Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2011 Appropriations
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
April 4, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41475
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

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.
Because no full-year FY2011 appropriation has been enacted, the government has continued to
operate under continuing resolutions. To date, six short-term continuing resolutions have been
enacted, with the most recent set to expire on April 8, 2011. House and Senate leadership
continue to search for a compromise on the FY2011 appropriation. Under the continuing
resolutions (most recently P.L. 112-6), the government is operating generally at FY2010 levels,
although the two most recent continuing resolutions have begun to reduce FY2010 appropriated
levels, including $532 million in reductions to agricultural accounts.
For the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill, no separate floor action and limited formal
committee action occurred in the 111th Congress. 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. None of the 12 appropriations bills was
enacted in 2010.
In the 112th Congress, the House passed H.R. 1, a full-year continuing resolution for FY2011, by
a vote of 235-189 on February 19, 2011. For Agriculture, H.R. 1 would make $5.3 billion in cuts
to discretionary programs (-23%), reducing them from $23.4 billion in FY2010 to $18.1 billion
for FY2011.
On March 9, 2011, the Senate voted on H.R. 1, but failed to pass it by a vote of 44-56. Later on
March 9, 2011, the Senate also voted on a substitute amendment, S.Amdt. 149; it failed by a vote
of 42-58. S.Amdt. 149 would have reduced discretionary Agriculture appropriations by $1.7
billion (-7%) from the FY2010 level of $23.4 billion to $21.7 billion.
Many of the reductions in H.R. 1 would return funding to near FY2008 levels or below. For
example: discretionary Agriculture-related programs would fall to $6.44 billion, 12% below
FY2010 and 3% below FY2008; discretionary conservation programs would fall to $857 million,
15% below FY2010 and 9% below FY2008; rural development would fall to $2.28 billion, 22%
below FY2010 and 2.5% below FY2008; foreign assistance would fall to $1.28 billion, 39%
below FY2010 and 13% below FY2008; and CFTC would fall to $112 million, 34% below
FY2010 and nearly equal to FY2008.
In contrast, the Senate’s substitute amendment (S.Amdt. 149) generally would have made smaller
cuts or held spending constant at FY2010 levels.

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.................................................................... 5
Action on FY2011 Appropriations .............................................................................................. 5
House Action ........................................................................................................................ 6
Senate Action........................................................................................................................ 7
Continuing Resolutions ......................................................................................................... 7
Detailed Funding Levels ....................................................................................................... 8
FY2011 Funding Summary ............................................................................................. 8
Reductions in Short-term Continuing Resolutions ......................................................... 17
Historical Trends........................................................................................................... 18
Limits on Mandatory Program Spending ............................................................................. 22
Earmarks ............................................................................................................................ 24
Selected USDA Programs ......................................................................................................... 25

Figures
Figure 1. USDA Budget Authority, FY2010................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2010 .......................................... 2
Figure 3. Discretionary Agricultural Appropriations, FY1995-2010, and FY2011
Proposed................................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory vs. Discretionary........................................... 20
Figure 5. Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition vs. Other General Agriculture........... 20
Figure 6. Domestic Nutrition Programs in Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory vs.
Discretionary ......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 7. Other General Agriculture Programs in Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory
vs. Discretionary .................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 8. Agriculture Appropriations in Constant (Inflation-adjusted) 2010 Dollars................... 21
Figure 9. Agriculture Appropriations as a Percentage of Total Federal Budget Authority........... 21
Figure 10. Agriculture Appropriations as a Percentage of GDP.................................................. 21
Figure 11. Agriculture Appropriations per Capita of U.S. Population......................................... 21

Figure A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2010 ................ 32

Congressional Research Service

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on FY2011 Agriculture Appropriations........................................ 6
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title: FY2010-FY2011.............. 11
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program:
FY2008, FY2010, and FY2011 Proposed ............................................................................... 12
Table 4. Reductions to Agriculture Appropriations in Short-Term CRs...................................... 17
Table 5. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: Recent Trends................................ 19
Table 6. Reductions in Mandatory Programs in FY2010 and FY2011 ........................................ 23
Table 7. Research, Education and Economics Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011........................ 26
Table 8. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority, FY2010-FY2011.............................. 27
Table 9. Rural Housing Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011............................................. 28
Table 10. Rural Business-Cooperative Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 ...................... 30
Table 11. Rural Utilities Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 ........................................... 31

Table A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2011 ................. 32

Appendixes
Appendix. ................................................................................................................................. 32

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 33
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 33

