.

Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2011 Appropriations
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Melissa D. Ho
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
Dennis A. Shields
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Remy Jurenas
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
November 4, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41475
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Summary
The Agriculture appropriations bill provides funding for all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) except the Forest Service, plus the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, in some
cases, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Appropriations jurisdiction for the
CFTC is split between two subcommittees—the House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee
and the Senate Financial Services appropriations subcommittee.
The FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill has seen no floor action and only limited committee
action. The House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee marked up its draft on June 30, 2010,
but the full committee did not vote on or report the bill, and thus only summary information is
publicly available. The full Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the
Agriculture appropriations bill (S. 3606, S.Rept. 111-221) on July 15, 2010. With no further
action on the bill, agencies are being funded at FY2010 levels under a continuing resolution (P.L.
111-242) that expires on December 3, 2010.
The House subcommittee markup would provide $23.1 billion of discretionary spending
(including CFTC). This is $256 million less than the official FY2010 discretionary total (-1.1%).
However, the FY2010 appropriation included two large items that are not in the FY2011 budget:
$350 million of supplemental dairy assistance, and $173 million for a rural housing program that
was replaced by user fees. If these two items totaling half a billion dollars are excluded from
FY2010 for comparison, the House FY2011 draft is $215 million more than the FY2010 adjusted
total (+0.9%; unlike the Administration and Senate bill, the House draft retained $52 million for
the rural housing program, making this adjustment $471 million rather than $523 million).
The House subcommittee draft has increases for FDA (+$214 million), CFTC (+$92 million),
foreign assistance (+$110 million), Farm Service Agency accounts (+$107 million), and meat and
poultry inspection (+18 million). Agricultural research programs are nearly flat in total. These
increases are partially offset by a $95 million reduction in domestic nutrition assistance, a $25
million reduction in animal and plant health programs, and a larger amount of reductions from
mandatory programs than in FY2010.
The Senate-reported bill would provide $23.2 billion of discretionary spending (including for
comparison the amount for CFTC from another appropriations bill). This is $142 million less than
the official FY2010 discretionary total (-0.6%), but $381 million more than FY2010 if the above
adjustment for dairy and rural housing is made (+1.7%). The Senate bill’s discretionary total is
$114 million more than the House draft. For accounts shared by both the House and Senate
Agriculture appropriations subcommittees, the Senate bill is $89 million higher (+0.4%) than the
House draft. The Senate bill is relatively more generous than the House for conservation, animal
and plant health programs, Farm Service Agency programs, and nutrition assistance. The Senate
bill is relatively less generous than the House draft for foreign assistance and FDA (although both
still would receive more than FY2010).
Mandatory programs would receive $11.1 billion more (+11%) than in FY2010 in the Senate bill,
with all of that increase in domestic nutrition assistance. Child nutrition amounts are up $1.3
billion (+8%) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps)
is up $9.9 billion (+17%) over FY2010. This continues a trend of rapidly rising food assistance
programs because of the economic downturn in recent years. Mandatory appropriations for farm
support programs are flat. Amounts for mandatory programs are not available for the House draft.
Congressional Research Service

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Congressional Research Service

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill............................................................................... 1
USDA Activities and Relationships to Appropriations Bills................................................... 1
Related Agencies .................................................................................................................. 3
Discretionary vs. Mandatory Spending .................................................................................. 4
Outlays, Budget Authority, and Program Levels.................................................................... 4
Action on FY2011 Appropriations .............................................................................................. 5
House Action ........................................................................................................................ 6
Senate Action........................................................................................................................ 6
Funding Levels ..................................................................................................................... 7
FY2011 Funding Summary ............................................................................................. 7
Historical Trends........................................................................................................... 15
Limits on Mandatory Program Spending ............................................................................. 19
Earmarks ............................................................................................................................ 21
USDA Agencies and Programs.................................................................................................. 23
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................ 23
Agricultural Research Service ....................................................................................... 25
National Institute of Food and Agriculture..................................................................... 25
Economic Research Service .......................................................................................... 26
National Agricultural Statistics Service ......................................................................... 26
Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................................... 27
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................................................. 27
Agricultural Marketing Service and Section 32.............................................................. 30
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration ............................................ 31
Meat and Poultry Inspection................................................................................................ 31
Farm Service Agency.......................................................................................................... 33
FSA Salaries and Expenses ........................................................................................... 33
Information Technology................................................................................................ 34
FSA Farm Loan Programs............................................................................................. 36
Commodity Credit Corporation ........................................................................................... 38
Crop Insurance.................................................................................................................... 39
Conservation....................................................................................................................... 39
Discretionary Programs................................................................................................. 40
Mandatory Programs..................................................................................................... 41
Rural Development ............................................................................................................. 42
Rural Housing Service .................................................................................................. 42
Rural Business-Cooperative Service.............................................................................. 45
Rural Utilities Service ................................................................................................... 47
Domestic Food Assistance................................................................................................... 48
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid......................................................................................... 49
Foreign Agricultural Service ......................................................................................... 50
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) ............................................................................... 50
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition .............................................. 51
Commodity Credit Corporation—Export Credit Guarantee Programs ............................ 51
Food and Drug Administration .................................................................................................. 52
Congressional Research Service

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ................................................................................. 52

Figures
Figure 1. USDA Budget Authority, FY2010................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2010 .......................................... 2
Figure 3. Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory vs. Discretionary........................................... 16
Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition vs. Other .......................................... 16
Figure 5. Domestic Nutrition Programs in Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory vs.
Discretionary ......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6. Non-nutrition Programs in Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory vs.
Discretionary ......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7. Agriculture Appropriations in Constant (Inflation-adjusted) 2010 Dollars................... 18
Figure 8. Agriculture Appropriations as a Percentage of Total Federal Budget Authority........... 18
Figure 9. Agriculture Appropriations as a Percentage of GDP ................................................... 18
Figure 10. Agriculture Appropriations per Capita of U.S. Population......................................... 18
Figure 11. Number of Earmarks in Agriculture Appropriations.................................................. 22
Figure 12. Value of Earmarks in Agriculture Appropriations ..................................................... 22
Figure 13. USDA Research Budget: FY1990-FY2011 ............................................................... 24
Figure 14. ARS and NIFA Budget: FY1990-FY2011 ................................................................ 24
Figure A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2010 ................ 54

Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on FY2010 Agriculture Appropriations........................................ 6
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title: FY2010-FY2011................ 9
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations and Supplementals, by
Agency and Program: FY2010-FY2011 ................................................................................. 10
Table 4. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: Recent Trends................................ 15
Table 5. Reductions in Mandatory Programs in FY2010 and FY2011 ........................................ 20
Table 6. Earmarks Disclosed by Congress in Agriculture Appropriations................................... 22
Table 7. National Institute of Food and Agriculture Appropriations, FY2009-FY2011............... 26
Table 8. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS): FY2010-FY2011...................... 28
Table 9. Recent Appropriations for FSA Information Technology ............................................. 35
Table 10. Estimated Stabilization and Modernization Project Costs ........................................... 35
Table 11. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority, FY2010-FY2011............................ 37
Table 12. Rural Housing Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011........................................... 43
Table 13. Rural Business-Cooperative Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 ...................... 46
Congressional Research Service

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 14. Rural Utilities Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 ........................................... 48
Table A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2011 ................. 54

Appendixes
Appendix. ................................................................................................................................. 54

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 55
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 55

Congressional Research Service

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
The FY2011 continuing resolution (P.L. 111-242) includes funding for Agriculture appropriations
since a stand-alone bill was not enacted before October 1, 2010. The continuing resolution
provides funding at FY2010 levels, and expires on December 3, 2010.
No floor action and limited committee action has occurred on the FY2011 Agriculture
appropriations bill. The House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee marked up its draft on
June 30, 2010, but the bill did not see full committee action, nor was it reported. The Senate
Appropriations Committee reported S. 3606 (S.Rept. 111-221) on July 15, 2010.
The House subcommittee markup provides $23.1 billion of discretionary appropriations. This is
1.1% less than FY2010. The Senate-reported bill would provide $23.2 billion of comparable
discretionary spending (including the amount for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in
another bill; -0.6%). For accounts shared by the Agriculture appropriations subcommittees in both
chambers, the Senate bill is $89 million higher (+0.4%) than the House draft.
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill
The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—provides funding for
the following agencies and departments:
• all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (except the Forest Service, which is
funded by the Interior appropriations bill),
• the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and
• in the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In the
Senate, CFTC appropriations are handled by the Financial Services
appropriations subcommittee.
Jurisdiction for the appropriations bill rests with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, particularly each committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. These subcommittees are separate from
the agriculture authorizing committees—the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
USDA Activities and Relationships to Appropriations Bills
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) carries out widely varied responsibilities through
about 30 separate internal agencies and offices staffed by about 100,000 employees.1 USDA
spending is not synonymous with farm program spending. USDA also is responsible for many
activities outside of the agriculture budget function, such as conservation and nutrition assistance.

1 USDA, FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, February 2010, p. 142, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY11budsum.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

USDA’s regular budget authority for FY2010 was $126.6 billion, excluding supplemental
appropriations.2 Food and nutrition programs are the largest mission area, with $83 billion, or
65% of the total, to support the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly
food stamps), the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and child nutrition programs
(Figure 1).
The second-largest USDA mission area, with $23 billion (19%) in budget authority, is farm and
foreign agricultural services. This broad mission area includes the farm commodity price and
income support programs of the Commodity Credit Corporation, crop insurance, certain
mandatory conservation and trade programs, farm loans, and foreign food aid programs.
Other USDA mission areas include natural resource and environmental programs (8% of the
total), rural development (3%), research and education programs (2%), marketing and regulatory
programs (2%), and food safety (1%). About 60% of the budget for natural resources programs
(the third-largest slice in Figure 1) goes to the Forest Service (about $6 billion), which is funded
through the Interior appropriations bill.3 The Forest Service is the only USDA agency not funded
through the Agriculture appropriations bill; it also accounts for about one-third of USDA’s
personnel, with over 36,000 staff years in FY2010.4
Figure 1. USDA Budget Authority,
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related
FY2010
Agencies Appropriations, FY2010
($126.6 billion, excluding supplementals)
($121.3 billion, excluding supplementals)
Farm &
Conserv. &
Title I:
Title III:
foreign ag
forests
Agricultural
Rural Dev.
19%
8.0%
programs
2.4%
25%
Rural dev.
Title VI:
2.6%
FDA,CFTC
2.1%
Research
2.4%
Title V:
Mktg. &
Foreign ag
regulatory
1.7%
Food &
Title IV:
2.1%
nutrition
Food
Domestic
Title II:
65%
safety
nutrition
Conserv.
0.8%

68%
0.8%

Source: CRS, using USDA FY2011Budget Summary,
Source: CRS, using S.Rept. 111-221 and Table 2.
May 2009.
Notes: Does not show general provisions (-$0.19
billion net). Total does not include $400 million of
supplemental appropriations included in amounts for
FY2010 in S.Rept. 111-221, but does include CFTC.
Comparing USDA’s organization and budget data to the Agriculture appropriations bill in
Congress is not always easy. USDA defines its programs using “mission areas” that do not
always correspond to categories in the Agriculture appropriations bill (Figure 2). Spending may
not match up between USDA summaries and the appropriations bill for other reasons. For
example:

2 Ibid, at pp. 134-135.
3 For more on Forest Service appropriations, see CRS Report R41258, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2011 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
4 USDA, FY2011 Budget Summary, at p. 142.
Congressional Research Service
2

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

• Foreign agricultural assistance programs are a separate title in the appropriations
bill (Title V in Figure 2). Foreign assistance programs are joined with domestic
farm support in USDA’s “farm and foreign agriculture” mission area (the second-
largest slice in Figure 1).
• Conversely, USDA has separate mission areas for agricultural research,
marketing and regulatory programs, and food safety (three of the smaller slices in
Figure 1). These are joined with other domestic farm support programs in Title I
of the appropriations bill (the second-largest slice in Figure 2).
The type of funding (mandatory vs. discretionary) also is important in how it is summarized.
• Conservation in the appropriations bill (Title II in Figure 2) includes only
discretionary programs. The mandatory funding for conservation programs is
included in Title I of the appropriations bill.
• Conversely, USDA’s natural resources mission area in Figure 1 includes both
discretionary and mandatory conservation programs (and the Forest Service).
Related Agencies
In addition to the USDA agencies mentioned above, the Agriculture appropriations
subcommittees have jurisdiction over appropriations for two related agencies:
• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), and
• The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC, an independent financial
markets regulatory agency)—in the House only.
The combined share of FDA and CFTC funding in the overall Agriculture and Related Agencies
appropriations bill is about 2% (see Title VI in Figure 2).
Jurisdiction over CFTC appropriations is assigned differently in the House and Senate. In the
House, appropriations jurisdiction for CFTC remains with the Agriculture appropriations
subcommittee. In the Senate, jurisdiction moved to the Financial Services appropriations
subcommittee with the FY2008 appropriations cycle. Prior to 2008, it was with the Senate
Agriculture appropriations subcommittee. Final placement in recent appropriations acts has
alternated annually between the subcommittees. The FY2010 and FY2008 appropriations put
CFTC funding in the Agriculture bill; the consolidated FY2009 appropriation put CFTC in the
Financial Services bill.
These agencies are included in the Agriculture appropriations bill because of their historical
connection to agricultural markets. However, the number and scope of non-agricultural issues has
grown at these agencies in recent decades. Some may argue that these agencies no longer belong
in the Agriculture appropriations bill. But despite the growing importance of non-agricultural
issues, agriculture and food issues are still an important component of FDA’s and CFTC’s work.
At FDA, medical and drug issues have grown in relative importance, but food safety
responsibilities that are shared between USDA and FDA have been in the media during recent
years and are the subject of legislation and hearings. At CFTC, the market for financial futures
contracts has grown significantly compared with agricultural futures contracts, but volatility in
agricultural commodity markets has been a subject of recent scrutiny at CFTC and in Congress.
Congressional Research Service
3

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Discretionary vs. Mandatory Spending
Discretionary and mandatory spending are treated differently in the budget process. Discretionary
spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and consumes most of the attention during
the appropriations process. The subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees originate bills each year that provide funding and direct activities among
discretionary programs.
Eligibility for participation in mandatory programs (sometimes referred to as entitlement
programs) is usually written into authorizing laws, and any individual or entity that meets the
eligibility requirements is entitled to the benefits authorized by the law. Congress generally
controls spending on mandatory programs through authorizing committees that set rules for
eligibility, benefit formulas, and other parameters, not through appropriations.
Just under 20% of the Agriculture appropriations bill is for discretionary programs, and the
remaining balance of about 80% is classified as mandatory.
Major discretionary programs include certain conservation programs, most rural development
programs, research and education programs, agricultural credit programs, the Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Public Law (P.L.) 480
international food aid program, meat and poultry inspection, and food marketing and regulatory
programs. The discretionary accounts also include FDA and CFTC appropriations.
The vast majority of USDA’s mandatory spending is for food and nutrition programs—primarily
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) and child
nutrition (school lunch)—along with the farm commodity price and income support programs, the
federal crop insurance program, and various agricultural conservation and trade programs (nearly
all of Figure 1’s largest two pie pieces). Some mandatory spending, such as the farm commodity
program, is highly variable and driven by program participation rates, economic and price
conditions, and weather patterns. Formulas are set in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). But in
general, mandatory spending has tended to rise over time, particularly as food stamp participation
and benefits have risen in recent years because of the recession, rise in unemployment, and food
price inflation. See “Historical Trends” in a later section on funding.
Although these programs have mandatory status, many of these accounts receive funding in the
annual Agriculture appropriations act. For example, the food stamp and child nutrition programs
are funded by an annual appropriation based on projected spending needs. Supplemental
appropriations generally are made if these estimates fall short of required spending. The
Commodity Credit Corporation operates on a line of credit with the Treasury, but receives an
annual appropriation to reimburse the Treasury and to maintain its line of credit.
Outlays, Budget Authority, and Program Levels
In addition to the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, four other terms are
important to understanding differences in discussions about the federal spending: budget
authority, obligations, outlays, and program levels.5

5 See CRS Report 98-405, The Spending Pipeline: Stages of Federal Spending, by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service
4

