 is that OMB has ruled that most of crop insurance is exempt from sequestration, while the farm commodity programs, disaster assistance, and most conservation programs have been subject to it.

Sequestration on nonexempt mandatory accounts continues in FY2019. Nonexempt mandatory spending is to be reduced by a 6.2% sequestration rate and thus paid at 93.8% of what would otherwise have been provided. This results in a reduction of about $1.5 billion from mandatory agriculture accounts in FY2019.

Appendix B. Action on Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2019


Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction

Summary: The U.S. Constitution provides each House of Congress with the sole authority to establish rules and punish and expel Members. From 1789 to 1964, the Senate dealt individually with cases of disciplinary action against Members, often forming ad hoc committees to investigate and make recommendations when acts of wrongdoing were brought to the chamber's attention. Events of the 1960s, including the investigation of Secretary to the Majority Robert G. "Bobby" Baker, for alleged corruption and influence peddling, prompted the creation of a permanent ethics committee and the writing of a Code of Conduct for Members, officers, and staff of the Senate.

Summary: The Senate Select Committee on Ethics was first established in 1964. This bipartisan, six-member committee investigates alleged violations of the rules of the Senate and recommends disciplinary actions. In the 95th Congress (1977-1978), the Senate expanded the committee's jurisdiction and altered its procedures to implement revisions to the Senate Code of Official Conduct. Also, to reflect these changes the committee was renamed the Select Committee on Ethics.

Summary: This report briefly outlines the background of ethics enforcement in the Senate, including the creation of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and the subsequent renaming of the committee as the Select Committee on Ethics. The report also provides a brief overview of the Senate Code of Conduct and on the Select Committee's current jurisdiction and procedures.

Summary: For additional information on ethics in the Senate, please see CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: A Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus.

To ensure that Members of Congress uphold high standards, the U.S. Constitution provides sole authority to establish rules and punish and expel Members to the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively. Article I, Section 5, clause 2 provides that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. "

In the 18 th and 19 th centuries, the Senate used its authority to establish ethics rules and to punish individual Members sparingly. Former Senate historian Richard Baker observed that "[f]or nearly two centuries, a simple and informal code of behavior existed. Prevailing norms of general decency served as the chief determinants of proper legislative conduct. " During that time, Congress often dealt with ethics issues "on a case-by-case basis, [and then] only with the most obvious acts of wrongdoing, those clearly 'inconsistent with the trust and duty of a member. '"

Events in the early 1960s, including charges of corruption and influence peddling against Secretary to the Majority Robert G. "Bobby" Baker, prompted the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, which had jurisdiction over "[m]atters relating to the payment of money out of the contingent fund of the Senate or creating a charge upon the same," to hold hearings on financial and business activities of current and former Members, officers, and employees of the Senate.

This report examines the history and evolution of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, including the committee's jurisdiction and investigative procedure. It does not deal with changes to criminal law (as defined in Title 18, U .S. Code ), with criminal prosecutions of Members of Congress, or with the specifics of disciplinary cases in the Senate.

Prior to the 88 th Congress (1963-1964), no standard mechanism existed for discipline of Senators. During the 88 th Congress, the Senate created the first ethics committee, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. In the 95 th Congress (1977-1978), the Senate changed the committee's name to the Committee on Ethics.

Ethics reform became more salient in the Senate after Secretary to the Majority Robert G. "Bobby" Baker resigned on October 8, 1963, following allegations that he had misused his official position for personal financial gain. Following Mr. Baker's resignation, the Senate agreed to a resolution (S.Res. 212) to "inquire into the financial and business interests of any officer, employee, or former employee of the Senate." The resolution directed the Committee on Rules and Administration to conduct an investigation into current and former officers' and employees' financial and business interests. The resolution stated,

Resolved , That the Committee on Rules and Administration or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof is authorized and directed to make a study and investigation with respect to any financial or business interests or activities of any officer or employee or former officer or employee of the Senate, for the purpose of ascertaining (1) whether any such interests or activities have involved conflicts of interest or other impropriety, and (2) whether additional laws, rules, or regulations are necessary or desirable for the purpose of prohibiting or restricting any such interests or activities. The Committee shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date the results of its study and investigation, together with such recommendation as it may deem desirable.