Congressional Research Service

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
House and Senate leadership continue to search for a compromise on the FY2011 appropriation.
In the meantime, the government is operating generally at FY2010 levels under a series of short-
term continuing resolutions (most recently P.L. 112-6) that expire on April 8, 2011. This and the
previous short-term continuing resolution have begun to reduce FY2010 appropriated levels,
though, including reductions to several agricultural accounts.
On February 19, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1, a full-year continuing resolution for FY2011 by
a vote of 235-189. For Agriculture, H.R. 1 would make $5.3 billion in cuts to discretionary
programs (-23%), reducing them from $23.4 billion in FY2010 to $18.1 billion for FY2011.
On March 9, 2011, the Senate voted on H.R. 1, but failed to pass it by a vote of 44-56. Later on
March 9, 2011, the Senate also voted on a substitute amendment, S.Amdt. 149; it failed by a vote
of 42-58. S.Amdt. 149 would have reduced discretionary Agriculture appropriations by $1.7
billion (-7%) from the FY2010 level of $23.4 billion to $21.7 billion.
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

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

activities outside of the Agriculture budget function, such as conservation and nutrition
assistance.
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

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

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:
• 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
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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.
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.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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
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
For the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill, no separate floor action and limited formal
committee action occurred in the 111th Congress. 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. In the 112th Congress, both chambers have addressed full-
year continuing resolutions, though none has yet been enacted.
The FY2011 Agriculture appropriation is somewhat similar to the FY2009 bill in that neither
chamber acted on the Agriculture 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.

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

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

House Action
On February 19, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1, a full-year continuing resolution for FY2011
covering all 12 regular appropriations bills (vote of 235-189, Table 1). The bill was introduced
on February 11, going directly to the floor without formal committee or subcommittee markup.
The bill makes $61 billion in cuts from FY2010 levels across all 12 appropriations bills. For the
Agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 1 makes $5.3 billion in cuts (-23%) to discretionary
programs, reducing them from $23.4 billion in FY2010 to $18.1 billion for FY2011.
In the 111th Congress, the House did not move the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill beyond
subcommittee. 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 was made public. The
subcommittee, however, did release an eight-page summary by the committee chairwoman6 and a
funding table of discretionary appropriations at the agency level.7
Table 1. Congressional Action on FY2011 Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Vote
Report
Vote
Report
House Senate Law
111th Congress (2009-10)
6/30/10
July 2010
—
—
7/15/10
—
—
—
—
—
Voice vote Polled outa


S. 3606





S.Rept.
111-221
Committee
vote 17-12
112th Congress (2011-12)
—
—
—
2/19/11
—
3/9/11
—
—
—
—



H.R. 1

S.Amdt.




Vote of
149 to
235-189
H.R. 1
(passed)
Vote 42-58
(failed)
Source: CRS.
a. A procedure that permits a bill to advance if subcommittee members independently agree to move it along.

6 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://delauro.house.gov/release.cfm?id=2860.
7 House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, “Summary Table of FY2011 Markup,” June 30, 2010, at
http://www.land-grant.org/docs/FY2011/House_Summary.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Senate Action
On March 9, 2011, the Senate voted on H.R. 1, but failed to pass it by a vote of 44-56. Later on
March 9, 2011, the Senate also voted on a substitute amendment to H.R. 1, S.Amdt. 149. It failed
by a vote of 42-58. Both bills were debated on the Senate floor without formal committee or
subcommittee action. S.Amdt. 149 would have reduced discretionary Agriculture appropriations
by $1.7 billion (-7%) from the FY2010 level of $23.4 billion to $21.7 billion. Negotiations
continue on a full-year funding level.
In the 111th Congress, 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.8 This
expedited committee procedure was formerly uncommon for the Agriculture appropriations bill,
but was used for the FY2009 and FY2010 Agriculture appropriations bills as well.
Continuing Resolutions
Because no full-year FY2011 appropriation has been enacted, the government has continued to
operate under continuing resolutions. To date, six short-term continuing resolutions have been
enacted: P.L. 111-242 (October 1 through December 3, 2010), P.L. 111-290 (through December
18, 2010), P.L. 111-317 (through December 21, 2010), P.L. 111-322 (through March 4, 2011),
P.L. 112-4 (through March 18, 2011), and P.L. 112-6 (through April 8, 2011).
The continuing resolutions cover all 12 appropriations bills and were necessary because, in the
111th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee reported only two FY2011 bills, both of
which the House passed, and the Senate Appropriations Committee reported 11 of its 12 bills, but
with none getting to the floor. The two bills that saw House action were Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs; and Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. The only bill not
reported by the full committee in the Senate was Interior and Environment.9
The premise behind most continuing resolutions is that prior-year funding and instructions
continue into the current year, unless changed. Mandatory programs, including those in the
agricultural appropriations bill are allowed to operate at required levels. The first four CRs
(through March 4, 2011) continued discretionary agricultural appropriations at FY2010 levels.
The last two CRs enacted, though, began trimming discretionary appropriations levels. Across all
12 appropriations bills, these two CRs have cut $10 billion from selected accounts, on an
annualized basis, from FY2010 appropriated levels at a rate of $2 billion per week.10 11 For

