Discretionary spending is provided and controlled through annual appropriations acts. Mandatory funds from the authorizing law are assumed to be available unless they are expressly reduced to smaller amounts by a subsequent act of Congress in the appropriations process or by the authorizing committees. Most of the rest, about $147 billion over 10 years, is funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Historically, mandatory agricultural funding was reserved for the farm commodity programs that began in the 1930s. Some consider this expansion to be beyond the chartered purpose of the CCC, while others prefer the stability and consistency of mandatory funding to that of the appropriations process. CHIMPS can offset increases in discretionary spending that are above discretionary budget caps. Similarly, authorizing committees also have reduced mandatory spending levels that initially were enacted. First, they reduce programs to offset spending increases for other mandatory programs within their jurisdiction (new authorizing laws that require pay-as-you-go budget rules). Second, they reduce programs to get credit for budget reconciliation (savings that are required when a budget resolution adopted by Congress forces many authorizing committees to reduce program spending to address budget deficits). Or should appropriators determine funding on an annual basis in appropriations acts? Given the use of CHIMPS in recent Agriculture appropriations bills, appropriators apparently believe that such mandatory spending is not always appropriate. CHIMPS in eight conservation programs are among the most notable, accounting for $3 billion of the $7.5 billion total over eight years. Among individual programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has the highest multiyear total, $1.2 billion over eight years. The Conservation Security Program was reduced by $3.1 billion in FY2003 and $2.9 billion in FY2005 to create offsets for agricultural disaster assistance (each were 10-year reductions). In that reconciliation, authorizers cut $2.7 billion of mandatory funding over five years, from many of the same conservation, rural development, and research programs that had been the subject of CHIMPS in prior years. More recently, a funding proposal for the Senate Agriculture Committee's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 ( S. 3307 ) proposes to reduce EQIP by $2.2 billion over 10 years to offset the cost of increases to the child nutrition program. In addition to Congress taking action to reduce spending, the Administration sometimes can make changes that reduce mandatory outlays and these actions may affect the baseline. If action waits until a future farm bill, the Agriculture Committees could make similar reductions in crop insurance and be able to use the savings to offset other programs elsewhere in the farm bill—funds that would not be available if USDA makes cuts administratively. Reductions by Both Authorizers and Appropriators: CSP

Some programs have been a source of reductions for both appropriators and authorizers. 2301) and replaced by the Conservation Stewardship Program. For example,
A multiyear total of CHIMPS by appropriators can exceed the mandatory funds made available for the program in the authorizing legislation.
Many agricultural programs receive mandatory funding through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Mandatory funding is made available by multiyear authorizing legislation and does not require annual appropriations or subsequent action by Congress. However, mandatory funding can be reduced in the appropriations process or by the authorizing committees themselves. In contrast to mandatory funding, discretionary funding is made available by annual appropriations acts on a year-by-year basis through a different process originating in the appropriations committees.
While mandatory spending in agriculture historically was reserved for the farm commodity programs, the authorizing Agriculture Committees have expanded its use to conservation, rural development, and energy programs in the recent farm bills passed by Congress. Mandatory spending creates funding stability and consistency compared to that of the appropriations process. Some argue, however, that this use of mandatory spending has moved beyond the statutory purpose of the CCC. This has created tension between authorizers and appropriators, leading to actions by appropriators that are called "changes in mandatory program spending" (CHIMPS). CHIMPS usually reduce or block mandatory outlays, but sometimes appropriators replace some of the blocked funding with discretionary appropriations. Nonetheless, CHIMPS generate savings that appropriators can use to offset increases in discretionary spending.
Between FY2003 and FY2010, CHIMPS by appropriators to mandatory agricultural programs have totaled $7.5 billion. CHIMPS to eight conservation programs are among the most notable, accounting for $3 billion of this total. Among individual programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has the highest multiyear total of CHIMPS, at $1.2 billion.
Authorizing committees also have reduced mandatory program spending to generate savings after a farm bill has been enacted. The reason may be to offset spending increases for other programs within their jurisdiction or to comply with budget reconciliation directives.
Notable among changes to authorizing laws (not CHIMPS), the Conservation Security Program was reduced in FY2003 and again in FY2005 to offset agricultural disaster assistance ($3.1 billion and $2.9 billion, respectively). Authorizers also received credit for $2.7 billion in budget reconciliation savings (over five years) across 12 programs in 2005, many of which had been reduced by appropriators in prior years through CHIMPS.
More recently, the Senate Agriculture Committee's current funding plan for the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (S. 3307) proposes to use $2.2 billion of reductions from EQIP over 10 years to offset the cost of increases for child nutrition. A proposed alternative to use an offset from the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) would have similar budgetary effects, and would likewise affect a mandatory program.
The Administration also can take actions that reduce mandatory outlays. In renegotiating the Standard Reinsurance Agreement for the crop insurance program, the Administration has proposed changes that would reduce the baseline available for crop insurance by about $7-8 billion over 10 years. This has raised a debate over whether such reductions should wait so that Congress can get credit for any reduction, especially for future farm bills or possible budget reconciliation.