Pursuant to the S.Res. 212, the Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of hearings to investigate the general business interests and activities of Senate officials and employees. In the report issued following the hearings, the committee recognized that serious allegations had been made against a former employee, and that no specific rules or regulations governed the duties and activities of Members, officers, or employees of the Senate. The committee also concluded that many of Baker's outside activities were in conflict with his official duties and made several recommendations, including adoption of public financial disclosure rules and other guidelines for Senate employees.

Following the investigation into Mr. Baker, additions to the Senate rules—calling for public financial disclosure reports and more controls on staff involvement with Senate campaign funds—were introduced to implement the committee's recommendations.

Additionally, the Committee on Rules and Administration considered the creation of a separate ethics committee. In a committee report on proposed amendments to Senate rules, Senator John Sherman Cooper discussed an amendment he proposed, but which did not pass the committee, to create a select committee on standards and conduct.

I regret that a resolution which I offered was rejected by the majority party representation on the committee. The resolution which I offered would have established a select committee on standards and conduct, composed of six members, three from each of the parties, to be appointed by the President of the Senate. This committee would be authorized to receive complaints of unethical, improper, illegal conduct of members, officers, or employees of the Senate, to make investigation of allegations of such conduct, to propose rules and regulations, to give advisory opinions, and to make recommendations to the Senate regarding disciplinary action if required.

I believe the establishment of such a committee made up of distinguished Members of the Senate would act as a deterrent upon possible violations, and in the exercise of jurisdiction, would have the confidence of the Senate and the public. I do not consider that such a special select committee should be considered as a policing committee, but one which, as I have said, would deter possible violations and deal with them with utmost dispatch and fairness.

On July 1, 1964, Senator B. Everett Jordan filed a resolution (S.Res. 338) to amend the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration and allow the committee

to investigate every alleged violation of the rules of the Senate, and to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions with respect thereto after according to any individual concerned due notice and opportunity for hearing. In any case in which the committee determines that any such violation has occurred, it shall be the duty of the committee to recommend to the Senate appropriate disciplinary action, including reprimand, censure, suspension from office or employment, or expulsion from office or employment.

Consideration of S.Res. 338 began on July 24, 1964. During debate, Senator Cooper proposed an amendment similar to his proposed amendment in the Committee on Rules and Administration. The amendment proposed to remove jurisdiction over ethical issues from the Committee on Rules and Administration and create a permanent, bipartisan Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. In proposing his amendment, Senator Cooper summarized why he thought the Senate should create a select committee instead of granting disciplinary authority to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

First, in the event that an investigation into the affairs of a Member of the Senate or an employee becomes necessary, it is to give assurance that the investigation would be complete and, so far as possible, would be accepted by the Senate and by the public as being complete.

Second—and this is important to all Members and to all employees of the Senate—it is to provide that an investigation, which could touch their rights and their offices as well as their honor, would be conducted by a select committee which by reason of its experience and its judgment, would give assurance that their right and honor would be justly considered.

Senator Cooper's amendment was adopted by a vote of 50 to 33. Subsequently, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 338, as amended, to create a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and for the first time created a continuing internal disciplinary body.

Members of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct were first appointed in July 1965, allowing the Committee on Rules and Administration to complete the Baker investigation. In October 1965, the committee elected a chair and vice chair, appointed its first staff, and began developing standards of conduct for the Senate.

On March 11, 1975, Senator Adlai Stevenson introduced S.Res. 109 to "establish a temporary select committee to study the Senate committee system." Agreed to in March 1976, the temporary select committee held hearings in July and September. Among items considered was the combination of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and the Committee on Rules and Administration. In a letter from Senator Howard Cannon, chair of the Select Committee on Standards, the ethics committee expressed opposition to this idea. In part, the letter read,

The Select Committee on Standards and Conduct took note of the tentative decision of your Committee to recommend the consolidation of this Committee with the Committee on Rules and Administration. While we are mindful of the promised benefit of reducing the number of Committees which Senators must attend, we strongly believe that your decision would fatally damage any usefulness our Committee might have as well as to impugn any system of ethics in the Senate.