8 For more about polling in the Senate, see CRS Report RS22952, Proxy Voting and Polling in Senate Committee, by
Christopher M. Davis.
9 See the CRS Appropriations Status Table, at http://www.crs.gov/Pages/appover.aspx.
10 House Appropriations Committee press release, “Continuing Resolution Unveiled Today Will Continue Government
Operations, Cut Spending,” Feb. 25, 2011, at http://www.appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=
PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=266.
11 House Appropriations Committee press release, “Appropriations Committee Introduces Three Week Continuing
Resolution – Bill will Prevent Government Shutdown, Cut $6 Billion in Spending,” March 11, 2011, at
http://www.appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=273.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Agriculture accounts, the last two CRs have reduced FY2010 appropriated levels by $532 million
(Table 4), mostly targeted to accounts that had earmarks in FY2010, though not exclusively (see
later discussion in “Reductions in Short-term Continuing Resolutions.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) allocates funding to departments and agencies
under the continuing resolution,12 but sometimes in a limited way that makes operations more
restricted than might otherwise occur when continuing last year’s funding levels.13
Detailed 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.14 For mandatory amounts, the Administration is
requesting $109.1 billion, 11% more than FY2010.15 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%).
House: H.R. 1
H.R. 1 would provide $18.1 billion in discretionary appropriations for accounts in the Agriculture
appropriations bill, resulting in a $5.3 billion reduction from FY2010 levels (-23%) (Table 2).

12 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.
13 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. For more background on
continuing resolutions in a historical context, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and
Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by Sandy Streeter.
14 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.
15 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.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Many of the reductions in H.R. 1 would return funding to near FY2008 levels or below. For
example: discretionary agriculture-related programs would fall to $6.44 billion, 12% below
FY2010 and 3% below FY2008; discretionary conservation programs would fall to $857 million,
15% below FY2010 and 9% below FY2008; rural development would fall to $2.28 billion, 22%
below FY2010 and 2.5% below FY2008; foreign assistance would fall to $1.28 billion, 39%
below FY2010 and 13% below FY2008; and CFTC would fall to $112 million, 34% below
FY2010 and nearly equal to FY2008 (Table 3). More specifically:
• H.R.1 reduces discretionary agricultural programs by 12% (-$895 million) from
FY2010, including a 72% cut in funding for the Chief Information Officer, 15%
cuts in agricultural research, and a 12% cut to Farm Service Agency salaries and
expenses. The Food Safety Inspection Service would see a 9% cut, and the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service an 8% cut (Table 3).
• H.R. 1 reduces discretionary conservation programs by 15% (-$153 million) from
FY2010, including a 6% cut to Conservation Operations. Watershed and Flood
Prevention, and Resource Conservation and Development funding would be
eliminated (consistent with the Administration request), and Watershed
Rehabilitation funding would be cut in half.
• H.R. 1 reduces funding for rural development programs by 22% (-$658 million)
from FY2010, including a 15% net reduction in rural housing (-$209 million),
$196 million cut to rural business development, and a 33% (-$218 million) cut to
rural utilities.
• H.R. 1 reduces funding for discretionary domestic nutrition programs by 10%
from FY2010 (-$762 million), mostly by reducing WIC (Women, Infants and
Children) by $747 million.
• H.R. 1 reduces funding for foreign assistance by 39% from FY2010 (-$811
million), including a 41% cut to P.L. 480 humanitarian food aid (-$687 million),
and a 52% cut to McGovern-Dole Food for Education (-$110 million).
• H.R. 1 reduces funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by 10%
from FY2010 (-$241 million).
• H.R. 1 reduces funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
by 34% from FY2010 (-$57 million).
• H.R. 1 would increase the amount taken from mandatory programs by limiting
USDA’s ability to implement the programs as intended in the 2008 farm bill. In
FY2010, limits on mandatory programs totaled $511 million; H.R. 1 increases
that to $924 million (+81%). These reductions increase the savings in the bill
(see Table 6).
Senate: S. Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1
In contrast to H.R. 1, the Senate’s substitute amendment for H.R. 1 generally makes smaller cuts
or holds spending at FY2010 levels. S.Amdt. 149, would provide $21.7 billion in discretionary
appropriations for accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill, resulting in a $1.7 billion
reduction from FY2010 levels (-7%). To put the Senate amendment on a comparable level with
amounts for Agriculture appropriations in the House, we add CFTC to the Senate subtotal and
obtain a $22.0 billion total, which is $1.4 billion below FY2010 (-6%).
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