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

1. Budget authority = How much money Congress allows a federal agency to
commit to spend. It represents a limit on funding and is generally what Congress
focuses on in making most budgetary decisions. It is the legal basis to incur
obligations. Most of the amounts mentioned in this report are budget authority.
2. Obligations = How much money agencies commit to spend. Activities such as
employing personnel, entering into contracts, and submitting purchase orders.
3. Outlays = How much money actually flows out of an agency’s account. Outlays
may differ from appropriations (budget authority) because, for example,
payments on a contract may not flow out until a later year. For construction or
delivery of services, budget authority may be committed (contracted) in one
fiscal year and outlays may be spread across several fiscal years.
4. Program level = Sum of the activities supported or undertaken by an agency. A
program level may be much higher than its budget authority for several reasons.
• User fees support some activities (e.g., food or border inspection).
• The agency makes loans; for example, a large loan authority (program level)
is possible with a small budget authority (loan subsidy) because the loan is
expected be repaid. The appropriated loan subsidy makes allowances for
defaults and interest rate assistance.
• Transfers from other agencies, or funds are carried forward from prior years.
Action on FY2011 Appropriations
FY2011 began on October 1, 2010. The continuing resolution that was enacted on September 30,
2010 (P.L. 111-242) includes agriculture funding since the agricultural appropriations bill was not
enacted before the start of the fiscal year. The continuing resolution provides funding at FY2010
levels, unless Congress reported an FY2011 bill that zeroed out funding for a program. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) allocates funding to departments and agencies under
the continuing resolution,6 but sometimes in a limited way that makes operations more restricted
than might otherwise occur when continuing last year’s funding levels.7 The continuing
resolution is effective until December 3, 2010.8
The continuing resolution covers all 12 regular appropriations bills and was necessary because
the House Appropriations Committee reported only two bills, both of which the House passed,
and the Senate Appropriations Committee reported 11 of its 12 bills, but with none getting to the
Senate floor. The two bills that saw House action were Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs; and Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. The only appropriations bill
not reported by the full committee in the Senate was Interior and Environment.9

6 Office of Management and Budget, “Apportionment of the Continuing Resolution(s) for Fiscal Year 2011,”
September 30, 2010, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/bulletins/b10-03.pdf.
7 For more background on agency funding under a continuing resolution, see CRS Report RL34700, Interim
Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Potential Impacts on Agency Operations, by Clinton T. Brass.
8 For more background on this continuing resolution and an historical context, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing
Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter.
9 See the CRS Appropriations Status Table, at http://www.crs.gov/Pages/appover.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
5

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

For the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill, no floor action and limited committee action has
occurred. The full Senate Appropriations Committee reported an agriculture appropriations bill
(S. 3606, S.Rept. 111-221) on July 15, 2010. The House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee marked up its draft on June 30, 2010, but the bill did not see full committee action
nor was it reported. Table 1 summarizes the steps in the passage of the bill in each chamber.
The FY2011 agriculture appropriation is similar to the FY2009 bill in that neither chamber acted
on the bill as a stand-alone measure (Table A-1 in the appendix). Conversely, agriculture
appropriations were enacted as stand-alone bills in FY2010 and FY2006. Omnibus appropriations
were as recently as FY2008 and FY2009. FY2007 saw a year-long continuing resolution. Table
A-1 has links to each appropriation and annual CRS report.
Table 1. Congressional Action on FY2010 Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
6/30/10
—
—
—
7/15/10
—
—
—
—
—
Voice vote Polled outa

S. 3606

S.Rept.
111-221
Vote 17-12
Source: CRS.
a. A procedure that permits a bill to advance if subcommittee members independently agree to move it along.
House Action
The House Agriculture appropriations subcommittee marked up the FY2011 Agriculture
appropriations bill on June 30, 2010, but the markup did not see full committee action nor was it
reported. Thus no full-text version of the bill or report language has been made public. The
subcommittee, however, did release an eight-page summary by the committee chairwoman10 and
a funding table of discretionary appropriations at the agency level.11
Senate Action
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2011 Agriculture
appropriations bill (S. 3606, S.Rept. 111-221) on July 15, 2010. The full committee bypassed
subcommittee action by “polling” the bill out of subcommittee—a procedure that permits a bill to
advance if subcommittee members independently agree to move it along.12 This expedited

10 House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, “Statement of Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, Subcommittee
Markup: Fiscal Year 2011 Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA Appropriations Bill,” June 30, 2010, at http://www.
appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/Delauro_Opening_Statement.6.30.10.pdf.
11 House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, “Summary Table of FY2011 Markup,” June 30, 2010, (at http://
www.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/AG_FY2011_Summary_for_Subcommittee_-_for_press.pdf.
12 For more about polling in the Senate, see CRS Report RS22952, Proxy Voting and Polling in Senate Committee, by
Christopher M. Davis.
Congressional Research Service
6

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

committee procedure was formerly uncommon for the Agriculture appropriations bill, but was
used for the FY2009 and FY2010 agriculture appropriations bills as well.
Funding Levels
FY2011 Funding Summary
For FY2011, the Administration requested a total of $132.3 billion for accounts in the Agriculture
appropriations bill (including CFTC), 9% higher than the enacted FY2010 appropriation, but
mostly because of mandatory spending. 13 For mandatory amounts, the Administration is
requesting $109.1 billion, 11% more than FY2010.14 The increase in mandatory spending is for
domestic nutrition assistance in the food stamp and child nutrition accounts.
For the discretionary amount, the Administration requested $23.2 billion, which is $187 million
less than (-0.8%) the official FY2010 amount. However, the FY2010 appropriation included two
large items that are not in the FY2011 budget: $350 million of supplemental dairy assistance, and
$173 million for a rural housing program that was replaced by user fees in a FY2010
supplemental appropriation. If these two items totaling $523 million are excluded from FY2010
for comparison, the Administration’s discretionary request is $336 million more than the FY2010
adjusted total (+1.5%).
The House subcommittee markup would provide $23.1 billion of discretionary funding (Table 2).
This is $256 million less than the official FY2010 discretionary total (-1.1%), but $215 million
more than FY2010 if the adjustment above for dairy and rural housing is made (+0.9%).15
• The House draft increases FDA by $214 million (+9%) over FY2010, increases
foreign assistance by $110 million (+5%), increases Farm Service Agency
accounts by $107 million (+6%), increases CFTC by $92 million (+55%), and
increases meat and poultry inspection by $18 million (+2%). Agricultural
research programs were nearly flat in total, with the Agricultural Research
Service receiving less, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
receiving more (Table 3).
• These increases are partially offset by a $95 million reduction in domestic
nutrition assistance (mostly in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) account),

13 To facilitate comparison, all totals discussed in this section (unless otherwise indicated) include appropriations for
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regardless of appropriations committee jurisdiction. Final
placement of CFTC since FY2008 alternates annually between the Agriculture and Financial Services subcommittees.
For the Senate, where CFTC jurisdiction is in the Financial Services appropriations subcommittee, tables in this report
note the separate jurisdiction and add CFTC at the bottom to make the totals comparable with the House bills.
14 These data on the Administration’s request come primarily from congressional sources such as the “Comparative
Statement of New Budget Authority” in S.Rept. 111-221. Using a single congressional source improves comparability.
However, documents such as USDA’s FY2011 Budget Explanatory Notes (February 2010, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/FY11explan_notes.html) or USDA’s FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance
Plan (February 2010, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY11budsum.pdf) provide additional details that are not
published elsewhere.
15 The House draft does not entirely replace the rural housing Section 502 loan subsidy with user fees. It retains $52
million of the $173 million of budget authority. Thus the $523 million adjustment in the amounts for the
Administration’s request and Senate bill is an adjustment of only $471 million for the House draft.
Congressional Research Service
7

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

a $25 million reduction in animal and plant health programs, and a larger amount
of reductions from mandatory programs than in FY2010.
• Information about amounts for mandatory programs is not available for the
House draft, but are likely to be very similar to the Administration’s request
and/or the Senate bill.
The Senate-reported bill (S. 3606) would provide $23.2 billion of discretionary spending (Table
2, including the amount for CFTC in the Senate Financial Services appropriations bill, S. 3677).
This is $142 million less than the official FY2010 discretionary total (-0.6%), but $381 million
more than FY2010 if the adjustment above for dairy and rural housing is made (+1.7%). The
Senate bill’s discretionary total is $114 million more than the House draft, with $25 million of
that difference in the Senate Financial Services subcommittee’s higher increase for CFTC. Thus,
for accounts shared by both the House and Senate Agriculture appropriations subcommittees, the
Senate bill is $89 million higher (+0.4%) than the House draft.
• The Senate bill increases FDA by $159 million (+7%) over FY2010, increases
Farm Service Agency accounts by $137 million, increases CFTC by $117 million
(+69%), increases foreign assistance by $40 million (+2%), increases meat and
poultry inspection by $29 million (+3%), and increases animal and plant health
programs by $22 million (+2%). Agricultural research programs were nearly flat
as in the House draft, but reversed with the Agricultural Research Service
receiving more, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture receiving less.
• These increases are partially offset by a similar increase as in the House in the
amount of reductions from mandatory programs. The Senate bill would not
reduce WIC in domestic nutrition assistance like the House.
• Compared to the House draft, the Senate’s bill is relatively more generous to
conservation, animal and plant health programs, Farm Service Agency programs,
and WIC. The Senate bill is relatively less generous than the House draft to
foreign assistance, and FDA (although both still would receive more than
FY2010).
• Mandatory programs would receive $11.1 billion more (+11%) in the Senate bill
than in FY2010, with all of that increase in domestic nutrition assistance. Child
nutrition amounts are up $1.3 billion (+8%) and food stamp programs are up $9.9
billion (+17%) over FY2010. This continues a trend of rapidly rising food
assistance program costs because of the economic downturn in recent years.
Mandatory appropriations for agricultural programs (farm commodity subsidies
and crop insurance) are flat, with a $1.2 billion increase in crop insurance
subsidies being offset by a $1.2 billion decrease in amounts for the Commodity
Credit Corporation.
The totals in the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill are more transparent this year and in
FY2010 than in previous years. The tables published at the end of the Senate report include items
that were formerly categorized as “scorekeeping adjustments” and were not necessarily
published. These include about $1 billion of Section 32 funds that are now listed under the
Agricultural Marketing Service in the table, and about $500-700 million of reductions in
mandatory programs that are now included under General Provisions. The prior extensive use of
scorekeeping adjustments sometimes caused difficulty in reconciling various published totals.
However, the new approach in the FY2010 and FY2011 bills is more straightforward.
Congressional Research Service
8

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 2 summarizes the totals of the FY2011 bill by title or broad program, comparing FY2010
to the House subcommittee draft and Senate-reported bill. Table 3 provides more detail within
each title by including accounts and agencies. Table 3 also shows the Administration’s request
and supplemental appropriations enacted for FY2010. The supplemental appropriations are
included for comparison, but are not included in the fiscal year totals because the primary purpose
of this report is to compare the regular annual appropriation across years.
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title: FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011
House
Senate-
House
Senate
Subc.
reported
Title in Appropriations Bill
P.L. 111-80
draft.
S. 3606
$ % $ %
Agricultural Programs
30,192
na
30,260
na
na
+68
+0.2%
Mandatory 22,855
na
22,760
na
na
-95
-0.4%
Discretionary 7,336
7,468
7,500
+132
+1.8%
+164
+2.2%
Conservation Programs
1,009
1,013
1,046
+4
+0.4%
+36
+3.6%
Rural Development
2,934
2,748
2,768
-186
-6.3%
-167
-5.7%
Domestic Food Programs
82,783
na
94,052
na
na
+11,269
+14%
Mandatory 75,128
na
86,366
na
na
+11,238
+15%
Discretionary 7,655
7,559
7,686
-96
-1.3%
+31
+0.4%
Foreign Assistance
2,089
2,200
2,129
+110
+5.3%
+40
+1.9%
FDA 2,357
2,571
2,516
+214
+9.1%
+159
+6.7%
CFTC (if in agriculture bill)
169
261

CFTC (if in financial services bill)

286
+92
+55% +117
+69%
General Provisions
-194
-721
-716
-527
+272%
-522
+270%
Total in agriculture bill (no adjustment for placement of CFTC)
Mandatory
97,983
na 109,126
na
na +11,142 +11%
Discretionary 23,356
23,100
22,928
-256
-1.1%
-428
-1.8%
Total
121,340
na 132,054
na
na +10,714 +8.8%
Totals without CFTC in any column
Discretionary 23,187
22,839
22,928
-348
-1.5%
-259
-1.1%
Total 121,171
na
132,054
na
na
+10,883
+9.0%
Totals with CFTC in all columns
Discretionary 23,356
23,100
23,214
-256
-1.1%
-142
-0.6%
Total 121,340
na
132,340
na
na
+11,000
+9.1%
Source: Compiled by CRS from P.L. 111-80, S. 3606, S.Rept. 111-221, House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee summary of FY2011 draft (http://www.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/AG_
FY2011_Summary_for_Subcommittee_-_for_press.pdf), S. 3677, and unpublished appropriations committee
tables.
Notes: na=not available. Table does not include supplemental appropriations. CFTC is shown in different ways
to make totals comparable.

Congressional Research Service
9

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations and Supplementals, by Agency and Program: FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2010
FY2011
Change from regular FY2010 to FY2011

Regular
Supp
House
Senate
House
Senate-
P.L. 111-118,
Admin.
Subc.
reported
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 111-80
P.L. 111-212
Request
draft
S. 3606
$
%
$
%
Title I: Agricultural Programs

Offices of Secretary and Chief Economist
19.3
—
20.1
na 19.4 na
na +0.1
+1%
Healthy Food Financing Initiative
0
—
35.0 40.0 15.0 +40.0 na +15.0 na
Chief Information Officer
61.6
—
63.7
na 63.7 na
na +2.1
+3%
Office of Inspector General
88.7
—
90.3
96.3
89.7 +7.6 +9%
+1.0 +1%
Buildings, facilities, and rental payments
293.1
—
277.9 na
269.2
na
na
-23.9
-8%
Other Departmental administration officesa 164.1
—
161.8 524.2b 152.8 -17.4b -3%b -11.3
-7%
Under Secretaries (four offices in Title I)c 3.5
—
3.6 na
3.5
na
na
+0.0
0%
Research, Education and Economics

Agric. Research Service
1,250.5
—
1,199.7 1,219.2 1,260.8 -31.3 -3% +10.3
+1%
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
1,343.2
—
1,342.8 1,357.0 1,310.5 +13.8
+1% -32.7 -2%
Economic Research Service
82.5
—
87.2 83.7
+1.2
+1%
251.9d
+7.6d +3%d
National Agric. Statistics Service
161.8
—
164.7
163.7
+1.9 +1%
Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
909.7
—
875.3 884.6 931.3
-25.0
-3% +21.7
+2%
Agric. Marketing Service
92.5
—
99.9
99.4
99.4 +6.9 +7%
+7.0 +8%
Section 32 (permanent + transfers)
1,320.1
—
1,220.3 na
1,220.3
na
na
-99.8
-8%
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
42.0
—
44.2
43.3
44.2 +1.3 +3%
+2.2 +5%
Food
Safety

Food Safety & Inspection Service
1,018.5
—
1,036.9 1,036.9 1,047.2 +18.4 +2% +28.7 +3%
Farm and Commodity Programs

Farm Service Agency Salaries and Exp.g 1,574.9
18.0f 1,690.8
1,832.5h 1,664.4 +106.7h +6%h +89.6
+6%
CRS-10

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

FY2010
FY2011
Change from regular FY2010 to FY2011

Regular
Supp
House
Senate
House
Senate-
P.L. 111-118,
Admin.
Subc.
reported
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 111-80
P.L. 111-212
Request
draft
S. 3606
$
%
$
%
Totals without CFTC in any
column

Discretionary 23,187.4
—
22,908.1 22,839.0 22,928.4 -348.4 -1.5%
-259.0 -1.1%
Total 121,170.8
—
132,028.2
na 132,054.0
na
na +10,883.2 +9%
Totals with CFTC in all columns

Discretionary 23,356.2
—
23,169.1 23,100.0 23,214.4 -256.2 -1.1%
-141.8 -0.6%
Total 121,339.6
—
132,289.2
na 132,340.0
na
na +11,000.4 +9%
Source: Compiled by CRS from P.L. 111-80, P.L. 111-118, P.L. 111-212, S. 3606, S.Rept. 111-221, House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee FY2011 draft summary
(http://www.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/AG_FY2011_Summary_for_Subcommittee_-_for_press.pdf), S. 3677, and unpublished appropriations tables.
Notes: na=not available. CFTC is shown in different ways to make totals comparable.
a. Includes offices for Advocacy and Outreach; Chief Financial Officer; Assistant Secretary and Office for Civil Rights; Assistant Secretary for Administration; Hazardous
Materials Mgt.; Dept. Administration; Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations; Office of Communications; General Counsel; Office of Homeland Security.
b. Includes al other Administrative offices in this top section of Title I (Office of the Secretary; Chief Information Officer; Buildings, Facilities and Rental Payments; Other
Departmental Administration; and Under Secretaries (except Under Secretaries for Conservation, Rural Development,, and Nutrition).
c. Includes four Under Secretary offices: Research, Education and Economics; Marketing and Regulatory Programs; Food Safety; and Farm and Foreign Agriculture.
d. The summary table for the House subcommittee draft combines amounts for NASS and ERS.
e. Includes Dairy Indemnity Program, State Mediation Grants, and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program.
f.
In P.L. 111-212, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010.
g. Includes regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus transfers for farm loan program salaries and expenses and farm loan program administrative expenses. However,
amounts transferred from the Foreign Agricultural Service for export loans and P.L. 480 administration are included in the originating account.
h. The summary table includes amounts for salaries and expenses, the farm loan program, dairy indemnity, state mediation grants, and water protection.
i.
Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made or guaranteed with a loan subsidy. Loan authority is not added in the budget authority subtotals or totals.
j.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation each receive “such sums as necessary.” Estimates are used in the appropriations bill reports.
k. Includes $2.021 million for a proposed Office of Ecosystem Services Management.
l.
Assumes $103 million rescission from cushion of credit interest spending in the rural development account, as shown in S. 3606, rather than in general provisions.
m. In P.L. 111-118, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, Division B, sec. 1001.
n. Implied from other known values for Title V, if assume CCC export salaries at Senate or Administration levels.
CRS-14