By its very nature it is indispensable to an ethics committee of the Congress to be bipartisan in membership, to conduct any worthy investigation without control of its budget by any other committee, to be served by a nonpartisan staff, to advice and counsel with Senators, and to exercise prudent judgment in the conduct of its business. Consolidation of any ethics committee with a more-normal type of committee is likely to destroy all of these characteristics and to overwhelm any ethics identity. Unlike other committees, moreover, the Senate Committee on Standards and Conduct is mandated to directly assist the Senate in the discharge of a Constitutional responsibility.

Subsequently, the temporary select committee recommended that the functions of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct should be combined with the Committee on Rules and Administration.

While no further action was taken by the 94 th Congress (1975-1976), the issue was readdressed during the 95 th Congress (1977-1978). In a report on S.Res. 4 , a resolution to amend the Senate committee system, the Committee on Rules and Administration rejected the idea of combining the Committee on Standards with the Committee on Rules and Administration and instead recommended establishment of a newly constituted bipartisan ethics committee to demonstrate to the public the "seriousness with which the Senate views congressional conduct."

In February 1977, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 4 and created the permanent Select Committee on Ethics to replace the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Initially, membership on the new select committee was limited to six years. In the 96 th Congress (1979-1980), the Senate adopted S.Res. 271 , and removed the six-year service limitation.

In the 1940s, public criticism regarding potential conflicts of interest by Members of Congress supplementing their income from speeches and outside activities led to concern over the lack of disclosure of Members' finances. In 1946, Senator Wayne Morse introduced the first public financial disclosure legislation to require annual, public financial disclosure reports by Senators (S.Res. 306). In remarks on the introduction of the resolution, Senator Morse defended Members' right to earn outside income, but believed that the American people were entitled to know about alternate income sources. Commenting on the resolution's purpose, Senator Morse stated,

I may say that my resolution is bottomed upon the very sound philosophical principle enunciated by Plutarch that Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Likewise, I feel that, so far as the public's evaluation of Members of the Senate is concerned, they must be above suspicion. Hence, I think my resolution which calls for the filing with the Secretary of the Senate of all sources and amounts of senatorial income is in keeping with the public's right to know what influences may possibly be brought to bear upon Members of the Senate in the performance of their legislative duties.

No action was taken on Senator Morse's proposal.

In 1958, Congress established the first Code of Ethics for Government Service (Code of Ethics). Initially proposed in 1951 by Representative Charles Bennett, the Code of Ethics was adopted following a House investigation of presidential chief of staff Sherman Adams, who was alleged to have received gifts from an industrialist being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission. The Code of Ethics for Government Service standards continue to be recognized as ethical guidance in the House and Senate. The Code of Ethics is not legally binding, however, because it was adopted by congressional resolution, not by law.

In October 1965, as one of its first actions, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct recommended rules of conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the Senate. In March 1968, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct reported a resolution (S.Res. 266) making four additions to the Standing Rules of the Senate. After several days of debate, the Senate adopted a new code of conduct. The four areas covered by the new code of conduct were (1) outside employment of officers and employees, (2) raising and permissible uses of campaign funds, (3) political fund-raising activities of Senate staff, and (4) annual financial disclosures by senatorial candidates as well as Members, officers, and designated employees of the Senate.

Following the Watergate scandal in the Nixon Administration, reforms "such as electoral changes, designed to prevent the recurrence of the Watergate type of offense" were initiated in the executive branch. Subsequently, the Senate began to examine their own activities and behavior. On January 18, 1977, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd and Minority Leader Howard Baker jointly introduced S.Res. 36 , to establish a temporary Select Committee on Official Conduct. As part of a larger discussion on raising salaries for all federal employees, Senator Baker expressed his belief that establishing a formal code of conduct was an essential piece of raising government salaries.

The increase in compensation for Members of Congress will, no doubt, be considered and voted upon in the very near future. It is imperative, therefore, that prompt attention be given to questions relating to ethical conduct and financial disclosure.