• S. Amdt. 149 reduces discretionary agricultural programs by 3% (-$256 million)
from FY2010, including 6%-7% cuts in agricultural research, and a 2% cut to
Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses. The Food Safety Inspection Service
would see a 1% cut, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service a 2%
cut.
• S. Amdt. 149 reduces discretionary conservation programs by 13% (-$133
million), including eliminating funding for Watershed and Flood Prevention (as
in the H.R. 1 and the Administration request) and Watershed Rehabilitation.
Funding for Resource Conservation and Development would be cut in half.
• S. Amdt. 149 reduces rural development programs by 8% (-$234 million),
including a 12% reduction in rural housing, a 20% reduction in rural business
development, and a 3% cut to rural utilities.
• S. Amdt. 149 reduces funding for discretionary domestic nutrition programs by
5%, including a 6% cut to WIC and 1%-2% increases to other discretionary
programs.
• S. Amdt. 149 generally holds foreign assistance programs constant at FY2010
levels and has a $14 million increase in Foreign Agricultural Service salaries and
expenses.
• S. Amdt. 149 increases FDA appropriations by 7% (+158 million).
• S. Amdt. 149 increases CFTC appropriations by 69% (+117 million), more than
the Administration’s request to allow implementation of financial services laws
enacted in 2010 (CFTC is part of the Financial Services appropriations bill in the
Senate).
• S. Amdt. 149, like H.R. 1, would increase the amount taken from mandatory
programs in the farm bill from $511 in FY2010 to $610 million in FY2011
(+19%). These reductions increase the savings in the bill (see Table 6).
Table 2 summarizes the totals of the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill by title or broad
program, comparing FY2010 to H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149.
Table 3 provides more detail within each title by including accounts and agencies. Table 3 also
shows the Administration’s request and appropriations levels for FY2008 since these are often-
cited benchmarks for cuts in H.R. 1. Supplemental appropriations are not included in the fiscal
year totals because the primary purpose of this report is to compare the regular annual
appropriation across years. Supplemental appropriations in agriculture often respond to natural
disasters or particular market crises, and thus may not be comparable to the current situation.
Table 4 summarizes reductions to FY2011 levels already enacted in short-term continuing
resolutions.
Table 5 shows trends in various measures of agricultural appropriations since 1995. Table 6 lists
reductions to mandatory agricultural programs that are part of the 2008 farm bill.
Table 7 through Table 11 provide additional details about specific programs that are below the
agency level of Table 3.

Congressional Research Service
10

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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
S. Amdt.
Title in Appropriations Bill
P.L. 111-80
H.R. 1
149 $
%
$
%
Agricultural Programs
30,192
29,201
29,839
-991
-3%
-352
-1%
Mandatory 22,855
22,759
a 22,759
a -96
-0.4%
-96
-0.4%
Discretionary 7,336
6,442
7,080
-895
-12%
-256
-3%
Conservation Programs
1,009
857
876
-153
-15%
-133
-13%
Rural Development
2,934
2,276
2,700
-658
-22%
-234
-8%
Domestic Food Programs
82,783
95,113
95,476
+12,330
+15%
+12,693
+15%
Mandatory 75,128
88,220
a 88,220
a +13,092 +17%
+13,092
+17%
Discretionary 7,655
6,892
7,256
-762
-10%
-399
-5%
Foreign Assistance
2,089
1,278
2,103
-811
-39%
+14
+1%
FDA 2,357
2,116
2,515
-241
-10%
+158
+7%
CFTC (if in agriculture bill)b 169

112

-57
-34%


CFTC (if in financial services bill)b

286
+117
+69%
General Provisions
-194
-1,880
-843
-1,687

-650

Total in agriculture bill (no adjustment for jurisdiction over CFTC)
Mandatory 97,983
110,979
a 110,979
a +12,996 +13%
+12,996
+13%
Discretionary 23,356
18,093
21,687
-5,263
-23%
-1,669
-7%
Total 121,340
129,072
132,667
+7,732
+6%
+11,327
+9%
Totals without CFTC in any column b
Discretionary 23,187
17,981
21,687
-5,207
-22%
-1,500
-6%
Total 121,171
128,960
a 132,667
a +7,789 +6%
+11,496
+9%
Totals with CFTC in all columnsb
Discretionary 23,356
18,093
21,973
-5263
-23%
-1,383
-6%
Total 121,340
129,072
a 132,953
a +7,732 +6%
+11,613
+10%
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates), and P.L. 111-80, P.L. 110-161, S.
Rept. 111-221 (for Admin. request), and unpublished appropriations tables.
Notes: na = not available. Does not include supplemental appropriations of $549 million in FY2010 ($400million
for domestic nutrition, $150 million for foreign assistance, $31 million for farm loans, $18 million for forestry
assistance, and offset by a $50 million reduction in BCAP).
a. H.R. 1 and S. Amdt. 149 do not specify amounts for mandatory programs, other than stating funds available
as necessary; estimates are unofficial appropriations estimates.
b. CFTC is shown in different ways because of jurisdiction differences to make totals comparable

Congressional Research Service
11

---

Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program: FY2008, FY2010, and FY2011 Proposed
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011



Admin.
House
Senate
House
Senate
Request
S. Amdt.
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 110-161 P.L. 111-80
(Feb. 2010)
H.R. 1
149 $ % $ %
Title I: Agricultural Programs









Offices of Secretary and Chief Economist
15.5
19.3
15.0
15.1
19.3
-4.2
-22%
0.0
0%
Healthy Food Financing Initiative