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Historical Trends
Agriculture appropriations have increased in absolute terms for more than the past decade. This
section of the report puts some of that growth in perspective—by type of funding or purpose, and
in relation to inflation and other variables.
Over the past 10 years (since FY2001), total mandatory Agriculture appropriations increased at a
6% average annualized rate, and total discretionary appropriations have increased at a 4% average
annualized rate (Table 4). Figure 3 shows the total budget authority of the Agriculture
appropriations bill divided between mandatory and discretionary spending.
Table 4. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: Recent Trends
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars)

Annualized change from past to FY2011
S. 3606
FY2010
FY2006
FY2001
FY1996

FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
(1-yr.)
(5-yrs.)
(10-yrs.)
(15-yrs.)
Total

Domestic nutritiona 60.1 76.2 82.8 94.1 +14% +10% +11% +6%
Otherb
30.6 32.2 38.6 38.3 -1% -1% -1% +3%
Total
90.7 108.4 121.3 132.3 +9% +6% +6% +5%
Mandatory

Domestic nutritiona 53.7 68.9 75.1 86.4 +15% +10% +11% +6%
Otherb
19.0 18.9 22.9 22.8 -0.4% -5% -3% +3%
Total mandatory
72.7
87.8
98.0
109.1
+11%
+6%
+6%
+5%
Discretionary
Domestic nutritiona 6.4 7.2 7.7 7.7
+0.4% +7% +6% +4%
Otherb
11.6 13.4 15.7 15.5 -1% +7% +4% +4%
Total
discretionary 18.0 20.6 23.4 23.2 -1% +7% +4% +4%
Percentages
of
Total

Mandatory
80% 81% 81% 82%

Discretionary
20% 19% 19% 18%

Domestic nutritiona 66% 70% 68% 71%

Otherb
34% 30% 32% 29%

Source: CRS, using annual tables from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Notes: Includes regular annual appropriations for all of USDA (except the Forest Service) and the Food and
Drug Administration. Excludes supplemental appropriations. Reflects rescissions. For consistency, funding is
included for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, regardless of where it was funded.
a. The largest domestic nutrition programs are the child nutrition programs, the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps)—both of which are mandatory—and the Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is discretionary.
b. “Other “ non-nutrition programs include the rest of USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Within that group, mandatory programs include the farm commodity programs, crop insurance, and some
conservation and foreign aid/trade programs.
Congressional Research Service
15

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Figure 3. Agriculture Appropriations:
Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations:
Mandatory vs. Discretionary
Domestic Nutrition vs. Other
$ billion
$ billion
135
Mandatory
135
Domestic nutrition
120
Discretionary
120
Other
105
105
90
90
94
109
83
75
98
75
59 57
76
88
60
47
83 80
60
35 34
52
60
70 68
73
38 42
45
62 60 57 57
40
45
55
40
50
35
40 36 41
30
40
30
37
41 41
41 41
15
15
28
35 33 39 33
23
31 32 39 38
13 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 18 17 17 17 18 18 21 23 23
13 12 20
0
0
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Source: CRS. FY2011 is pending; S. 3606 is shown.
Source: CRS. FY2011 is pending; S. 3606 is shown.
Notes: Includes regular annual appropriations only.
Notes: The largest domestic nutrition programs
Includes USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA,
are the child nutrition programs, SNAP (food
and CFTC (regardless of where funded). Fiscal year
stamps), and WIC. “Other” includes the rest of
budget authority.
USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
As discussed earlier, domestic nutrition programs are the largest component of spending in the
agriculture appropriations bill (68% of the total in FY2010). Figure 4 shows the same agriculture
bill total as in Figure 3, but divided between domestic nutrition programs and other spending.
The share going to domestic nutrition programs generally is increasing, rising from 46% in
FY2000-FY2001 to 68% in FY2010. Since FY2001, total nutrition program spending has
increased at an average 11% annual rate, compared to a -1% average annual change in outlays for
“other” spending (the rest of USDA, including the farm commodity programs but excluding the
Forest Service, plus FDA and CFTC). But these changes are sensitive to the time period (e.g., the
farm commodity programs were unusually high in 2001 because of supplemental payments to
farmers). And much of the steady growth in the nutrition programs is outside the control of the
appropriations committees and dependent on economic conditions, benefit formulas, and program
participation. Nonetheless, nutrition programs increased faster than non-nutrition spending for the
1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year periods ending in FY2011 (Table 4).
Most of the spending on nutrition programs is categorized as mandatory spending, primarily the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) and child nutrition
(school lunch). Figure 5 takes the orange-colored bars from Figure 4 (total domestic nutrition
programs) and divides them into mandatory and discretionary spending. Over the past 10 years,
mandatory spending on domestic nutrition programs has increased at an average 11% rate per
year, while discretionary nutrition programs have increased at an average 6% per year. This
growth is fairly steady since FY2001, but is not representative of the period between FY1995 and
FY2001.
Spending on the non-nutrition programs in the Agriculture appropriations bill (the rest of USDA
except the Forest Service, plus FDA and CFTC), is more evenly divided between mandatory and
discretionary spending, more variable over time, and generally changing at a slower rate than
domestic nutrition spending. Figure 6 takes the yellow-colored bars from Figure 4 (total non-
nutrition “other” spending) and divides them into mandatory and discretionary spending. Since
FY2001, this subtotal of mandatory spending has shown a -3% average annual change, primarily
because of the volatility in farm commodity programs. For the 15-year period ending in FY2011,
its growth was an average +3% per year.
Congressional Research Service
16

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Figure 5. Domestic Nutrition Programs
Figure 6. Non-nutrition Programs in
in Agriculture Appropriations:
Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory
Mandatory vs. Discretionary
vs. Discretionary
$ billion
$ billion
135
Mandatory
135
Mandatory
120
Discretionary
120
Discretionary
105
105
90
90
75
75
60
60
86
45
75
69
45
54
30
30
30 28
23 23
36 36 36
31 30
33 31 31
24
30 33 37 42 47 53 52
20 27 21
19 19
15
18
15
14 4 3 10
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
9
9
9 10 11 11 13 12 11 11 12 12 13 16 16
0
0
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Source: CRS. FY2011 is pending; S. 3606 is shown.
Source: CRS. FY2011 is pending; S. 3606 is shown.
Notes: Mandatory nutrition programs include
Notes: Non-nutrition programs include the rest of
SNAP (food stamps) and the child nutrition
USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
programs. WIC is the largest discretionary nutrition
Mandatory programs include the farm commodity
program.
programs, crop insurance, and some conservation
and trade/food aid programs.
The $15.5 billion of non-nutrition discretionary spending in the Senate bill for FY2011 (Table
4)—arguably the component of Agriculture appropriations over which appropriators have the
most control—has grown at a 7% annual rate since 2006, but at a slower 4% annual rate over the
10- and 15-year periods (Figure 6).
The Agriculture appropriations totals can also be viewed in inflation-adjusted terms and in
comparison to other economic variables (Figure 7 through Figure 10).
If the general level of inflation is subtracted, total Agriculture appropriations still have
experienced positive “real” growth—that is, growth above the rate of inflation. The total of the
annual bill has increased at an average annual 4% real rate over the past 10 years (Figure 7).
Within that total, nutrition programs have increased at a higher average annual real rate of 8%,
while non-nutrition programs had a -3% average annual real change over 10 years.
Comparing Agriculture appropriations to the entire federal budget authority,16 the Agriculture
bill’s share has declined from 4.4% of the federal budget in FY1995 to 3.6% in FY2011 (Figure
8). The share of the federal budget for nutrition programs has declined (from 2.5% in FY1995 to
1.8% in FY2008), although the increase in FY2011 returns the share (2.5%) to levels last seen in
FY1997. The share for the other agriculture programs also has declined from 1.8% in FY1995
and 2.1% in FY2001, to about 1.0% in FY2011.

16 At a more aggregate level, CRS Report RL33074, Mandatory Spending Since 1962, and CRS Report RL34424,
Trends in Discretionary Spending, compare federal spending by various components and against GDP.
Congressional Research Service
17

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Figure 7. Agriculture Appropriations in
Figure 8. Agriculture Appropriations as
Constant (Inflation-adjusted) 2010
a Percentage of Total Federal Budget
Dollars
Authority
$ billion
Total ag bill (2010 dollars)
% Fed. Bud.
Total ag bill
135
Nutrition
4.5%
Nutrition
120
Other
Other
105
90
3.0%
75
60
45
1.5%
30
15
0
0.0%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Source: CRS. FY2011 is pending; S. 3606 is shown.
Source: CRS. FY2011 is pending; S. 3606 is shown.
Notes: Adjusted using the GDP Price Deflator
Notes: Total federal budget authority is from the
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, National
FY2010 President’s Budget, Historical Tables, Table 5.
Income and Product Accounts, Table 1.1.9.
As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), Agriculture appropriations have been fairly
steady at just under 0.75% of GDP from FY2000-FY2009, but have risen to about 0.85% of GDP
in FY2010 and FY2011 (Figure 9). Nutrition programs have been rising as a percentage of GDP
since FY2000 (0.36% in FY2000 to 0.61% in FY2011), while non-nutrition agricultural programs
have been declining (0.42% in FY2000 to 0.25% in FY2011).
Finally, on a per capita basis, inflation-adjusted total Agriculture appropriations have risen
slightly over the past 10 to 15 years (Figure 10). Nutrition programs have risen more steadily on
a per capita basis, while the non-nutrition “other” agricultural programs have been more steady
over a 15-year period and declining over a 10-year period.
Figure 9. Agriculture Appropriations as
Figure 10. Agriculture Appropriations
a Percentage of GDP
per Capita of U.S. Population
% of GDP
Total ag bill
2010 $/capita
Total ag bill
Nutrition
Other
1.00%
Nutrition
Other
400
0.75%
300
0.50%
200
0.25%
100
0.00%
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Source: CRS. FY2011 is pending; S. 3606 is shown.
Source: CRS. FY2011 is pending; S. 3606 is shown.
Notes: Gross domestic product (GDP) is from the
Notes: Population figures from U.S. Census Bureau,
FY2010 President’s Budget, Historical Tables, Table
National Estimates and Projections (published in
10.1.
Statistical Abstract of the United States).

Congressional Research Service
18

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Limits on Mandatory Program Spending
In recent years, appropriators have placed limitations on mandatory spending that was authorized
in the farm bill. These limitations are also known as CHIMPS, “changes in mandatory program
spending.” Mandatory programs usually are not part of the annual appropriations process since
the authorizing committees set the eligibility rules and payment formulas in multi-year
authorizing legislation (such as the 2008 farm bill). Funding for mandatory programs usually is
assumed to be available based on the authorization without appropriations action.
Passage of a new farm bill in 2008 made more mandatory funds available for programs that
appropriators or the Administration may want to reduce, either because of policy preferences or
jurisdictional issues between authorizers and appropriators.
Historically, decisions over expenditures are assumed to rest with the appropriations committees.
The division over who should fund certain agriculture programs—appropriators or authorizers—
has roots dating to the 1930s and the creation of the farm commodity programs. Outlays for the
farm commodity programs were highly variable, difficult to predict and budget, and based on
multi-year programs that resembled entitlements. Thus, a mandatory funding system—the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)—was created to remove the unpredictable funding issue
from the appropriations process. This separation worked for many decades. But the dynamic
changed particularly in the late 1990s and the 2002 farm bill when authorizers began writing farm
bills using mandatory funds for programs that typically were discretionary. Appropriators had not
funded some of these programs as much as authorizers had desired, and agriculture authorizing
committees wrote legislation with the mandatory funding at their discretion. Thus, tension arose
over who should fund these typically discretionary activities: authorizers with mandatory funding
sources at their disposal, or appropriators having standard appropriating authority. Some question
whether the CCC, which was created to fund the hard-to-predict farm commodity programs,
should be used for programs that are not highly variable and are more often discretionary.17
The programs affected by these limits include conservation, rural development, bioenergy, and
research programs. The limits have not affected the farm commodity programs or the nutrition
assistance programs such as food stamps, both of which are generally accepted by appropriators
as legitimate mandatory programs.
When the appropriators limit mandatory spending, they do not change the authorizing law.
Rather, appropriators have put limits on mandatory programs by using appropriations 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 $[ ... ].” These provisions usually have appeared in Title VII, General
Provisions, of the Agriculture appropriations bill.
For FY2011, the Senate-reported bill contains $657 million in reductions from seven mandatory
programs. The Administration requests an even larger reduction of $735 million from eight
mandatory programs (Table 5). Information about the reductions in the House subcommittee
draft is not publicly available.

17 Summarized from Galen Fountain, Majority Clerk of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee,
“Funding Rural Development Programs: Past, Present, and Future,” p. 4, at the 2009 USDA Agricultural Outlook
Forum, February 22, 2009, at http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/2009_Speeches/Speeches/Fountain.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 5. Reductions in Mandatory Programs in FY2010 and FY2011
(dollars in millions)

FY2010
FY2011
Authorization
in 2008 farm
Senate-
bill available in
Admin.
reported
Program (section in 2008 farm bill P.L. 110-246)
FY2011
P.L. 111-80
Request
S. 3606
Conservation programs

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (sec. 2501)
1,588
-270
-380
-270
Dam Rehabilitation Program (sec. 2803)
165
-165 -165
-165
Wetlands Reserve Program (sec. 2201)
623
—
-142 -75
Farmland Protection Program (sec. 2401)
175
—
-15 -15
Grasslands Reserve (sec. 2403)
80
—
-14 -14
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (sec. 2602)
85
—
-12
—
Agricultural Management Assistance program (sec. 2801)
15
—
-5 -5
Conservation Stewardship Program (sec. 2301)
872
—
-2
Subtotal of these 8 conservation programs
3,603
-435
-735
-544
Specialty crops programs

Fruit and vegetables in schools program (sec. 4304)
150
-76a
—
-113a
Total authorization in these 9 mandatory programs
3,753

Total reduction in mandatory programs

-511
-735
-657
Source: CRS, based on P.L. 110-246; P.L. 111-80, H.Rept. 111-181, S.Rept. 111-39, and H.Rept. 111-279.
a. Delays funding from July until October of the same calendar year. This effectively allocates the farm bill’s
authorization by fiscal year rather than school year—with no reduction in overall support—and results in
savings being scored by appropriators.
Limits on mandatory programs proposed in the FY2011 appropriations bill are slightly higher
than the $511 million of reductions in FY2010 and $484 million of reductions in FY2009. The
FY2010 and FY2009 reductions affected the same three programs. None of these reductions,
however, are as large as the reductions during the height of the 2002 farm bill period (2002-2008)
that reached $1.5 billion in FY2006. Since appropriators had consistently limited various
mandatory programs in the 2002 farm bill, authorizers in the agriculture committees chose to
reduce or eliminate those programs when savings needed to be scored during budget
reconciliation in FY2005. Nonetheless, enactment of the 2008 farm bill—with a host of new and
reauthorized mandatory conservation, research, rural development, and bioenergy programs—
created new possibilities for appropriators to continue to limit mandatory programs.18

18 For more background on reductions in mandatory programs, see CRS Report R41245, Reductions in Mandatory
Agriculture Program Spending, by Jim Monke and Megan Stubbs.
Congressional Research Service
20

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Earmarks
Congress adopted earmark disclosure rules in 2007 that require appropriations acts to disclose
“earmarks and congressionally directed spending items.”19 The disclosure—self-identified by
Congress—includes the agency, project, amount, and requesting Member(s). Prior to FY2008,
earmark lists were subject to agency or analyst definitions as to what constituted an earmark.
Earmarks specified in the explanatory statement accompanying the final version of the bill
generally are not considered to have the same force of law as if they were in the text of the law
itself. But in the past, executive branch agencies usually have followed such directives since,
when they testify before Congress, they do not wish to explain why congressional directives were
not followed. Beginning in FY2009 appropriations acts, appropriations earmarks became more
formal by being incorporated, at least by reference, in the text of the bill.20
For FY2010, Congress disclosed 462 earmarks for Agriculture and Related Agencies, down by 59
earmarks from FY2009 (-11%) and down 161 earmarks (-26%) from FY2008. The total value of
these earmarks was $355.4 million, down 6% from the value in FY2009 and down 12% from the
value in FY2008. Agriculture is eighth among the 12 appropriations bills by the number of
earmarks, and tenth by the value of earmarks. 21
Three USDA agencies—the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)—account for
nearly 90% of the earmarks for Agriculture and Related Agencies (Table 6). By agency, the
number of earmarks has declined steadily since FY2008 (Figure 11), and value of earmarks is
generally declining also (Figure 12). The median FY2010 project size was $422,500.
For FY2011, the final number of earmarks will not be known until a final bill is enacted. At this
point, both the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees have released a
disclosure list of each chamber’s proposed earmarks.22 But tallies of these pre-enactment
disclosure lists are not predictive of the final count because some earmarks are in both drafts,
some are in only one version, some will be dropped in conference, and others might be added.