For this reason, the distinguished majority leader and I have agreed to propose the establishment of an ad hoc committee to study all questions relating to a Senate code of conduct. The committee will have 15 members, including a chairman and vice chairman, of which eight will be of the majority party and seven of the minority party. It will be instructed to study all matters relating to the standards and conduct of Members of the Senate and to make its report and recommendations no later than March 1.

In this manner, Mr. President, I believe that the Senate can proceed to adoption of an equitable code of conduct as quickly as possible and with the benefit of the ad hoc committee's report.

S.Res. 36 was adopted by unanimous consent.

The Select Committee on Official Conduct held hearings in February 1977 and issued a final report on March 10. The Select Committee reported a resolution ( S.Res. 110 ) to amend the Code of Conduct and propose additions to the Standing Rules of the Senate (then numbered XLII to L), which would become the Code of Official Conduct. The proposed rules changes included the first public financial disclosure requirements for Senators and officers and employees of the Senate; limits on gifts, outside earnings, and the use of the frank; and prohibited unofficial office accounts and lame-duck foreign travel. There was also a provision prohibiting discrimination in staff employment.

On April 1, 1977, S.Res. 110 was agreed to and the Select Committee recommendations were adopted.

In 2007, pursuant to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, several sections of the Senate Code of Official Conduct were amended. These included placing restrictions on former Senators and senior staff who become federally registered lobbyists; requiring disclosure by Senators and staff of post-employment job negotiations; implementing protections against Senators from influencing hiring decisions based on political affiliation; and amending the Senate gift rules.

The current Senate Code of Official Conduct can be found in Rules 34 through 43 of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Additionally, federal statutes contain numerous provisions which prohibit or restrict certain activities by Members and employees. Discussion of the prohibitions and restrictions pursuant to federal law are included in the Senate Ethics Manual . Table 1 provides a list of Standing Rules of the Senate that are included in the Code of Official Conduct.

Pursuant to S.Res. 338 (88 th Congress), the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct was given the authority to (1) investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate; (2) investigate violations of laws, rules, and regulations of the Senate relating to the conduct of Members, officers, and employees in their official duties; (3) recommend disciplinary action, when appropriate; and (4) recommend additional Senate rules to insure proper conduct. Following the creation of the Select Committee on Ethics, the Senate adopted S.Res. 110 (95 th Congress) and transferred the jurisdiction of the former Select Committee on Standards and Conduct and made the new committee responsible for enforcing and interpreting the Senate Code of Official Conduct.

Since 1973, several additions have been made to the Select Committee on Ethics' jurisdiction. The additions have included use of the frank, disclosure of intelligence material, acceptance of foreign gifts, administration of public financial disclosure forms, and enforcement of fair employment practices.

In 1973, Congress passed legislation ( P.L. 93-191 ) clarifying the proper use of the franking privilege by Members of Congress and authorizing the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct to provide assistance and counsel to Senators and staff on the use of the frank.

When the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was created in 1976, the Ethics Committee was given specific jurisdiction to investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence information by a Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate and to report to the Senate on any substantiated allegation.

In August 1977, following the enactment of P.L. 95-105 (FY1978 Foreign Relations Authorization Act), which amended the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, the Select Committee on Ethics was designated the "employing agency" for the Senate and was authorized to issue regulations governing the acceptance by Senators and staff of gifts, trips, and decorations from foreign governments.

In August 1979, the Select Committee on Ethics was given responsibility for administering the Senate public financial disclosure requirements contained in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Pursuant to amendments in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the Ethics Committee was named as the "supervising ethics office" for laws governing gifts to federal employees and gifts by employees to their supervisors.

In 1991, Title III (Government Employee Rights Act of 1991) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 established the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices. The Office of Fair Employment Practices was designed to adjudicate discrimination complaints and gave the Select Committee on Ethics jurisdiction to review, upon request, decisions of the office. In 1995, authority to review discrimination cases was transferred to the Office of Compliance with the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA). The Ethics Committee continues to have jurisdiction over disciplinary cases that could result from an Office of Compliance investigation under Senate Rule 42.