35.0






Chief Information Officer
16.2
61.6
63.7
17.0
61.6
-44.6
-72%
0.0
0%
Office of Inspector General
79.5
88.7
90.3
80.0
88.7
-8.7
-10%
0.0
0%
Buildings, facilities, and rental payments
194.9 293.1 277.9 259.8 261.6 -33.3 -11%
-31.5 -11%
Other Departmental administration offices a 131.0
164.1
161.8
138.5
152.5
-25.6
-16%
-11.6
-7%
Under Secretaries (four offices in Title I) b 2.5
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.5
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Research, Education and Economics









Agric. Research Service
1,167.8
1,250.5
1,199.7
1,065.4
1,158.2
-185.1
-15%
-92.3
-7%
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
1,183.8
1,343.2
1,342.8
1,126.1
1,268.0
-217.1
-16%
-75.2
-6%
Economic Research Service
77.4
82.5
87.2
79.5
82.5
-3.0
-4%
0.0
0%
National Agric. Statistics Service
162.2
161.8
164.7
151.6
156.8
-10.3
-6%
-5.1
-3%
Marketing and Regulatory Programs









Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
867.6
909.7
875.3
834.7
889.5
-75.0
-8%
-20.1
-2%
Agric. Marketing Service
114.7
92.5
99.9
83.0
92.5
-9.4
-10%
0.0
0%
Section 32 (permanent + transfers)
1,169.0
1,320.1
1,220.3
1,220.3
1,220.3
-99.8
-8%
-99.8
-8%
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
38.5
42.0
44.2
40.3
42.4
-1.6
-4%
+0.4
+1%
Food Safety









Food Safety & Inspection Service
930.1
1,018.5
1,036.9
930.1
1,011.4
-88.4
-9%
-7.1
-1%
Farm and Commodity Programs









Farm Service Agency Salaries and Exp. d 1,435.2
1,574.9
1,690.8
1,382.1
1,551.1
-192.8
-12%
-23.8
-2%
CRS-12

---

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011



Admin.
House
Senate
House
Senate
Request
S. Amdt.
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 110-161 P.L. 111-80
(Feb. 2010)
H.R. 1
149
$ % $ %
FSA Farm Loans: Subsidy Level
148.6
140.6
150.7
147.8
151.2
+7.2
+5%
+10.6
+8%
FSA Farm Loans: Loan Authoritye
3,427.6 5,083.9 4,741.0 4,619.0 4,683.0 -464.9 -9% -401.0
-8%
Dairy indemnity, mediation, water protectc 8.2 10.3 5.2 9.9 9.3
-0.4
-4%
-1.0
-10%
Risk Management Agency Salaries and Exp.
76.1
80.3
83.1
77.2
80.3
-3.1
-4%
0.0
0%
Federal Crop Insurance Corp. f, 4,818.1
6,455.3
7,613.2
7,613.2 g 7,613.2 g +1,158.0 +18% +1,158.0 +18%
Commodity Credit Corp. f, 12,983.0
15,079.2
13,925.6
13,925.6 g 13,925.6 g -1,153.6 -8% -1,153.6 -8%
Subtotal








Mandatory
18,987.0
22,855.4
22,760.0
22,759.1 g 22,759.1
g -96.3
-0.4% -96.3
-0.4%
Discretionary 6,632.9
7,336.1
7,426.9
6,441.6
7,080.4
-894.5
-12%
-255.8
-3%
Subtotal 25,619.9
30,191.6
30,186.9
29,200.7
g 29,839.4
g -990.9 -3% -352.1 -1%
Title II: Conservation Programs









Conservation Operations
834.4
887.6
923.7
836.0
850.2
-51.6
-6%
-37.4
-4%
Watershed & Flood Prevention
29.8
30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-30.0
-100%
-30.0
-100%
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
19.9
40.2 40.5 20.0 0.0 -20.2
-50% -40.2 -100%
Resource Conservation & Development
50.7
50.7
0.0
0.0
25.0
-50.7
-100%
-25.7
-51%
Under Secretary, Natural Resources
0.7
0.9
2.9 h 0.9 0.9 0.0
0% 0.0
0%
Subtotal 937.5
1,009.4
967.2
856.9
876.1
-152.5
-15%
-133.3
-13%
Title III: Rural Development









Rural Housing Service
881.6
1,424.2
1,250.4
1,215.3
1,251.3
-208.9
-15%
-172.9
-12%
RHS Loan Authority e
6,095.4 13,904.7 14,008.6 13,904.3 25,779.9
-0.4 0%
+11875.2
+85%
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
173.2
140.3
97.0
-55.4
112.7
-195.7
-139%
-27.6
-20%
RBCS Loan Authority e
1,265.2 1,215.7 1,096.3
na
na na na
na na
Rural Utilities Service
616.9
653.4
604.7 435.6 631.5
-217.9 -33%
-21.9 -3%
RUS Loan Authority e
9,179.5 9,287.2 6,301.3
na
na na na
na na
CRS-13