19 For background, see CRS Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules Concerning Earmark Disclosure.
20 For example, the bill text in the enacted FY2009 and FY2010 Agriculture appropriation states, “[$X for an agency],
of which $Y shall be for the purposes, and in the amounts, specified in the table titled ‘Congressionally-designated
Projects’ in the statement of managers to accompany this Act.”
21 The number and amount of earmarks in each of the 12 appropriations bills for FY2008 to FY2010—as well as
earmarks as a percentage of total appropriations, and a delineation of Presidential vs. Members-only earmarks—is
available in CRS Report R40976, Earmarks Disclosed by Congress: FY2008-FY2010 Regular Appropriations Bills, by
Carol Hardy Vincent and Jim Monke.
22 For earmarks in the Senate-reported bill, see S.Rept. 111-221, pp. 108-117. For earmarks in the House subcommittee
draft, see http://www.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/FY2011_AG_Table.6.30.10.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 6. Earmarks Disclosed by Congress in Agriculture Appropriations

Number
Value ($ million)
Agency FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Special Research Grants
191
183
168
92.4
84.5
87.6
Federal Administration
49
46
51
32.5
28.8
35.1
Extension 28
25
26
10.4
9.4
11.8
Subtotal,
NIFA
268 254 245 135.4 122.7 134.5
Agricultural Research Service
Salaries
and
Expenses
146 78 47 102.1 112.6 44.1
Buildings and Facilities
25
24
21
47.1
46.8
70.9
Subtotal,
ARS
171 102 68 149.2 159.3 115.0
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Conservation Operations
90
75
69
43.5
31.7
37.4
Watershed and Flood Prevention
25
22
23
28.0
23.6
22.1
Subtotal,
NRCS
115 97 92 71.5 55.3 59.5
Other agencies
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
57
53
45
27.5
24.0
27.0
Food and Drug Administration
9
9
7
11.9
11.1
10.2
Rural Development
2
5
4
4.5
4.9
6.2
Food and Nutrition Service
1
1
1
2.5
2.3
3.0
Total,
Agriculture
and
Related
Agencies 623 521 462 402.4 379.6 355.4
Source: CRS, compiled from “Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressional y Directed Spending Items” in
conference reports/committee prints accompanying P.L. 110-161, P.L. 111-8, and P.L. 111-80.
Figure 11. Number of Earmarks in
Figure 12. Value of Earmarks in
Agriculture Appropriations
Agriculture Appropriations
$ million
300
2008
2009
2010
2008
2009
2010
180
250
160
140
200
120
150
100
80
100
60
40
50
20
0
0
NIFA
ARS
NRCS APHIS FDA
RD
FNS

NIFA
ARS NRCS APHIS FDA
RD
FNS

Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.
Congressional Research Service
22

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

USDA Agencies and Programs
The Agriculture appropriations bill funds all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
except for the Forest Service. This amounts to 95% of USDA’s total appropriation. The Forest
Service is funded through the Interior appropriations bill.
USDA carries out widely varied responsibilities through about 30 internal agencies and offices23
staffed by about 100,000 employees; about 36,000 of those employees are in the Forest Service.24
The order of the following sections reflects the order that the agencies are listed in the Agriculture
appropriations bill. See Table 3 for more details on the amounts for specific agencies.
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, education, and economics (REE) mission:
• The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Department’s intramural science
agency, conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on food and
agriculture issues of national and regional importance.
• The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)—formerly the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES)25—distributes federal funds to land grant colleges of agriculture to
provide partial support for state-level research, education, and extension.
• The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic analysis of issues
regarding public and private interests in agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America.
• The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects and publishes
current national, state, and county agricultural statistics. NASS also is
responsible for administration of the Census of Agriculture, which occurs every
five years and provides comprehensive data on the U.S. agricultural economy.
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) instituted some organizational changes within the REE mission
area, such as the establishment of a new agency called the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), which USDA launched on October 8, 2009.26 The 2008 farm bill retained
and extended most existing authorities for REE programs, but at the same time did repeal and
create some new authorities. For instance, the 2008 farm bill provided mandatory funding for a

23 Detailed descriptions of USDA’s programs and FY2011 budget request are available in USDA’s FY2011 Budget
Explanatory Notes, February 2010, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/FY11explan_notes.html.
24 Staffing data are from USDA, FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, February 2010, p. 142, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY11budsum.pdf..
25Section 7511(f)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill, P.L. 110-246) amends the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an agency to be known as the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). On October 8, 2009, the Secretary officially announced the launch
of NIFA and the transfer of all authorities administered by the Administrator of the Cooperative State, Research,
Education and Extension Service.
26 See USDA press release on NIFA launch at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly
=true&contentid=2009/10/0501.xml.
Congressional Research Service
23

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

new flagship competitive grants program, called the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI, administered by NIFA). At the same time the 2008 farm bill repealed the mandatory-
funded Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems and the National Research Initiative
(NRI) competitive grants programs.
For FY2011, the Administration requested $2.794 billion of budget authority for the USDA REE
mission area, which is about a $43.6 million (1.5%) decrease from enacted FY2010 levels
($2.838 billion). The House subcommittee draft bill and the Senate-reported bill (S. 3606) fund
the REE mission area at $2.828 billion (-0.4%) and $2.819 billion (-0.7%), respectively.
When adjusted for inflation, USDA-funding levels for agriculture research, education, and
extension have remained relatively flat from 1970 to 2000.27 From FY2001 through FY2003,
supplemental funds appropriated specifically for anti-terrorism activities, not basic programs,
accounted for most of the increases in the USDA research budget. Funding levels since have
trended downward to historic levels (Figure 13), although ARS received supplemental funding
for buildings and facilities in FY2009. ARS and NIFA (formerly CSREES) account for most of
the research budget and their appropriations generally have tracked each other (Figure 14).
Figure 13. USDA Research Budget:
Figure 14. ARS and NIFA Budget:
FY1990-FY2011
FY1990-FY2011
Billion
Billion
$3.5
$1.4
$3.0
$1.2
$2.5
$1.0
$2.0
$0.8
2010 dollars
$1.5
$0.6
ARS
Actual
NIFA
$1.0
$0.4
$0.5
$0.2
$0.0
$0.0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010

Source: CRS, using appropriations committee data.
Source: CRS, using appropriations committee data.
Notes: Includes supplemental appropriations;
Notes: Includes supplemental appropriations;
FY2011 amounts are from S. 3606.
FY2011 amounts are from S. 3606.
In an effort to find new money to boost the availability of competitive grants in the REE mission
area, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have tapped mandatory funds twice since
1997. However the annual Agriculture appropriations act has prohibited the use of those
mandatory funds for the purposes the agriculture committees intended, except in FY1999. On the
other hand, in many years during the FY1999-FY2006 period, and again in FY2010,
appropriations conferees provided more discretionary funds for ongoing REE programs than were
contained in either the House- or Senate-passed versions of the bills. Nonetheless, once adjusted
for inflation, these increases are not viewed by some as significant growth in spending for

27 Based on analysis of USDA data.
Congressional Research Service
24

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

agricultural research. Agricultural scientists, stakeholders, and partners express concern for
funding over the long term.
Agricultural Research Service
The enacted FY2010 appropriation provided a total of $1.25 billion for USDA’s in-house science
agency, with $1.18 billion going for staff and salaries and $70.8 million for buildings and
facilities. The Administration’s FY2011 request included $1.20 billion for ARS, which consists
only of salaries and expenses and no request for buildings and facilities. The President’s FY2011
request recommends an increase of $61.5 million in new and expanded research initiatives in
human nutrition, food safety, global climate change, bioenergy, local food systems, animal and
crop breeding and protection, global food security, Colony Collapse Disorder, and sustainable
production systems. The proposed program increases for the Administration’s priority research
areas would be offset by the termination of $11.4 million in ongoing research programs as well as
the elimination of $41.9 million in Congressionally-designated earmarks.
The House subcommittee draft bill includes $31.3 million less (-3%) compared with the enacted
FY2010 levels, while the Senate-reported bill includes $10.3 million more (+1%).
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
The 2008 farm bill established a new agency called the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA), which replaced the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) at the beginning of October 2009. Like CSREES, NIFA is the primary extramural
funding agency for food and agricultural research at USDA. NIFA’s mission is to work with
university partners to advance research, extension, and higher education in the food, agricultural,
and related environmental and human sciences to benefit people, communities, and the nation.
NIFA administers competitive grants, special research grants, federal administration grants, and
the so-called formula funds for research and extension.28
The enacted FY2010 appropriation provided $1.34 billion for NIFA, which represented a 10%
increase over the regular FY2009 level for CSREES, and included an increase in funding over
FY2009 for all major activities carried out by NIFA, including research and education, extension,
and integrated activities (Table 7). The Administration’s FY2011 request includes $1.34 billion
for NIFA. Although the total request is roughly equal to FY2010, the proposal places a greater
emphasis on and would increase funding for research and education, while decreasing funding for
extension and integrated activities (Table 7). The Senate-reported bill on the other hand,
decreases overall funding for NIFA by $33 million (-2.5%), due to decreases in funding levels for
research and education and extension. The House subcommittee draft bill would increase funding
for NIFA by almost $14 million, though the allocations to specific activities is not specified.

28 NIFA provides support for research and extension activities at land-grant institutions through grants to the states
using statutory census-based formulas. For instance, federal funding for research at state agricultural experiment
stations and for cooperative extension is authorized under the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914,
respectively. Eligibility is limited to the cooperating institutions, most of which are 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant
institutions.
Congressional Research Service
25

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 7. National Institute of Food and Agriculture Appropriations, FY2009-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Senate-
NIFA activity
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-80
Admin.
House
request
Subc. draft
reported S.
3606
Research and Education
691.0
788.2
838.7
na
780.7
Extension 474.3
494.9
479.2
na
491.2
Integrated activities
56.9
60.0
24.9
na
38.6
Total
1,222.2 1,343.2 1,342.8 1,357.0 1,310.5
Source: Compiled by CRS, from P.L. 111-8. P.L. 111-80, and S.3606
The farm bill authorizes appropriations of $700 million annually for the newly created
competitive grant program, called the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).29 The
FY2010 enacted appropriation provided $262.5 million for AFRI, which was a considerable
increase of about 30% over the $201.5 million enacted in FY2009.The FY2011 Administration’s
request would increase AFRI by an additional $166 million (+63%) to $429 million. The Senate-
reported bill would increase it by less than the Administration requested, by $47.5 million
(+18%) and the House subcommittee draft would increase it by $56.5 million (+19%).30
Economic Research Service
The FY2010 enacted appropriation provided $82.5 million for USDA’s Economic Research
Service (ERS), an increase of $3 million (+4%) over FY2009. The Administration’s request for
ERS was $87.2 million, an increase in appropriation of $4.7 million or (+5.7%) over FY2010.
The Senate-reported bill included $83.7 million for ERS, not as much as in the Administration’s
request, but 1% above FY2010. The published summary of House draft combined amounts for
ERS and NASS, $251.9 million for FY2011, a 3% increase over FY2010 for the two agencies.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
The FY2010 enacted appropriation provided $161.8 million for the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS), which was an increase of $10.3 million over the FY2009 level. The
Administration’s FY2011 request included $166.7 million for NASS, which is a $2.9 million
increase (+1.8%) over the FY2010 enacted appropriation. The Senate-reported bill also
recommended $166.7 million for NASS, which includes $33.4 million for the Census of
Agriculture, the same amount requested by the Administration.
For more on USDA research, education, and extension programs, see CRS Report R40819,
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and Background, by Melissa D. Ho.

29 AFRI replaces two other grant programs: the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS), which
emphasized more applied research, and the National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive grants program, which
emphasized more fundamental, or basic, research. Both of these grant programs were eliminated in the 2008 farm bill.
30 Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro, “Statement of Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro,” press release, June 30, 2010,
http://www.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/Delauro_Opening_Statement.6.30.10.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Three agencies carry out USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs mission area: the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for protecting U.S.
agriculture from domestic and foreign pests and diseases, responding to domestic animal and
plant health problems, and facilitating agricultural trade through science-based standards. APHIS
has key responsibilities for dealing with such prominent concerns as bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), bovine tuberculosis, avian influenza (AI), and a
growing number of invasive plant pests such as the Emerald Ash Borer, the Asian Long-horned
Beetle, and the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter. APHIS derives its authority from the Animal Health
Protection Act (AHPA),31 which gives USDA broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests
or diseases of livestock or poultry, and the Plant Protection Act (PPA),32 which authorizes APHIS
to cooperate with states, localities and others to prevent the spread of and eradicate invasive pests
and diseases. APHIS is also the USDA agency charged with administering the Animal Welfare
Act (AWA), which seeks to protect pets and other animals used for research and entertainment.
The Senate-reported bill (S. 3606) provides a total of $931.3 million for APHIS for FY2011,
more than the House draft ($884.6 million) and USDA’s request ($875.3 million). The Senate bill
also provides more compared to the FY2010 amount of $909.7 million. The Senate bill includes
$926.6 million for APHIS salaries and expenses, and $4.7 million for buildings and facilities.
The Senate bill also authorizes APHIS to collect fees in FY2011 to “cover the total costs of
providing technical assistance, goods, or services requested by states, other political subdivisions,
domestic and international organizations, foreign governments, or individuals.” APHIS collects
user fees to cover the cost of inspection and quarantine activities at U.S. ports to prevent the
introduction of animal and plant diseases and pests, including fees for Agricultural Quarantine
Inspection (AQI) and other services and various federal and non-federal reimbursements.33 In
FY2010, APHIS retained $185.8 million of AQI user fees (less amounts transferred to DHS).
The Senate-reported bill provides the following funding levels by high-level function (Table 8):
pest and disease exclusion ($161.9 million); plant and animal health monitoring ($247.5 million);
pest and disease management ($377.6 million); animal care ($26.8 million); scientific and
technical services ($102.5 million); and management initiatives ($10.2 million). The Senate
amount for APHIS is $56 million higher than USDA’s request, with the largest differences pest
and disease management, and scientific and technical services. These two categories also account
for the greatest differences between FY2011 and FY2010 amounts in Table 8.