Insider Trading and Financial Disclosure

On April 4, 2012, the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act) was passed to affirm that no exemption exists from "insider trading" laws and regulations for Members of Congress and congressional employees. Pursuant to the act, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics is required to

issue interpretive guidance of the relevant rules of each chamber, including rules on conflicts of interest and gifts, clarifying that a Member of Congress and an employee of Congress may not use nonpublic information derived from such person's position as a Member of Congress or employee of Congress or gained from the performance of such person's official responsibilities as a means for making a private profit.

Pursuant to the STOCK Act, the Select Committee on Ethics has issued two sets of guidance on the implementation of the law. The first, issued on June 15, 2012, provided a summary of STOCK Act requirements for Senate Staff, reminders of periodic transaction and financial disclosure requirements, and disclosure forms. The second, issued on December 4, 2012, provided specific guidance on insider trading restrictions under securities laws and Senate ethics rules.

Pursuant to changes made since 1977, the Select Committee on Ethics currently has jurisdiction over the following areas:

1. receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate, relating to the conduct of individuals in the performance of their duties as Members of the Senate, or as officers or employees of the Senate, and to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions with respect thereto; 2. recommend, when appropriate, disciplinary action against Members and staff; 3. recommend rules or regulations necessary to insure appropriate Senate standards of conduct; 4. report violations of any law to the proper Federal and State authorities; 5. regulate the use of the franking privilege in the Senate; 6. investigate unauthorized disclosures of intelligence information; 7. implement the Senate public financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act; 8. regulate the receipt and disposition of gifts from foreign governments received by Members, officers, and employees of the Senate; 9. render advisory opinions on the application of Senate rules and laws to Members, officers, and employees; 10. for complaints filed under the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 respecting conduct occurring prior to January 23, 1996, review, upon request, any decision of the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices; 11. develop and implement programs for Members, officers, and employees to educate them about standards of conduct applicable in the performance of their official duties; 12. "conduct ongoing ethics training and awareness programs for Members of the Senate and Senate staff"; and 13. issue an annual report on the number of alleged violations of Senate rules received from any source, including the number raised by a Senator or staff of the committee, and including the number of allegations dismissed or on which the committee took the specific actions.

Procedures for the Select Committee on Ethics are established pursuant to S.Res. 338 (88 th Congress), as amended; P.L. 93-191 ; S.Res. 400 (94 th Congress); and 5 U.S.C. Section 7342. The Ethics Committee may initiate an inquiry or investigate allegations brought by Senators, Senate officers, Senate staff, or outside individuals and groups. While the committee does not have formal procedural requirements for filing a complaint, the committee can issue public statements regarding a specific inquiry. If the committee chooses not to issue a public statement, all allegations are treated confidentially and the committee has a practice of neither confirming nor denying that a matter is before the committee. "Upon completion of its investigative process, the Committee may recommend to the Senate or party conference an appropriate sanction for a violation or improper conduct, including, for Senators, censure, expulsion, or party discipline and, for staff members, termination of employment."

In 1977, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 110 , which created the Code of Official Conduct. Title II of S.Res. 110 amended S.Res. 338, the 1964 resolution that created the procedures of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, which became the Select Committee on Ethics. The amendments required the Select Committee to receive complaints and investigate alleged violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct and to publish necessary regulations to implement the code. Title II also required the publishing of advisory opinions in the Congressional Record, if requested by specified individuals.

Appendix A. Membership on the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, 1965-1976

Created in the 89 th Congress (1965-1966), a total of 14 Senators served on the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct prior to its being disbanded with the creation of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in the 95 th Congress (1977-1978). Table A-1 provides a list of all Members who served on the Senate Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, their party affiliation, and their state. Majority party Members are listed first.

Appendix B. Membership on the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, 1977-2019

Created in the 95 th Congress (1977-1978), the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has had a total of 57 different members. Table B-1 provides a list of all Members who have served on the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, their party affiliation, and their state. Majority party Members are listed first.