---

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011



Admin.
House
Senate
House
Senate
Request
S. Amdt.
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 110-161 P.L. 111-80
(Feb. 2010)
H.R. 1
149
$ % $ %
Salaries and Expenses (including transfers)
661.7
715.5
730.1
679.7
703.6
-35.8
-5%
-11.9
-2%
RD Under Secretary
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Subtotal 2,334.0
2,934.3
2,683.1
2,276.0
2,700.1
-658.3
-22%
-234.2
-8%
Subtotal, RD Loan Authority e 16,540.1
24,407.5
21,406.2 na na
na
na
na
na
Title IV: Domestic Food Programs









Child Nutrition Programs g 13,901.5
16,855.8
18,158.4
17,312.5
17,312.5
+456.7
+3%
+456.7
+3%
WIC Program
6,020.0
7,252.0
7,603.0
6,504.8
6,852.5
-747.2
-10%
-399.5
-6%
Food Stamp Act Programs g 39,782.7
58,278.2
68,206.8
70,907.8
70,907.8
+12,629.6
+22%
+12,629.6
+22%
Commodity Assistance Programs
210.3
248.0
249.6
242.0
251.6
-6.0
-2%
+3.6
+1%
Nutrition Programs Admin.
141.7
147.8
172.1
144.8
150.8
-3.0
-2%
+3.0
+2%
Office of Under Secretary
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.0
0%
+0.0
0%
Subtotal








Mandatory
53,683.2
75,128.0
86,360.2
88,220.3 g 88,220.3
g +13,092.3 +17% +13,092.3 +17%
Discretionary 6,373.6
7,654.6
8,030.5
6,892.4
7,255.8
-762.2
-10%
-398.8
-5%
Subtotal 60,056.8
82,782.6
94,390.7
95,112.7
g 95,476.1
g +12,330.1 +15% +12,693.5 +15%
Title V: Foreign Assistance









Foreign Agric. Service
158.4
180.4
258.8
165.4
194.4
-14.9
-8%
+14.0
+8%
Public Law (P.L.) 480
1,213.5
1,692.8
1,692.8
1,005.8
1,692.8
-687.0
-41%
0.0
0%
McGovern- Dole Food for Education
99.3
209.5
209.5
100.0
209.5
-109.5
-52%
0.0
0%
CCC Export Loan Salaries
5.3
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.8
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Subtotal

1,476.5 2,089.5 2,168.0 1,278.1 2,103.5 -811.4
-39% +14.0
+1%
Title VI: FDA & Related Agencies









Food and Drug Administration
1,716.8
2,357.1
2,516.3
2,116.1
2,515.0
-241.0
-10%
+157.9
+7%
Commodity Futures Trading Commission i 111.3
168.8
261.0
112.0
—
-56.8
-34%
—
—
CRS-14

---

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011



Admin.
House
Senate
House
Senate
Request
S. Amdt.
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 110-161 P.L. 111-80
(Feb. 2010)
H.R. 1
149
$ % $ %
Title VII: General Provisions









Limit mandatory programs
-335.0
-511.0
-735.0
-924.0
-610.0
-413.0
+81%
-99.0
+19%
Section 32 rescission
-684.0
-52.5
-50.0
—
—
+52.5
-100%
+52.5
-100%
Other provisions
627.9
380.8
6.5
4.0
7.1
-376.8
-99%
-373.7
-98%
Other rescissions & scorekeeping
-1,098.5
-11.0 -110.6 -960.4 -240.5 -949.4
— -229.5
—
Subtotal
-1,489.5
-193.7
-889.1
-1,880.4
-843.5
-1,686.7
—
-649.8
—
RECAPITULATION:








I: Agricultural Programs
25,619.9
30,191.6
30,186.9
29,200.7
29,839.4
-990.9
-3%
-352.1
-1%
Mandatory 18,987.0
22,855.4
22,760.0
22,759.1 g 22,759.1 g -96.3
-0.4% -96.3
-0.4%
Discretionary 6,632.9
7,336.1
7,426.9
6,441.6
7,080.4
-894.5
-12%
-255.8
-3%
II: Conservation Programs
937.5
1,009.4
967.2
856.9
876.1
-152.5
-15%
-133.3
-13%
III: Rural Development
2,334.0
2,934.3
2,683.1
2,276.0
2,700.1
-658.3
-22%
-234.2
-8%
IV: Domestic Food Programs
60,056.8
82,782.6
94,390.7
95,112.7 g 95,476.1 g +12,330.1 +15% +12,693.5 +15%
Mandatory 53,683.2
75,128.0
86,360.2
88,220.3 g 88,220.3 g +13,092.3 +17% +13,092.3 +17%
Discretionary 6,373.6
7,654.6
8,030.5
6,892.4
7,255.8
-762.2
-10%
-398.8
-5%
V: Foreign Assistance
1,476.5
2,089.5
2,168.0
1,278.1
2,103.5
-811.4
-39%
+14.0
+1%
VI: FDA
1,716.8
2,357.1
2,516.3
2,116.1
2,515.0
-241.0
-10%
+157.9
+7%
CFTC in Agriculture appropriations i
111.3
168.8
—
112.0
—
-56.8
-34%
—
—
CFTC in Financial Services appropriations i
—
—
261.0
—
286.0
—
—
+117.2
+69%
VII: General Provisions
-1,489.5
-193.7
-889.1
-1,880.4
-843.5
-1,686.7
—
-649.8
—
Total in agriculture bill (no adjustment for jurisdiction over CFTC)
Mandatory
72,670.2
97,983.4
109,120.1
110,979.4 g 110,979.4
g +12,996.0 +13% +12,996.0 +13%
Discretionary 18,093.0
23,356.2
22,902.9
18,092.7
21,687.4
-5,263.5
-23%
-1,668.8
-7%
Total
90,763.2
121,339.6
132,023.1
129,072.1 g 132,666.8
g +7,732.5 +6% +11,327.2 +9%
CRS-15