31 P.L. 107-171, Subtitle E, approved May 13, 2002; 7 U.S.C. 8301-8302. AHPA was enacted as part of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
32 P.L. 106-224, Title IV, approved June 20, 2000; 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. PPA was enacted as part of the Agricultural
Risk Protection Act of 2000.
33 See for example Title 7 CFR, Part 319 (Foreign Quarantine Notices) and Part 354 (Overtime Services Relating to
Imports and Exports; and User Fees); and Title 9 CFR, Part 130 (Animals and Animal Products, User Fees). Others as
noted in the explanatory notes of the President’s Budget request: http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html.
Congressional Research Service
27

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 8. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS): FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in thousands of dollars)
FY2011
Senate-
FY2010
reported
Category
P.L. 111-80
S. 3606
Difference
Pest and Disease Exclusion
166,694
161,890
-4,804
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring
248,773
247,539
-1,234
Pest and Disease Management
369,106
377,628
8,522
Emerging Plant Pests:

Asian Long-horned Beetle.
33,021
42,130
+9,109
Citrus Canker/Citrus Health Program
44,656
45,781
+1,125
Emerald Ash Borer
37,205
22,000
-15,205
Glassy-winged Sharpshooter
22,983
23,066
+83
Sudden Oak Death
5,347
5,366
+19
Potato Cyst Nematode
8,327
8,357
+30
Karnal Bunt
2,151
2,160
+9
Light Brown Apple Moth
1,008
10,010
+9,002
Sirex Woodwasp
1,500
1,505
+5
Varroa Mite
469
469
+0
Other Emerging Plant Pests
2,102
4,105
+2,003
Subtotal, Emerging Plant Pests
158,769 164,949 +6,180
Subtotal, Other Pest and Disease Management
210,337 212,679 +2,342
Animal Care
22,479
26,833
+4,354
Scientific and Technical Services
87,742
102,520
+14,778
Management (Info Tech, Security)
10,199
10,199
+0
Subtotal, Salaries and Expenses
904,953
926,609
+21,656
Buildings and facilities
4,712
4,712
+0
Total, APHIS
909,665
931,321
+21,656
Source: S.Rept. 111-221, pp. 33-34, accompanying S. 3606.
Within those APHIS functions, the Senate-reported bill identifies funding for certain programs,
including funding for certain cotton pests programs ($22.3 million); for activities under the Horse
Protection Act of 1970 ($0.9 million); for programs to prevent and control avian influenza ($47.2
million); for information technology infrastructure ($4.5 million); for the fruit fly program ($63.6
million); for the grasshopper and Mormon cricket program ($5.6 million); for the plum pox
program ($2.2 million); for the National Veterinary Stockpile ($3.8 million); for indemnities
under the scrapie program ($1.5 million); for wildlife services methods development ($1.0
million); for wildlife services operations program for aviation safety ($1.5 million), and for the
screwworm program ($5.1 million). The Senate-reported bill further clarifies that no funds be
used to formulate or administer a brucellosis eradication program without requiring minimum
matching by the states of at least 40%. It also sets certain limits regarding aircraft purchases and
Congressional Research Service
28

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

the repair or alteration of leased buildings and improvements, as well as specifies that up to
$30,000 be used for representation allowances and expenses under the Foreign Service Act.
The emerging plant pests (EPP) account within the “Pest and Disease Management” area is
funded at $164.9 million for FY2011 in the Senate-reported bill. This compares with an
Administration request of $157.6 million and a FY2010 level of $158.8 million (Table 8).
In previous enacted appropriations, funding was provided for a national animal identification
program—formerly the National Animal ID System—for animal disease tracking and control,
among other things. During the past year, USDA released a framework for a new Animal Disease
Traceability initiative that will focus on state-specific concerns, and states and tribal governments
will guide its development.34 Because USDA’s future role in this initiative will be as “facilitator
and collaborator,” rather than lead, the Senate committee report states: “At this stage it is
premature to identify agency resource needs and the Committee provides no funding specifically
for the initiative. However, once a comprehensive plan has been developed and funding needs
identified, the Committee may consider this for further action during deliberations on the fiscal
year 2011 bill.” Since FY2004, nearly $150 million has been appropriated for NAIS, including
$14.5 million in FY2009 and $5.3 million in FY2010.
The Senate-reported bill provides $2.1 million “for the control of outbreaks of insects, plant
diseases, animal diseases and for control of pest animals and birds (‘contingency fund’) to the
extent necessary to meet emergency conditions.” In addition, the Senate bill clarifies that
appropriators expect the Secretary of Agriculture to continue to use his authority to transfer funds
available within USDA to arrest and eradicate animal and plant pests and diseases:
That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural production
industry of this country, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations or funds available
to the agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as may be deemed necessary, to be
available only in such emergencies for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious
disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance with sections 10411
and 10417 of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316) and sections 431 and
442 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7751 and 7772), and any unexpended balances of funds
transferred for such emergency purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with such
transferred amounts.
This same language has appeared in recent years’ appropriations bills. Likewise, the report
language “encourages the Secretary to continue use of contingency funding from Commodity
Credit Corporation monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover additional emergencies as the
Secretary determines necessary.”
As noted, such a transfer would be in accordance with the PPA and with the AHPA. APHIS is the
agency that would initiate such an action by submitting a request to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) that Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) money be used to address a new
or emerging plant (or animal) pest, disease, or outbreak or emergency (might also include moving
appropriated funds internally to address emergencies). Congressional appropriators and OMB
have sparred for years over whether APHIS should—as appropriators have preferred—reach as
needed into USDA’s CCC account for mandatory funds to deal with emerging plant pests and

34 For more information, see CRS Report R40832, Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues, by
Randy Schnepf.
Congressional Research Service
29

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

other plant and animal health problems on an emergency basis, or wait to be provided the funds
primarily through the regular annual USDA appropriation, as OMB has argued.
APHIS has taken such action in the past to address larger-scale plant and animal pest and disease
outbreaks where the costs are too large for the regular appropriation, or for new and emerging
agricultural issues that warrant a federal role. Such an action is generally not taken to address
established pests and diseases. In FY2010, APHIS requested the transfer of emergency funding to
address Asian Longhorned Beetle in Massachusetts ($41.5 million), and to treat potentially large
outbreaks of grasshopper in the western states ($10.7 million).35
Agricultural Marketing Service and Section 32
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) promotes the marketing and distribution of U.S.
agricultural products in domestic and international markets. User fees and reimbursements
account for a substantial portion of funding for the agency. Such fees, totaling about $140 million
in FY2011, cover AMS activities like product quality and process verification programs,
commodity grading, and Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act licensing.
Two appropriations mechanisms also support AMS historically: the direct annual USDA
appropriation and a transfer from the so-called Section 32 account.36
For FY2011, the Administration requested $99.9 million, compared with $92.5 million in the
enacted FY2010 agriculture appropriations bill. Both the House subcommittee draft and the
Senate-reported bill (S. 3606) provide $99.4 million for FY2011, nearly all of the
Administration’s request. Of the total request, the Administration calls for an additional $3.1
million for the National Organic Program to increase compliance with regulations and enhance
the integrity of the organic label, an additional $920,000 for the “Know Your Farmer, Know Your
Food” initiative to benefit producers and consumers, and an additional $1.3 million for matching
payments to states under the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program. The Senate-
reported bill concurred with most of these requested increases.
The Section 32 program is funded by a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous calendar
year’s customs receipts, less certain mandatory transfers. For FY2011, this amount is estimated to
be $6.606 billion, of which an estimated $5.322 billion is to be transferred to the Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) to carry out child nutrition programs. An amount equal to 30 percent of
receipts collected on fishery products is transferred to the Department of Commerce (estimated to
be $68.2 million for FY2011). The remaining amount in the Section 32 account, $1.215 billion,
is the authorized budget level for the program as mandated in the 2008 farm bill. The farm bill
also requires $203 million of Section 32 funds be used during FY2011 to purchase fruit,
vegetables, and nuts for domestic food assistance programs in addition to the purchases required
by section 10603 of the 2002 farm bill.37 This remaining amount has been used, at the Secretary’s

35 Emergency activities that were funded by transfers from the CCC are reported in the explanatory notes of the
President’s Budget request: http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html.
36 Section 32 funding comes from a permanent appropriation equivalent to 30% of annual U.S. Customs receipts. AMS
uses these additional Section 32 monies (also not reflected in the above totals) to pay for a variety of programs and
activities, notably child nutrition, and government purchases of surplus farm commodities not supported by ongoing
farm price support programs. For an explanation of this account and more details on the farm bill change, see CRS
Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program, by Melissa D. Ho
37 7 USC 612c-5.
Congressional Research Service
30

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

discretion, primarily to fund additional commodity purchases for school lunch and other domestic
programs, support farm prices, and for disaster assistance.38
The Senate-reported bill directs the Secretary to provide notification to the Appropriations
Committees in advance of any public announcement of release of Section 32 funds when used
under the authority described in 7 U.S.C. 612c, “to provide direct assistance to producers when
market forces or natural conditions adversely affect the financial conditions of farmers and
ranchers.”39 The Senate-reported bill also recommends that $20.3 million be transferred from
Section 32 to AMS for the formulation and administration of marketing agreements and orders,
which is the same as the Administration’s request for FY2011. Details about the Section 32
account are not specified in the House subcommittee markup press release.
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration
The Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) establishes the official
U.S. standards for inspection and grading of grain and other commodities. It also is charged with
ensuring competition and fair-trading practices in livestock and meat markets.
The Senate-reported bill (S. 3606) provides $44.2 million for GIPSA salaries and expenses, the
same as the Administration’s request, up $2.2 million (+5%) from FY2010. The House
subcommittee draft would provide $43.3 million, less than the Senate bill but still more than
FY2010. Agency activities also are supported by user fees, amounting to approximately $42.5
million annually or about half the agency’s overall budget. The Administration again proposed
additional user fees—to take effect after FY2011—to offset some grain inspection and Packers
and Stockyards (P&S) activities, to recoup an estimated $29 million annually.40 The Senate-
report does not make note of this proposal, which would require authorizing legislation.
The Senate-reported bill identifies $1.8 million for enforcement under the Packers and Stockyards
Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.). It also sets a $50 million limitation on inspection and weighing
services expenses under the U.S. Grains Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.) and programs under
the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. This limitation is $7.5 million above the FY2010
limitation set for such services. This limitation may be exceeded by 10% if the appropriations
committees are notified in the event of unforeseen events or needs to support U.S. grain export
activities.
Meat and Poultry Inspection
Food safety responsibilities are spread across as many as 15 federal agencies, collectively
administering at least 30 laws related to food safety. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS), which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),

38 For an example of recent disaster assistance, see “USDA Provides Disaster Assistance to Producers of Rice, Upland
Cotton, Soybeans and Sweet Potatoes,” October 22, 2010, at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=
newsroom&subject=landing&topic=ner&newstype=newsrel&type=detail&item=nr_20101022_rel_0551.html.
39 See page 39 of S.Rept. 111-221.
40 Explanatory notes of the President’s Budget request, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html.
Congressional Research Service
31

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

together comprise most of the total funding and staffing of the government’s food regulatory
system.41 FDA funding is discussed later in this report; FSIS funding is discussed below.
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducts mandatory inspection of meat,
poultry, and processed egg products to ensure their safety and proper labeling.42 The Senate-
reported bill provides a total of $1.047 billion for FSIS for FY2011, which is 1% more than the
House draft and Administration request (both at $1.037 billion). The Senate-reported bill also
provides more compared to the enacted FY2010 appropriation of $1.019 billion (+3%).
The FY2011 appropriation would be augmented by existing (currently authorized) user fees,
which FSIS estimates would total approximately $130 million.43 The Senate-reported bill (S.
3606) does not assume the adoption of two new user fees, proposed by the Administration, which
would require a change in authorizing legislation. One of the Administration-proposed fees would
be charged to establishments involved in product retesting, recalls, or illness outbreaks; the
second proposed fee would be charged to cover services related to inspection, including risk
assessment, hazard analyses, compliance review and product sampling, among other services.
Estimated revenue from these proposed fees could total $12.6 million annually.44 Although the
Senate-reported bill does not specifically address or authorize these fees, it does allow for $1
million to be credited to FSIS from fees collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation, which is
up to three times the estimated amount collected in recent years for accredited labs.
Of the total recommended amount, the reported bill identifies funding levels for the following
activity categories: federal ($919.2 million); state activities ($65.1 million), international ($19.5
million), Codex Alimentarius ($3.9 million), and Public Health Data Communication
Infrastructure System (PHDCIS, $39.5 million).
As in past years, the Senate bill directs $3 million of the total for the Humane Animal Tracking
System, as part of the PHDCIS, and specifies employment requirements for inspections and
enforcement related to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. The Senate report further directs
FSIS to consider hiring and training a “mobile review team of FSIS employees to conduct
unscheduled audits, including the potential for undercover surveillance, focused on assessing
compliance with humane handling rules of live animals as they arrive and are offloaded and
handled in pens, chutes and stunning areas” and directs FSIS to write a feasibility report. The bill
also specifies funding requirements for PHDCIS and inspection of catfish and related products45
that the Administration wants to reduce, and directs USDA to issue a progress report on catfish
inspection. The committee expressed concern that FSIS has not promulgated regulations
regarding interstate meat and poultry shipments from eligible state-inspected plants, as directed in
the 2008 farm bill. Further, section 707 of the Senate bill prevents funds from being used to carry
out certain sections of the FMIA (21 U.S.C. 679a) and the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 471) pertaining to

41 See CRS Report RS22600, The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer, by Renée Johnson.
42 FSIS activities are authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA, 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA, 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA, 21 U.S.C. 1031 et
seq.). FSIS also enforces the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). For background on food
safety, see CRS Report RL32922, Meat and Poultry Inspection: Background and Selected Issues, by Renée Johnson.
43 Explanatory notes of the President’s Budget request: http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html. FSIS collects
user fees to cover overtime and other services, including inspection and laboratory costs, and also trust fund activities.
44 Ibid, p. 21-17. Proposed user fees are for performance-based services (estimated at $4 million) and (2) facility
registration and annual renewal activities (estimated at $8.6 million).
45 As enacted in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, section 11016).
Congressional Research Service
32

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

advisory panel activities under the so-called “Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel.” The
summary information about the House draft does not provide comparable details.
In the FY2007-FY2009 appropriations, Congress prohibited FSIS from implementing rules to
allow poultry products to be imported from China into the United States. The FY2010
appropriation allowed imports but only under specific conditions.46 The FY2011 Senate bill does
not include any relevant language. The Chinese government in March 2009 strongly criticized the
ban as a violation of trade rules and challenged this action in the World Trade Organization
(WTO). A WTO dispute panel was formed and a report was issued in September 2010 that
largely supported China’s claims.47
Farm Service Agency
USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is probably best known for administering the farm
commodity subsidy programs and the disaster assistance programs. It makes payments to farmers
through a network of county offices. In addition, FSA administers USDA’s direct and guaranteed
farm loan programs, certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service), and certain international food assistance and export credit
programs (in cooperation with the Foreign Agriculture Service).
FSA Salaries and Expenses
All of the administrative funds used by FSA to carry out its programs are consolidated into one
account. A direct appropriation for FSA salaries and expenses pays to carry out the activities such
as the farm commodity programs. Transfers also are received from other USDA agencies to pay
for FSA administering CCC export credit guarantees, P.L. 480 loans, and the farm loan programs.
This section discusses amounts for regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus transfers for the
salaries and expenses of the farm loan programs. Amounts transferred to FSA for export
programs and P.L. 480 are included with the originating account.
The Senate-reported bill for FY2011 (S. 3606) would provide $1.664 billion for regular FSA
salaries and expenses, $90 million more (+6%) than FY2010, but $26 million below the
Administration’s request. The Senate committee report say that it provides “substantial funding
for the information technology needs requested in the President’s budget” (discussed below).
The limited information about the House subcommittee draft does not allow a direct comparison
to the salaries and expenses amount above. For all of FSA (combining salaries and expenses, the
farm loan program, dairy indemnity program, state mediation grants, and grassroots water
protection), the House draft provides $1.832 billion ($107 million more than FY2010). The
comparable amount in the Senate bill is $1.863 billion ($31 million more than the House). The
Administration’s request for this combined total is about midway between the House and Senate.