---

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011



Admin.
House
Senate
House
Senate
Request
S. Amdt.
Agency or Major Program
P.L. 110-161 P.L. 111-80
(Feb. 2010)
H.R. 1
149
$ % $ %
Totals without CFTC in any column i









Discretionary 17,981.7
23,187.4
22,902.9
17,980.7
21,687.4
-5,206.7
-22%
-1,500.0
-6%
Total 90,652.0
121,170.8
132,023.1
128,960.1 g 132,666.8 g +7,789.3 +6% +11,496.0 +9%
Totals with CFTC in all columns i









Discretionary 18,093.0
23,356.2
23,163.9
18,092.7
21,973.4
-5,263.5
-23%
-1,382.8
-6%
Total 90,763.2
121,339.6
132,284.1
129,072.1 g 132,952.8 g +7,732.5 +6% +11,613.2 +10%
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates), and P.L. 111-80, P.L. 110-161, S. Rept. 111-221 (for Admin. request), and unpublished
appropriations tables.
Notes: na = not available. Does not include supplemental appropriations of $2.4 billion in FY2008 ($1.345 billion for foreign assistance, $695 million for conservation, $188
million for rural development, and $5 million each for APHIS, ARS, and OIG), and $549 million in FY2010 ($400million for domestic nutrition, $150 million for foreign
assistance, $31 million for farm loans, $18 million for forestry assistance, and offset by a $50 million reduction in BCAP).
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 four Under Secretary offices: Research, Education and Economics; Marketing and Regulatory Programs; Food Safety; and Farm and Foreign Agriculture.
c. Includes Dairy Indemnity Program, State Mediation Grants, and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program.
d. 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.
e. 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.
f.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation each receive “such sums as necessary.” Estimates are used in the appropriations bill reports.
g. H.R. 1 and S. Amdt. 149 do not specify amounts for mandatory programs, other than stating funds available as necessary; estimates are unofficial estimates.
h. Includes $2.021 million for a proposed Office of Ecosystem Services Management.
i.
CFTC is shown in different ways because of jurisdiction differences to make totals comparable.
CRS-16

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Reductions in Short-term Continuing Resolutions
Pending final action on a full-year appropriation for FY2011, several short-term continuing
resolutions (CRs) have been enacted. Two such CRs in 2011 (P.L. 112-4 and P.L. 112-6) began
trimming discretionary appropriations levels. Accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill have
already been reduced from FY2010 appropriated levels by $532 million (Table 4).
Table 4. Reductions to Agriculture Appropriations in Short-Term CRs

Level allowed
Change from FY2010 to FY2011
CRs: P.L.
FY2010
FY2011
112-4 and
S. Amdt.
CR and program account
enacted
CR
P.L. 112-6
H.R. 1
149
P.L. 112-4 (2-week CR through March 18)





Rural broadband loans
29.0
0.0
-29.0
-29.0 -6.6
P.L. 112-6 (3-week CR through April 8)





Agricultural Research Service: Salaries and Exp. *
1,179.6
1,135.5
-44.1
-114.2 -21.4
Agricultural Research Service: Buildings & Facilities *
70.9
0.0
-70.9
-70.9 -70.9
National Inst. of Food and Agr.: Research and Educ. *
788.2
665.3
-122.9
-140.3 -58.2
National Inst. of Food and Agr.: Extension *
494.9
483.1
-11.8
-41.7 -7.1
Animal & Plant Health Insp. Svc.: Salaries and Exp. *
905.0
880.5
-24.4
-75.0 -20.1
Conservation Operations *
887.6
850.2
-37.4
-51.6 -37.4
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations *
30.0
0.0
-30.0
-30.0 -30.0
Rural Housing Svc.: Single Family Direct Loans
40.7
70.2
+29.5
29.5 29.5
Rural Housing Svc.: Single Family Guaranteed Loans
172.8
0.0
-172.8
-172.8 -172.8
Rural Cooperative Development Grants *
34.9
31.8
-3.1
-4.6 -0.3
10 individual earmarks in FY10 General Provisions *
14.9
0.0
-14.9
-14.9 -14.9
Subset of 12 reductions to agriculture in CRs