46 For background, see CRS Report R40706, China-U.S. Poultry Dispute, by Renée Johnson.
47 The text of the Chinese request and the panel report on the dispute (DS392) is available through the WTO website:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds392_e.htm.
Congressional Research Service
33

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Information Technology
For many years, FSA has had problems with an outdated mainframe computer system. Its service
to farmers—particularly through its network of county offices where enrollment and verification
occurs—has been jeopardized by computer malfunctions. At one time in 2007, the computer
system would fail or county offices would be rationed computer time to avoid overloading the
system. The 2008 farm bill’s new Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program, among
others, is further stressing the antiquated computer system. For many years, FSA has sought
increased funding for computers, and to some extent partial funding has been appropriated
through annual appropriations bills, but the computer problems have continued.
Following the 2007 computer system failures, USDA developed a “stabilization and
modernization” plan in consultation with industry experts.48 The stabilization plan is meant to
shore up the current computer system while upgrades are implemented and prepare it for
migration to the new system. The modernization plan (called MIDAS, “modernize and innovate
the delivery of agricultural systems”) would replace antiquated mainframe hardware that relies on
the outdated COBOL computer language with a modern Web-based system.
For FY2011, the Administration requested an increase of $95.3 million for information
technology (IT) This supports $38.3 million for modernization, $20 million for conversion of
software to a web-based system, $36 million toward the Department’s common computing
environment (CCE, another infrastructure investment) and $1 million for additional IT staff.49
The Senate-reported bill provides most, if not all, of that amount in its salaries and expenses
portion, noting “substantial funding for the information technology needs requested in the
President’s budget.”
The FY2010 appropriation provided $67 million for FSA’s information technology. Prior to that,
the regular FY2009 FSA appropriation noted $22 million for information technology expenses
and stabilization of the existing network, and the economic stimulus act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5)
provided another $50 million for maintaining and modernizing FSA’s computer system. These
amounts addressed “stabilization” and a limited amount of “modernization” of the existing
outdated USDA mainframe system. Additional appropriations for modernization of at least $171
million may be needed after FY2011, according to USDA’s plans (Table 9).50
A third-party analysis, required by the 2008 farm bill, of USDA’s plans for stabilization and
upgrades is summarized in Table 10. These estimates are higher than the USDA amounts
obtained from the Department’s Budget and Explanatory Notes. It is not clear from the third-
party analysis and the appropriations data above how much has been funded and how much
remains to be funded. Probably well more than half of the stabilization efforts have been funded.
But probably half or less of the eventual modernization and implementation costs have been

48 USDA Farm Service Agency, Farm Service Agency Modernization and IT Stabilization Plan: Response to
Congressional Directives, August 2008.
49 USDA, FY2011 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, pp. 22-15 – 22-17, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/22fsa2011notes.pdf.
50 The FY2010 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, “Farm Service Agency,” p. 18-15,
at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/18fsa2010notes.pdf, notes that about $266 million will be needed for stabilization and
MIDAS modernization after FY2010. Based on this amount and the $95 million request for FY2011, at least $171
million will be needed beyond FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
34

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

funded. The Department’s reports to the appropriations subcommittee (pursuant to directives in
the FY2010 Agriculture appropriation) may clarify these estimates.
A May 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that the USDA plan
addresses technical issues, but lacks details in the business plan for efficient implementation.51
Table 9. Recent Appropriations for FSA Information Technology
Stabilization and Modernization
Appropriation
Fiscal Year
($ millions)
2009 regular appropriation (P.L. 111-8)
22
2009 stimulus supplemental (ARRA, P.L. 111-5)
50
2010 regular appropriation (P.L. 111-80)
67
2011 Administration request
95
Subtotal, FY2009-FY2011
234
2012 and beyond
171
Total
639
Source: CRS, using enacted appropriations and FY2010 and FY2011 USDA Budget and Explanatory Notes.
Note: It is difficult to identify when appropriations for the current stabilization and modernization plan begin
because appropriations throughout the past decade have provided tens of millions of dollars annually for various
FSA IT programs. In recent years, these appropriations were included in the FSA budget. But in previous years
they were part of a separate Common Computing Environment account in the Department-wide budget that,
incidental y, was a favorite account for Members to use as an offset when adding floor amendments to
Agriculture appropriations bills. We believe that FY2009 in this table is the clearest starting point for current
stabilization and modernization appropriations.
Table 10. Estimated Stabilization and Modernization Project Costs
Type of Cost
Cost ($ millions)
Stabilization 149
Modernization (MIDAS)

Modernization 304
Operations and maintenance (7 years, through 2018)
144
Certification and accreditation
3
Subtotal MIDAS lifecycle costs
451
Total, Stabilization and Modernization
600
Source: BearingPoint, Inc. “Delivery of Legislatively Mandated Farm Benefit Programs: A Third Party Report to
Congress on Modernization and Stabilization at FSA,” pp. 45-49, January 2009. FOUO.

51 Government Accountability Office, Agriculture Needs to Strengthen Management Practices for Stabilizing and
Modernizing Its Farm Program Delivery Systems, GAO-08-657, May 2008, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d08657.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

FSA Farm Loan Programs
The USDA Farm Service Agency serves as a lender of last resort for family farmers unable to
obtain credit from a commercial lender. USDA provides direct farm loans (loans made directly
from USDA to farmers), and it also guarantees the timely repayment of principal and interest on
qualified loans to farmers from commercial lenders. FSA loans are used to finance farm real
estate, operating expenses, and recovery from natural disasters. Some loans are made at a
subsidized interest rate.
An appropriation is made to FSA each year to cover the federal cost of making direct and
guaranteed loans, referred to as a loan subsidy. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate
subsidy provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from
farmer non-repayment of the loans. The amount of loans that can be made—the loan authority—
is several times larger than the subsidy level.
The limited information about the House subcommittee draft does not disclose funding levels for
the farm loan program. The Administration requested $151 million of budget authority to support
$4.7 billion of loans.
The Senate-reported bill provides more than the Administration’s request, more than the regular
FY2010 appropriation, and nearly the combined amount from FY2010 regular and supplemental
appropriations. S. 3606 would provide $187 million of budget authority to support $5.4 billion of
loans and guarantees (Table 11). This $5.4 billion of loan authority is about $2 billion more than
the usual $3.4 billion of loan authority in the regular FY2009 appropriation and before.
Compared to the regular FY2010 appropriation, the Senate-reported bill for FY2011 provides the
same loan authorities for most of the loan programs, except that it increases direct farm operating
loans by $190 million (+19%) and guaranteed operating loans by $150 million (+10%). These
two types of loans received $350 million and $250 million, respectively, of supplemental loan
authority in 2010 (Table 11). Thus, the increases may help to forestall the need for a
supplemental in FY2011 since loan demand remains high.
FSA has experienced significantly higher demand for its loans beginning in FY2009 because of
the financial pressures in the global financial crisis.52 The farm loan program has had a higher
ratio of applications from new customers than usual; 45% of the applications for direct operating
loans in 2009 were from new customers, compared to about 20% usually.53

52 See CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues, by Jim Monke.
53 Doug Caruso, FSA Administrator, in testimony before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Energy and Research, June 11, 2009, at http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/111/h061109sc/Caruso.doc.
Congressional Research Service
36

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 11. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority, FY2010-FY2011
(dollars in millions)

FY2010
FY2011
Change

Regular (P.L. 111-80)
Supp. (P.L. 111-212)
Admin. Request
Senate (S. 3606)
S. 3606 - P.L. 111-80
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
FSA Farm Loan Program
Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority
Farm
ownership
loans

Direct 27
650
— —
33 475 45 650 +18.5 0
Guaranteed
6
1,500 1
300 6
1,500 6
1,500 +0.2 0
Farm operating loans

Direct
47
1,000 17 350 55 900 72
1,190 +24.7
+190
Guaranteed
(unsubsidized)
35 1,500
6 250 35 1,500 38 1,650 +3.4 +150
Guaranteed
(interest
assistance) 24 170 7 50 20 144 24 170 -0.4 0
Conservation loans

Direct 1.1
75
— —
2.2 75 2.2 75 +1.2 0
Guaranteed 0.3
75
— —
0.3
75 0.3
75 0 0
Indian tribe land acquisition
0
4
— —
0 2 0 4 0 0
Indian highly fractured land loans
0.8
10
— —
0.2 10 0.2 10 -0.6 0
Bol weevil eradication loans
0
100
— —
0
60
0
100
0
0
Subtotal, FSA Farm Loan Program
141
5,084
31
950
151
4,741
187
5,424
+46.9
+340
Salaries and expenses
313
— — — 318
—
313
—
0.0
—
Administrative expenses
8
—
1
—
8
—
8
—
0.0
—
Total, FSA Farm Loan Program
462
5,084
32
950
477
4,741
509
5,424
+46.9
+340
Source: CRS compilation from P.L. 111-80; H.Rept. 111-279; P.L. 111-212; S. 3606, and S.Rept. 111-221.
Notes: Budget authority reflects the cost of making loans, such as interest subsidies and default. Loan authority reflects the amount of loans that FSA may make or guarantee.
CRS-37

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Commodity Credit Corporation
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the funding mechanism for the mandatory subsidy
payments that farmers receive. Salaries and expenses to administer CCC programs are paid from
discretionary appropriations to the Farm Service Agency.
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that has the legal authority to borrow up to
$30 billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury (15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.). These borrowed funds
finance spending for programs such as farm commodity subsidies and various conservation, trade,
research, or rural development programs—all generally authorized by the 2008 farm bill (P.L.
110-246).54 Emergency supplemental spending also has been paid from the CCC over the years
for ad hoc farm disaster payments, direct market loss payments in response to low farm
commodity prices, and for animal and plant disease eradication efforts.
Although the CCC can borrow from the Treasury, it eventually must repay the funds it borrows. It
may earn a small amount of money from activities such as buying and selling commodities and
receiving interest payments on loans. But because the CCC never earns more than it spends, its
borrowing authority must be replenished periodically through a congressional appropriation so
that its $30 billion debt limit is not depleted. Congress generally provides this infusion through
the annual Agriculture appropriation. In recent years, the CCC has received a “current indefinite
appropriation,” which provides “such sums as are necessary” during the fiscal year.
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall automatically based on economic or
weather conditions. Funding needs are difficult to estimate, which is a primary reason that the
programs are mandatory rather than discretionary. More or less of the Treasury line of credit may
be used year to year. Similarly, the congressional appropriation may not always restore the line of
credit to the previous year’s level, or may repay more than was spent. For these reasons, the
appropriation to the CCC may not reflect annual outlays. Outlays (e.g., payments to farmers) in
FY2011 will be funded initially through the borrowing authority of the CCC and reimbursed to
the Treasury through a separate (and possibly future) appropriation.
USDA projects that CCC net expenditures will be $10.5 billion in FY2011, midway between
FY2009 ($10.2 billion) and FY2010 ($10.9 billion), and more than FY2008 ($8.2 billion).55
To replenish CCC’s borrowing authority with the Treasury, the Senate-reported bill for FY2011
concurs with the Administration’s request for an indefinite appropriation (“such sums as
necessary”). The appropriation for CCC is estimated to be $13.9 billion, less than the $15.1
billion in FY2010. With these amounts of outlays and appropriations, the CCC would have about
$27 billion of its $30 billion line of credit available at the end of the FY2011, consistent with
prior years.56

54 For more information on the provisions of the farm bill, see CRS Report RL34696, The 2008 Farm Bill: Major
Provisions and Legislative Action, coordinated by Renée Johnson.
55 USDA-FSA, Commodity Estimates Book: FY2011 President’s Budget, “Output 7: CCC Financing Status,” May 7,
2009, at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=about&subject=landing&topic=bap-bu-ce.
56 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
38

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Crop Insurance
The federal crop insurance program is administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency
(RMA). It offers basically free catastrophic insurance to producers who grow an insurable crop.
Producers who opt for this coverage have the opportunity to purchase additional insurance
coverage at a subsidized rate. Policies are sold and completely serviced through approved private
insurance companies that have their program losses reinsured by USDA and are reimbursed by
the government for their administrative and operating expenses. For more background, see CRS
Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background and Issues, by Dennis A. Shields.
The annual Agriculture appropriations bill traditionally makes two separate appropriations for the
federal crop insurance program. First, it provides discretionary funding for the salaries and
expenses of the RMA. Second, it provides “such sums as are necessary” for the Federal Crop
Insurance Fund, which finances all other expenses of the program, including premium subsidies,
indemnity payments, and reimbursements to the private insurance companies.
For FY2011 salaries and expenses at RMA, both the House draft and Senate bill provide $83.1
million, the same as the Administration’s request and 3% more than FY2010. The Administration
requested additional funds to cover pay increases and support information technology
investments for program delivery and compliance. The Senate bill would allow RMA to tap
mandatory money made available under the Federal Crop Insurance Act for improving the
agency’s information management system, as was done in the FY2010 appropriations act.
For the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, the Senate bill provides $7.6 billion, which is the same as
the Administration’s request (House figure is not available). The amount actually required to
cover program losses and other subsidies is subject to change based on actual crop losses and
farmer participation rates in the program. The estimated amount for the fund is $1.2 billion higher
in FY2010, primarily because crop prices—and associated premium subsidies—are expected to
increase. The actual eventual increase in FY2011 may not be as high, though, because of savings
resulting from the renegotiation of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA)57 completed in
summer 2010, after the Administration’s requested amount was published in February 2010. The
SRA places a lower cap on expense reimbursements to companies to control program delivery
costs, and reduces the expected return to insurance companies by altering the risk-sharing terms
of the agreement. For more information on the SRA, see CRS Report R40966, Renegotiation of
the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) for Federal Crop Insurance, by Dennis A. Shields.
Conservation
More than 20 USDA agricultural conservation programs assist private landowners with natural
resource concerns. There are working land programs, land retirement and easement programs,
watershed programs, technical assistance and other programs. The two lead agricultural
conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
which provides technical assistance and administers most programs, and the Farm Service
Agency (FSA), which administers the largest program, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
The majority of conservation program funding is mandatory and funded through the Commodity

57 The SRA is periodically negotiated between USDA and private companies. It spells out expense reimbursements and
risk-sharing by the government, including the terms under which the government provides subsidies and reinsurance
(i.e., insurance for insurance companies) on crop insurance contracts sold by insurance companies.
Congressional Research Service
39

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Credit Corporation (CCC). Other conservation programs, mostly technical assistance, are
discretionary and funded through annual appropriations. For a brief description of the individual
USDA agricultural conservation programs, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation:
A Guide to Programs, by Megan Stubbs.
The Senate-reported bill (S. 3606) and the House draft bill reject many of the Administration’s
proposed reductions for discretionary conservation programs in FY2011, but the Senate bill
agrees with some proposed reductions for mandatory programs. The Senate bill would increase
discretionary NRCS funding by $36.1 million (from $1.009 billion in FY2010 to $1.046 billion in
FY2011) and the House draft bill would increase it by $3.4 million (to $1.013 billion, Table 3).
The Administration requested a $42.2 million reduction in discretionary funding.
Mandatory funding for conservation programs is authorized to increase in FY2011. The Senate-
reported bill would reduce this funding by $544 million by making reductions to six programs
(Table 5). The Administration request would make larger total reductions ($735 million) and cut
more programs (eight). The House draft bill does not offer enough detail to indicate whether it
supports the Administration’s proposed cuts. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have
proposed reductions in conservation funding in the past; most of which are more substantial than
Congress has supported. The FY2011 appropriation may revert to a trend prior to the 2008 farm
bill that reduces mandatory funding for multiple conservation programs.58
The Senate-reported bill also includes $904,000 for the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and Environment (NRE). This office oversees the activities of NRCS and the U.S.
Forest Service (not included in the agriculture appropriations bill). In March 2010, USDA
announced that the Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets (OESM), housed within the Office
of the Secretary, would be moved to the NRE mission area.59 The Administration’s request
reflected this change, requesting a $2 million increase for OESM activities in FY2011. The
Senate report (S.Rept. 111-221) language rejected this increase as well as the Department’s
decision to move OESM within USDA. The Senate Appropriations Committee expects the
OESM duties to be performed under the Office of the Chief Economist. Since its creation in
December 2008, little has been publicly reported on the activities or progress made by OESM.
Discretionary Programs
All of the discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. Most of the increase
in discretionary funding in the Senate bill is for Conservation Operations (CO), the largest
discretionary program. The Senate bill would provide $929 million for FY2011 ($41.4 million
over FY2010 and $5.3 million more than the Administration’s request). The Senate report also
directs funding for several Administration initiatives proposed in the budget, including $13
million for Strategic Watershed Action Teams (also supported in the House draft bill at $12.5
million60) and $35 million for the Common Computing Environment technology tools. The

58 For more information, see CRS Report R41245, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program Spending, by Jim
Monke and Megan Stubbs.
59 The Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets was created within USDA to offer administrative and technical
assistance for developing the uniform guidelines and tools needed to create and expand markets for ecosystem
services—the processes by which the environment produces resources that benefit society—in the farming and forestry
sectors, as required by section 2709 of the 2008 farm bill.
60 Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro, “Statement of Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro,” press release, June 30, 2010,
http://www.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/Delauro_Opening_Statement.6.30.10.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
40

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Senate bill did not adopt the Administration’s proposal to charge a fee for comprehensive
conservation planning, a core activity currently provided to producers for free. According to the
Senate report, $17.2 million (1.9% of total CO funding) would for congressionally designated
projects (see Table 6) and specifies that no more than $250,000 be available for alterations and
improvements to buildings and other public improvements. Detailed information regarding CO
funding levels and earmarks were not available for the House draft.
The Senate-reported bill maintains funding for other discretionary programs that the
Administration proposed to terminate, including the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
($24.4 million to remain available until expended, with no more than $12 million allowed for
technical assistance) and the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program ($50.7
million for FY2011). No more than $3.1 million of funds for RC&D could be available for
national headquarters activities under the Senate bill. Of the $24.4 million for the Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations, $14.9 million (61%) are directed to congressionally designated
projects. The Administration proposed a slight increase in funding for the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program to $40.5 million (available until expended) and the Senate bill concurs.
Mandatory Programs
Mandatory conservation programs are administered by NRCS and the Farm Service Agency
(FSA). Funding comes from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and therefore does not
require an annual appropriation. The Senate-reported bill accepts many of the Administration’s
proposed $735 million of reductions to mandatory conservation programs. The Senate bill would
reduce these programs by $544 million, which is $109 million more than the FY2010 reduction of
$435 million (see discussion in “Limits on Mandatory Program Spending” and Table 5).
Funding for the largest conservation program, FSA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), did
not change and was estimated at about $2.1 billion for FY2011. The Senate bill would limit the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), NRCS’s largest working lands program, to
$1.32 billion for FY2011—a reduction of $270 million from the authorized level of $1.59 billion
in the 2008 farm bill. The Senate bill’s reductions are consistent with USDA’s proposal for other
programs, such as the Watershed Rehabilitation Program ($165 million reduction), the Farmland
Protection Program ($15 million reduction), and the Grasslands Reserve Program ($14 million
reduction). Both EQIP and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) would be reduced by the
Senate bill but not as much as proposed (Table 5). The Senate bill rejected reductions to the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).
Congress has included reductions in mandatory conservation programs each year since FY2003 in
the annual Agricultural appropriations law. Although Congress usually does not reduce funding as
much as requested by the Administration, it does not always use the savings from these reductions
toward other conservation activities. Since the passage of the 2008 farm bill, reductions have
been made primarily to EQIP and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. The reductions in the
Senate bill for FY2011 would be the first reductions to other conservation programs since the
passage of the 2008 farm bill. Several conservation, environmental, and farm constituency groups
that support conservation programs decry reductions from the funding commitment established
in the farm bill.
Congressional Research Service
41

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Rural Development
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area:
• Rural Housing Service (RHS),
• Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and
• Rural Utilities Service (RUS).
An Office of Community Development provides support through field offices. This mission area
also administers the rural portion of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities
Initiative, Rural Economic Area Partnerships, and the National Rural Development Partnership.
Federal assistance for USDA Rural Development programs comes predominantly from loans and
grants. Part of the appropriation covers the cost of making loans (referred to as a loan subsidy)
and another part covers grants. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate reduction
below market rates and a projection of anticipated loan losses from non-repayment. The amount
of loans that can be made (the loan authority) is several times larger than the loan subsidy.
For FY2011, the Senate-reported bill (S. 3606) recommends $2.77 billion in discretionary budget
to support a combined loan authority of $36.4 billion. This is $167 million less (-6%) in budget
authority than the regular FY2010 appropriation, and $12 billion more (+49%) in loan authority.
Most of the growth in loan authority is from Section 502 single family housing guaranteed loans.
The Senate-reported bill also recommends reserving up to 5% for strategic regional planning
projects under the Regional Innovation Initiative. Under the Senate-reported bill:
• RHS would receive about 47% of the total: $1.29 billion in budget authority (-9%
from the regular FY2010 amount) and $26.0 billion of loan authority (+87%).
• RBS would receive $75.9 million in budget authority in FY2011 (-46% from the
regular FY2010 amount) and $1.1 billion in loan authority (-11%).
• RUS would receive $660.9 million of budget authority (+1.1% over the regular
FY2010 amount) and $9.3 billion of loan authority (+0.4%).
The House subcommittee draft would provide $2.75 billion in discretionary budget authority for
rural development, $20 million less than the Senate bill. Among the major programs, the House
draft would provide $28 million more than the Senate for rural housing, $21 million less than the
Senate for rural business, $16 million less than the Senate for rural utilities, and $10 million less
for salaries and expenses. Details on loan authority were not provided for the House draft.
Rural Housing Service
The Senate-reported bill recommends $1.29 billion in budget authority to RHS, $130 million less
(-9%) than FY2010. This budget authority plus user fees support $26 billion of loan authority, up
$12.1 billion (+87%) from FY2010. Nearly all of the increase in loan authority is for single
family housing guaranteed loans. The House draft provides $1.32 billion in budget authority to
RHS, $28 million more than the Senate, but $102 million below FY2010. Most of the reduction
in costs from FY2010 is from replacing $173 million of loan subsidy with higher user fees for
Section 502 guaranteed loans, as explained below. Rural housing funding is outlined in Table 12.
Congressional Research Service
42

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Single-family housing loans (Section 502 direct and guaranteed loans)61 are the largest RHS loan
account and represent 98% of the total rural housing loan authority in S. 3606. The $1.2 billion of
single family direct loan authority is about 7% higher than FY2010. The Senate’s loan authority
for Section 502 loan guarantees is doubled from FY2010 ($24 billion), and would be provided
without any loan subsidy ($173 million in FY2010) because higher loan guarantee fees are being
paid by banks (formerly 1%, but now 3.5% of the principal of new loans).62
The Senate-reported bill would provide $959.6 million of budget authority for the Section 521
rental assistance program, the same as requested by the Administration. This accounts for 74% of
RHS budget authority, and is 1% less than enacted for FY2010. The FY2011 appropriation for
multifamily housing revitalization is up 2% ($44.1 million); rural housing assistance grants63 are
down 9% ($41.5 million); and mutual and self-help housing grants are constant with FY2010
($41.9 million). Farm labor housing grants are the same ($9.9 million), loan subsidies are up 6%,
and the associated loan authority is the same as FY2010 ($27.3 million, Table 12).
Table 12. Rural Housing Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011
House
Senate
House
Senate-
Admin.
Subc.
reported
Program P.L.
111-80
Request
draft
S. 3606
$
%
$
%
Rural Housing Insurance Fund (RHIF) programs
Administrative expenses (transfer)
468.6
454.4
na
454.4
na
na
-14.2
-3%
Single family direct loans (sec. 502)
40.7
75.1
na
75.1
na
na
34.4
+85%
Loan authority
1,121.5
1,200.0
na
1,200.0
na na
78.5 +7%
Single family guaranteed loans
172.8
0.0
na
0.0
na
na
-172.8
-100%
Loan authority
12,000.0
12,000.0
na
24,000.0
na na 12,000.0 +100%
Other RHIF programsa 25.4
52.2
na
43.5
na
na
18.1
+71%
Loan authoritya 254.5
279.8
na
254.1
na na
-0.4 -0.1%
Subtotal, RHIF
707.5
581.7
na
573.0
na na -134.5 -19%
Loan authority
13,376.0
13,479.8
na
25,454.1
na na 12,078.2 +90%
Other housing programs

Rental assistance (sec. 521)
968.6
959.6
na
959.6
na
na
-9.0
-1%
Other rental assistanceb 11.4
6.0
na
12.0
na
na
0.6
+5%
Multifamily housing revitalization
43.2
18.0
na
44.1
na
na
0.9
+2%
Mutual & self-help housing grants
41.9
37.0
na
41.9
na
na
0.0
0%
Rural housing assistance grants
45.5
40.4
na
41.5
na
na
-4.0
-9%

61 Section references in this heading are to Title V of the Housing Act of 1949.
62 For background, see CRS Report R41255, FY2010 Supplemental Appropriations for Agriculture, by Jim Monke.
63 Rural Housing Assistance supports very low-income housing repair grants and housing preservation grants. The
program also supports supervisory and technical assistance grants and compensation for construction defects.
Congressional Research Service
43

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011
House
Senate
House
Senate-
Admin.
Subc.
reported
Program
P.L. 111-80
Request
draft
S. 3606
$ % $
%
Farm labor housing: Grants
9.9
9.9
na
9.9
na
na
0.0
0%
Farm labor housing: Loan subsidy
9.9
10.5
na
10.5
na
na
0.6
+6%
Loan authority
27.3
27.3
na
27.3
na na
0.0 0%
Rural Community Facilities Program
Community Facilities: Grants
20.4
29.6
na
20.4
na
na
0.0
0%
Community Facilities: Direct loans
3.9
3.9
na
3.9
na
na
0.1
+2%
Loan authority
295.0
295.0
na
295.0
na na
0.1 +0%
Community Facilities: Guarantees
6.6
8.2
na
8.2
na
na
1.5
+23%
Loan authority
206.4
206.4
na
206.4
na na
0.0 0%
Rural community dev. initiative
6.3
0.0
na
6.3
na
na
0.0
0%
Economic impact initiative grants
13.9
0.0
na
13.9
na
na
0.0
0%
Tribal col ege grants
4.0
0.0
na
4.0
na
na
0.0
0%
Subtotal, Rural Comm. Facil.
55.0
41.7
na
56.6
na na
1.6 +3%
Loan authority
501.4
501.4
na
501.4
na na
0.1 +0%
Total, Rural Housing Service (Table 3)
Budget authority
1,892.8
1,704.8
na
1,749.0
na na -143.8 -8%
Less transfer of salaries & exp.
-468.6
-454.4
na
-454.4
na
na
14.2
-3%
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,424.2
1,250.4
1,322.4
1,294.6 -101.8
-7%
-129.6
-9%
Loan authority
13,904.7
14,008.6
na
25,982.8
na na 12,078.2 +87%
Source: Compiled by CRS from P.L. 111-80, S. 3606, S.Rept. 111-221, House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee summary of FY2011 draft (at http://www.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/AG_
FY2011_Summary_for_Subcommittee_-_for_press.pdf), and unpublished appropriations committee tables.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority totals.
a. Includes Sec. 504 housing repair, Sec. 515 rental housing, Sec. 524 site loans, Sec. 538 multi-family housing
guarantees, single and multi-family housing credit sales, and Sec. 523 self-help housing land development,
b. Sec. 502(c)(5)(D) eligible households, Sec. 515 new construction, and farm labor housing new construction.
For the rural community facilities account,64 the Senate bill has $56.6 million of budget authority
(+3% from FY2010) to support $501.4 million of loans (no change). Rural community facilities
could receive $20 million in grants, $295 million in direct loan authority, and $206 million in
guaranteed loan authority, the same as in FY2010. Economic Impact Initiative grants would
receive $13.9 million, the same as FY2010, though the Administration requested no funding.
These grants support essential community facilities in areas with high unemployment.

64 Prior to FY2008, 12 accounts in the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) were combined into a single
account with three funding streams: a Rural Community Facilities Account administered by RHS, a Rural Business
Program Account administered by RBS, and a Rural Water and Waste Disposal Account administered by RUS.
Beginning in FY2008, the former RCAP accounts are reported separately under the RHS, RBS, and RUS accounts.
Congressional Research Service
44

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Rural Business-Cooperative Service
For loans and grants administered by RBS, S. 3606 recommends $75.9 million of budget
authority (-46% compared to FY2010, net of rescissions) to support $1.1 billion of direct and
guaranteed loan authority (-11%). The House draft would provide $54.5 million of budget
authority, $21 million less than the Senate bill. These funding levels are outlined in Table 13.
For the Rural Business Program Account (see prior footnote 64), the Senate-reported bill
recommends $86.7 million in budget authority. This is divided among Business and Industry
(B&I) guaranteed loans ($42.5 million of loan subsidies to support $993 million of loans), Rural
Business Enterprise Grants ($38.7 million), and Rural Business Opportunity Grants ($2.5
million).
The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) encourages use of renewable energy by farmers,
ranchers, and rural small businesses through energy audits, direct loans, loan guarantees, and
grants. S. 3603 recommends $34 million for REAP grants and $5.3 million in loan subsidies to
support $11.5 million in loan authority. The total budget authority is approximately the same as
FY2010, although loans are reduced by 92% and grants are increased by 73%. The 2008 farm
bill authorized an additional $70 million in mandatory funds for the program in FY2011.
The Senate-reported bill recommends $35.6 million for Rural Cooperative Development Grants, a
slight increase compared to FY2010 ($34.9 million). The major portion of this recommendation is
for Value-Added Product Grants ($20.4 million), the same as FY2010. The 2008 farm bill also
provided $15.0 million in mandatory spending for this program, to be available until expended.
The Rural Microenterprise Investment Program, designed to create new sources of equity capital
in rural areas, would receive $4.4 million under S. 3603, approximately $1 million for grants and
$3.5 million for loan subsidies to support $12 million in loan authority.65
The Biorefinery Assistance Program—which supports the development of technologies for
advanced (non-corn) biofuels—received no funding in the FY2010 appropriation, and none is
recommended for FY2011 by S. 3606. The Administration recommended $17.3 million.
The Senate bill has no funding for rural Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC)
programs, the same as FY2010. The FY2010 appropriation, however, provided $499,000 for
rural development in communities suffering from extreme outmigration and situated in an
Empowerment Zone (under the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, P.L. 106-554).

65 An Interim Final Rule for the microenterprise assistance program was published in the Federal Register on May 28,
2010. See Federal Register 75 (103), pages 30114-30158, May 28, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
45

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 13. Rural Business-Cooperative Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011
House
Senate
House
Senate-
Admin.
Subc.
reported
Program P.L.
111-80
Request
draft
S. 3606
$
%
$
%
Rural Business Program Account
Guaranteed Business & Ind. Loans
52.9
40.3
na
42.5
na
na
-10.4
-20%
Loan authority
993.0
942.0
na
993.0
na na 0.0 0%
Rural business enterprise grants
38.7
38.7
na
38.7
na
na
0.0
0%
Rural business opportunity grants
2.5
2.5
na
2.5
na
na
0.0
0%
Delta regional authority grants
3.0
0.0
na
3.0
na
na
0.0
0%
Rural Development Loan Fund Program
Administrative expenses (transfer)
4.9
5.0
na
5.0
na
na
0.1
+2%
Loan subsidy
8.5
14.0
na
12.9
na
na
4.5
+53%
Loan authority
33.5
36.4
na
33.5
na na 0.0 0%
Rural Econ. Dev.: Loan authority
33.1 33.1 na
33.1
na na 0.0 0%
Rescission: cushion of credit
-44.5
-103.0
na
-103.0
na
na
-58.5 +132%
Rural cooperative development grants
34.9
40.1
na
35.6
na
na
0.7
+2%
Rural Microenterprise Inv.: Grants
2.5
0.9
na
0.9
na
na
-1.7
-66%
Loan subsidy
2.5
6.9
na
3.5
na
na
1.0
+40%
Loan authority
11.8
23.5
na
12.0
na na 0.2 +2%
Rural Energy for America: Grants
19.7
34.0
na
34.0
na
na
14.3
+73%
Loan subsidy
19.7
5.3
na
5.3
na
na
-14.3
-73%
Loan authority
144.2
11.5
na
11.5
na na
-132.7 -92%
Biorefinery Assistance: Loan subsidy
0
17.3
na
0
na
na
0
0
Loan authority
0
49.9
na 0
na
na
0
0
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Table 3)
Budget authority
145.3
102.0
na
80.9
na na -64.3 -44%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-4.9
-5.0
na
-5.0
na
na
-0.1
+2%
Total, Rural Bus.-Coop Svc.
140.3
97.0
54.5 a 75.9
-85.8
-61%
-64.4
-46%
Loan authority
1,215.7
1,096.3
na
1,083.1
na na
-132.5 -11%
Source: Compiled by CRS from P.L. 111-80, S. 3606, S.Rept. 111-221, House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee summary of FY2011 draft (at http://www.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/AG_
FY2011_Summary_for_Subcommittee_-_for_press.pdf), and unpublished appropriations committee tables.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority totals.
a. Assumes $103 million rescission from cushion of credit interest spending in the rural development account,
as shown in S. 3606. In past years, this rescission was included in the general provisions. This assumption
maintains consistency with the House summary (House draft is $42 million less than the Administration).
Congressional Research Service
46

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Rural Utilities Service
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides loan and grant assistance for rural electricity,
telecommunications, and rural water/wastewater projects. For FY2011, S. 3606 recommends
$661 million in budget authority to support $9.3 billion in loan authority. This is $7.5 million
more (+1%) in budget authority and $40 million more in loan authority (+0.4%) than FY2010.
Rural utility programs and funding levels are outlined in Table 14, with highlights below.
The Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account (see prior footnote 64) represents about
88% of RUS total budget authority. The Senate-reported bill recommends $582.9 million in
budget authority (+2.4% over FY2010), with $469.2 million (80%) of the amount to support
water and waste water disposal grants. The recommended appropriation also would support
$1.14 billion in direct and guaranteed loans. Guaranteed loan authority is constant at $75 million,
and direct loan authority is constant as $1 billion. The Senate reported bill also recommends $15
million for the Circuit Rider program.
The appropriation supports water projects in areas where delivery of basic services is deemed to
be especially needed, including $70 million for water and waste disposal systems for Native
American tribes and Hawaiian homelands, the same as FY2010. No funding is recommended for
the colonias (areas primarily in Texas that border Mexico), as in some past appropriations.
For the High Energy Cost Grant program, part of the water and wastewater account, the Senate-
reported bill recommends $17.5 million, the same as FY2010. The program provides grants for
energy projects where average home energy costs exceed 275% of the national average. The
Administration had proposed eliminating the grants on the basis of duplication with the
electrification loan program.
For rural electric loans, the Senate-reported bill recommends $7.1 billion of loan authority, the
same as FY2010 and the Administration request. The $6.5 billion of direct loan authority is
unchanged from FY2010 levels.
For broadband telecommunication, the Senate-reported bill recommends $18 million for grants
and $22.3 million of loan subsidy to support $400 million in direct loans. This is the same loan
authority as FY2010, and $6.6 million less in budget authority. For the Distance Learning and
Telemedicine program, S. 3606 recommends $37.7 million in grants, the same as enacted for
FY2010. The Senate-reported bill also directs the Secretary to analyze and report on the
implications for remote underserved and unserved rural areas from the $2.5 billion in broadband
stimulus funding in P.L. 111-5.
For more information on USDA rural development programs, see CRS Report RL31837, An
Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by Tadlock Cowan.
Congressional Research Service
47

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 14. Rural Utilities Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011
House
Senate
House
Senate-
Admin.
Subc.
reported
Program P.L.
111-80
Request
Draft
S. 3606
$
%
$
%
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program
Loan subsidy and grants
568.7
534.4
na
582.9
na
na
14.1
+2%
Direct loan authority
1,022.2
1,036.3
na
1,022.2
na na 0.0 0%
P.L. 83-566 loans
0.0
0.0
na
40.0
na na 40.0
—
Guaranteed loan authority
75.0
75.0
na
75.0
na na 0.0 0%
Rural Electric and Telecommunication Loans
Administrative exp. (transfer)
40.0
38.4
na
38.4
na
na
-1.6
-4%
Telecom. loan authority
690.0
690.0
na
690.0
na na 0.0 0%
Electricity loan authority
7,100.0
4,100.0
na
7,100.0
na na 0.0 0%
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, Broadband
Distance learning and telemed.
37.8
30.0
na
37.8
na
na
0.0
0%
Broadband: Grants
18.0
18.0
na
18.0
na
na
0.0
0%
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
29.0
22.3
na
22.3
na
na
-6.6
-23%
Direct loan authority
400.0
400.0
na
400.0
na na 0.0 0%
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service (Table 3)
Budget authority
693.4
643.1
na
699.3
na na 5.9 +1%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-40.0
-38.4
na
-38.4
na
na
1.6
-4%
Total, Rural Utilities Service
653.4
604.7 644.7 660.9
-8.7 -1% 7.5 +1%
Loan authority
9,287.2
6,301.3
na
9,327.2
na na 40.0 +0.4%
Source: Compiled by CRS from P.L. 111-80, S. 3606, S.Rept. 111-221, House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee summary of FY2011 draft (at http://www.appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/ardf/AG_
FY2011_Summary_for_Subcommittee_-_for_press.pdf), and unpublished appropriations committee tables.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority totals.
Domestic Food Assistance
Funding for domestic food assistance represents over two-thirds of USDA’s budget. These
programs are, for the most part, mandatory entitlements; that is, funding depends directly on
program participation and indexing of benefits and other payments. The biggest mandatory
programs include the newly renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
formerly the Food Stamp program), child nutrition programs, and The Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP). The three main discretionary budget items are the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program), the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (the CSFP), and federal nutrition program
administration.
Congressional Research Service
48

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

The FY2010 regular appropriation for domestic food assistance totals $82.8 billion.66 In addition
to the FY2010 regular appropriation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA,
P.L. 111-5) provided substantial new FY2010 funding for the SNAP and nutrition assistance
grants for Puerto Rico and American Samoa. Also, the FY2010 Department of Defense
appropriations act (P.L. 111-118) adds extra funding for emergency requirements of FY2010
programs under the Food and Nutrition Act like the SNAP.
For FY2011, child nutrition amounts were projected in the Senate-reported bill to be up about
$1.3 billion (+8%) and food stamp programs (almost entirely SNAP in terms of dollars) are up
about $9.9 billion (+17%) over FY2010. This continues a trend of rapidly rising food assistance
programs because of the economic downturn in recent years.
For more background on domestic nutrition assistance, see CRS Report R41076, The Federal
Response to Calls for Increased Aid from USDA’s Food Assistance Programs, by Joe
Richardson.
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid
The Agricultural appropriations act funds programs that promote U.S. commercial agricultural
exports and provide international food aid. The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) also helps to
increase income and food availability globally by providing technical assistance to developing
countries.67
Four primary appropriations are made to USDA in the area of agricultural trade and food aid:
• The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the primary USDA agency
responsible for international activities, works to improve the competitive position
of U.S. agriculture and products in the world market, and also administers
USDA’s export credit guarantee and food aid programs.
• The Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480), which is actually administered
through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has a mission
to combat hunger and malnutrition, and promote equitable and sustainable
development and global food security.
• The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Export Credit Guarantee
Program provides payment guarantees for the commercial financing of U.S.
agricultural exports.

66 Not included in this appropriations amount is new funding provided through provisions in the 2009 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), emergency funding authority under the FY2010 Defense Department
appropriations law, commodity support (mainly for child nutrition programs) provided under “Section 32” funding
authority, and permanent appropriations and mandatory funding directed by underlying authorizing laws. These types
of supplementary support are separate from, but recognized in, the regular appropriations decision process. See also the
Section 32 discussion under the “Agricultural Marketing Service and Section 32” heading earlier in this report.
67 For more information about USDA international food aid programs, see CRS Report R41072, International Food Aid
Programs: Background and Issues, by Melissa D. Ho and Charles E. Hanrahan; for more information about USDA
agricultural export programs, see CRS Report R41202, Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues, by
Melissa D. Ho and Charles E. Hanrahan.
Congressional Research Service
49

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

• The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program, which was originally authorized by the 2002 farm bill, provides
donations of U.S. agricultural products and financial and technical assistance for
school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects in developing countries.
The Senate-reported bill (S. 3606) provides $2.129 billion for international agriculture activities
carried out by the Foreign Agricultural Service, which is $39.0 million less than the
Administration’s request but still 2% above FY2010 levels. The House subcommittee draft would
provide $2.2 billion, a 5% increase from FY2010 and above both the Senate bill and
Administration request. The FY2010 appropriation, $2.089 billion, was $590 million (+39%)
over the regular enacted FY2009 level.
In addition, about $450 million in mandatory funds are provided in FY2011 from 2008 farm bill
programs, including programs for overseas market development, dairy export, and international
food assistance. Another $22.5 million of mandatory funds is available from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 for trade adjustment assistance for farmers.
Foreign Agricultural Service
The Administration’s FY2011 request includes $258.8 million for the Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS), which represents an increase of $78.4 million (+43%) over the enacted FY2010
level. The Administration’s increases reflect additional funding to support activities such as the
National Export Initiative (+$53.5 million); the Borlaug and Cochran Fellowship program (+$1.5
million); and agricultural reconstruction and stabilization activities, primarily in Afghanistan
(+$14.6 million). The Senate-reported bill includes $219.8 million for FAS, which is $39.0
million less than the Administration’s request (-15%), primarily due to a much smaller increase
for the National Export Initiative (+$4.5 million) among other things. At the same time, the
Senate bill includes an additional $10 million for international food security to allow the
Secretary to provide technical assistance in the establishment and growth of sustainable food
production and marketing systems in developing countries. The Senate bill’s report (S.Rept. 111-
221) noted that “this appropriation should be considered to provide funding apart and different
from funding provided for provincial reconstruction team activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.”68
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480)
Food for Peace (P.L. 480) Title II humanitarian food aid, which is by far the largest component of
international programmatic expenditures at USDA, would receive $1.69 billion in the Senate bill,
the House subcommittee draft, and the Administration’s request. This is the same as the FY2010
enacted level, and $464.1 million more (+38%) than the regular FY2009 appropriation. The
increase in funding to the program in FY2010 was intended to reduce the need for future
emergency supplemental funding (e.g., about $700 million in FY2009 in P.L. 111-32, and $150
million in FY2010 in P.L. 111-212) and reflects the fact that the global need for food assistance
has increased substantially. The budget includes no funding for new Title I credit sales and
grants, but includes a $2.8 million direct appropriation for continuing administrative expenses.

68 See S.Rept. 111-221, p. 86.
Congressional Research Service
50

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Title V of P.L. 480 authorizes farmer-to-farmer assistance between the United States and eligible
countries in order to increase the productivity and efficiency of food production and distribution
abroad. The Administration’s proposal specifies that at least the greater of $10 million or 0.5% of
the P.L. 480 amount should be used to fund the Farmer-to-Farmer program. In addition, not
included in the P.L. 480 direct appropriation, but included in the P.L. 480 program account is
$122 million in reimbursements from the Maritime Administration (MARAD) for ocean freight
differentials that are incurred from shipping Title II commodities on U.S-flag vessels.
Unlike in the previous Administration, the President’s budget request again did not propose to
allow the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to use up to 25 percent
of Food for Peace Title II funds for local or regional purchases of commodities (i.e., non-U.S.
commodities) to address international food crises. To date, Congress has not supported this
initiative. At the same time, the 2008 farm bill authorizes $60 million of CCC funds (mandatory
funds, not Title II appropriations), over four years for a pilot project to assess local and regional
purchases of food aid for emergency relief.
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition
The Senate bill includes $209.5 million for the McGovern-Dole program for FY2011, which is
the same as the Administration’s request and FY2010. The House draft includes more for
McGovern-Dole, $266.5 million, which would be an increase of $57 million or 27%. The
FY2010 enacted appropriation for McGovern-Dole constituted a major expansion in appropriated
funding for the program by more than doubling the funding from the level enacted in FY2009.
The additional resources in FY2010 allowed the program to build upon an existing expansion in
programming, which was included as a one-time authorization in the 2008 farm bill, of $84
million of CCC funding to the program in FY2009.
The FY2010 enacted appropriation included an appropriation to the Secretary of $10 million to
conduct pilot projects to develop and field test new and improved micronutrient fortified products
to improve the nutrition of populations served through the McGovern-Dole program. The
Administration did not include this provision in its proposed FY2011 appropriations language.
The Administration’s FY2011 request also includes a transfer of $8.9 million from the Maritime
Administration to FAS for reimbursement of ocean freight differential charges between U.S.-flag
rates and foreign-flag rates when specified by authority of the Merchant Marine Act.69
Commodity Credit Corporation—Export Credit Guarantee Programs
The President’s request includes $6.88 million for the Commodity Credit Corporation Export
Loans Program Account, which is similar to the Senate’s recommendation, and $64,000 higher
than the enacted levels in FY2010. The President’s budget estimated this would support an
overall program level of $5.5 billion for CCC export credit guarantees in FY2011, which is the
same amount of loan guarantees provided in FY2010. In addition, the Administration expects
total subsidy costs related to USDA agricultural export guarantee programs to be $18.5 million in
FY2011, which is $7.4 million over the enacted FY2010 appropriations level of $11.1 million.

69 See http://www.usmm.org/mmact1936.html.
Congressional Research Service
51

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

In addition, other mandatory programs from the 2008 farm bill promote export market
development. These include for FY2011, separate from the appropriations bill,
• $200 million for the Market Access Program;
• $34.5 million for the Foreign Market Development Program;
• $9 million for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) Program, up
from $8 million in 2010;
• $10 million for the Emerging Markets Program; and
• $25 million for the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP).
Mandatory funding levels requested by the Administration for international food assistance
programs include:
• $146 million for Food for Progress; and
• $25 million for the Local and Regional Commodity Procurement Pilot Program.
Also, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 reauthorized the Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Farmers (TAAF) program, which was originally authorized by the Trade Act of
2002, and provides funding of $22.5 million for FY2011, which is down from the $90 million
provided in FY2010 and FY2009.
For additional information on USDA’s international activities, see CRS Report R41072,
International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues, by Melissa D. Ho and Charles E.
Hanrahan, and CRS Report R41202, Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues, by
Melissa D. Ho and Charles E. Hanrahan.
Food and Drug Administration
In FY2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received a total appropriation of $2.357
billion. For FY2011, the Administration requested $2.516 billion. The House subcommittee
draft would provide $2.571 billion, up 9% from FY2010. The Senate-reported bill would provide
slightly less than the House, at $2.516 billion or the same as the Administration’s request, up 7%
from FY2010.
For details about components of the FDA appropriation, see CRS Report R41288, Food and
Drug Administration FY2011 Budget and Appropriations, by Susan Thaul.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the independent regulatory agency
charged with oversight of derivatives markets. The CFTC’s functions include oversight of trading
on the futures exchanges, registration and supervision of futures industry personnel, prevention of
fraud and price manipulation, and investor protection. Although most futures trading is now
related to financial variables (interest rates, currency prices, and stock indexes), congressional
oversight remains vested in the agriculture committees because of the market’s historical origins
as an adjunct to agricultural trade.
Congressional Research Service
52

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Jurisdiction for CFTC appropriations rests with the House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee and, since 2008, the Senate Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations subcommittee. Placement of the enacted appropriation alternates each year
between the two subcommittees. In FY2008 and FY2010, CFTC was included with the enacted
Agriculture appropriation. In FY2009, CFTC was included with the enacted Financial Services
appropriation.
For FY2011, the Administration requested $261 million for CFTC, including $45 million in
contingent funding tied to enactment of financial regulatory reform. The House Agriculture
Appropriations subcommittee recommends $261 million, the same as the Administration’s
request, up $92 million (+55%) over FY2010. The Senate Financial Services appropriations
committee-reported bill (S. 3677) recommends $286 million, $25 million more than the
Administration’s request and 69% above FY2010 levels. The Senate report “supports the need for
significantly increased resources for the CFTC to ensure appropriate oversight of the futures
markets.”70

70 S.Rept. 111-238, p. 81, accompanying S. 3677.
Congressional Research Service
53

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Appendix.
Table A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2011
House-
Senate-
Appropriations
Fiscal Year
passed
passed Enacted
vehicle
Public Law
CRS Report
1999 6/24/1998
7/16/1998
10/21/1998 Omnibus
P.L.
105-277 98-201
2000 6/8/1999
8/4/1999
10/22/1999 Agriculture P.L.
106-78 RL30201
2001 7/11/2000
7/20/2000
10/28/2000 Agriculture P.L.
106-387 RL30501
2002 7/11/2001
10/25/2001
11/28/2001 Agriculture P.L.
107-76 RL31001
2003 — —
2/20/2003
Omnibus P.L.
108-7
RL31301
2004 7/14/2003
11/6/2003
1/23/2004 Omnibus
P.L.
108-199 RL31801
2005 7/13/2004 — 12/8/2004 Omnibus
P.L.
108-447 RL32301
2006 6/8/2005
9/22/2005
11/10/2005 Agriculture P.L.
109-97 RL32904
2007 5/23/2006 — 2/15/2007 Year-long
CR P.L.
110-5 RL33412
2008 8/2/2007 — 12/26/2007 Omnibus P.L.
110-161
RL34132
2009 — —
3/11/2009
Omnibus P.L.
111-8
R40000
2010 7/9/2009
8/4/2009
10/21/2009 Agriculture P.L.
111-80 R40721
2011
— — —
—
— —
Source: CRS.
Figure A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2010
FY1999
* 10/21
FY2000
10/22
FY2001
10/28
FY2002
11/28
FY2003
* 2/20
FY2004
* 1/23
FY2005
* 12/8
FY2006
11/10
FY2007
* 2/15
FY2008
* 12/26
FY2009
* 3/11
FY2010
10/21
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Source: CRS.
Notes: An asterisk (*) denotes an omnibus appropriation. FY2007 was a year-long continuing resolution.

Congressional Research Service
54

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Jim Monke, Coordinator
Tadlock Cowan
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
Development
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Melissa D. Ho
Dennis A. Shields
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
mho@crs.loc.gov, 7-5342
dshields@crs.loc.gov, 7-9051
Megan Stubbs
Remy Jurenas
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources Policy
rjurenas@crs.loc.gov, 7-7281
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Renée Johnson

Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Agricultural Marketing Service
Remy Jurenas
7-7281
rjurenas@crs.loc.gov
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Renée Johnson
7-9588
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov
Animal identification
Joel Greene
7-9877
jgreene@crs.loc.gov
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Mark Jickling
7-7784
mjickling@crs.loc.gov
Conservation Megan
Stubbs
7-8707
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov
Crop insurance and disaster assistance
Dennis A. Shields
7-9051
dshields@crs.loc.gov
Farm Service Agency and Commodity Credit Corp. Jim Monke
7-9664
jmonke@crs.loc.gov
Food and Drug Administration
Susan Thaul
7-0562
sthaul@crs.loc.gov
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Admin.
Joel Greene
7-9877
jgreene@crs.loc.gov
Horticulture Renée
Johnson
7-9588
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov
Meat and Poultry Inspection
Renée Johnson
7-9588
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov
Nutrition and domestic food assistance
Joe Richardson
7-7325
jirichardson@crs.loc.gov
Research and extension
Melissa D. Ho
7-5342
mho@crs.loc.gov
Rural Development
Tadlock Cowan
7-7600
tcowan@crs.loc.gov
Section 32
Melissa D. Ho
7-5342
mho@crs.loc.gov
Trade and foreign food aid
Melissa D. Ho
7-5342
mho@crs.loc.gov
USDA budget general y
Jim Monke
7-9664
jmonke@crs.loc.gov

Congressional Research Service
55