-531.8
-715.5
-410.2
Source: CRS, using H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates), P.L. 112-4, P.L. 112-6, and P.L. 111-80.
Note: An asterisk (*) notes reductions in the CR corresponding to the amount of earmarks in the FY2010
appropriation. Reductions in H.R. 1 and S. Amdt. 149 may be different.
Most of the reductions have been targeted to accounts that had earmarks in FY2010 and are noted
in the table with an asterisk (*). Regardless of these reductions, however, FY2010 earmarks are
not continued and “have no legal effect” as discussed in the section on earmarks. Moreover,
reductions in the CR may be only part of the reduction envisioned in H.R. 1 and already more
than the reduction that S. Amdt. 149 proposed.
Other accounts are reduced because of policy issues. For example, funding for rural broadband is
eliminated, as was envisioned in H.R. 1, and partially reduced in S. Amdt. 149. Budget authority
for rural housing guaranteed loans also is eliminated, though not to reduce the program, but
because the program is now self-funding after higher fees are being charged to banks (sec. 102 in
P.L. 111-212) and appropriations are not necessary in FY2011. In fact, the CR increases budget
authority by for the rural housing direct loan program, using the reduction from the guaranteed
loan program as an offset.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Historical Trends
Agriculture appropriations have increased in absolute terms for more than the past decade, at least
through FY2010. 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. Graphs in this section show
enacted appropriations data from FY1995 through FY2010, and a range of possible outcomes for
FY2011 using H.R. 1 and S. Amdt. 149.
Figure 3 shows total discretionary appropriations levels in the Agriculture appropriations bill
since FY1995. The total amount is divided between the amount spent on discretionary domestic
nutrition assistance programs, and other general agriculture programs. For FY2011, the graph
shows how much the reductions in H.R. 1 (to $18.1 billion) or S.Amdt. 149 (to $22.0 billion,
including CFTC) compare to spending in previous years. The range is more noticeable for the
general agricultural programs than for domestic nutrition programs.
Figure 3. Discretionary Agricultural Appropriations, FY1995-FY2010
and FY2011 Proposed
$ billion
25
Total discretionary
Other general agriculture
SA149
20
Domestic nutrition
HR 1
15
SA149
HR 1
10
SA149
HR 1
5
0
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
199
199
199
200
200
200
200
200
201

Source: CRS. FY2011 pending; H.R. 1 and S. Amdt. 149 are shown.
Notes: Includes regular annual appropriations only for USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC
(regardless of where funded). Fiscal year budget authority. Domestic nutrition programs include WIC,
commodity assistance programs, and nutrition programs administration.
Over the past 10 years (FY2000 through FY2010), both total mandatory and total discretionary
appropriations in the Agriculture appropriations bill have increased at a 5% average annualized
rate (Table 5). Figure 4 shows the total budget authority of the Agriculture appropriations bill
divided between mandatory and discretionary spending.
As discussed earlier, domestic nutrition programs are the largest component of spending in the
Agriculture appropriations bill (68% of the total in FY2010). Figure 5 shows the same
Agriculture bill total as in Figure 4, 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 FY2000, total nutrition program spending has
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

increased at an average 9% annual rate, compared to a -1% average annual change in outlays for
“other general agriculture” 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 5-, 10-, and 15-year periods ending in FY2011 (Table 5).
Table 5. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations: Recent Trends
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars)




FY2011
Annualized change from past to FY2010
S.Amdt.
FY2009
FY2005
FY2000
FY1995

FY2005
FY2009
FY2010
H.R. 1
149
(1 yr.)
(5 yrs.)
(10 yrs.)
(15 yrs.)
Total









Domestic nutrition a 52.5 76.2 82.8 95.1 95.5 +9% +10% +9% +5%
Other general agr. b 32.6 32.2 38.6 34.0 37.5 +20% +3% -1% +2%
Total
85.1 108.4 121.3 129.1 133.0 +12% +7% +5% +4%
Mandatory









Domestic nutrition a 46.9 68.9 75.1 88.2 88.2 +9% +10% +9% +5%
Other general agr. b 21.4 18.9 22.9 22.8 22.8 +21% +1% -3% +1%
Total
68.3 87.8 98.0 111.0 111.0 +12% +7% +5% +4%
Discretionary









Domestic nutrition a 5.6 7.2 7.7 6.9 7.3 +6% +7% +6% +5%
Other general agr. b 11.3 13.4 15.7
11.2 14.7 +17% +7% +5% +4%
Total 16.8
20.6
23.4
18.1 22.0 +13% +7% +5% +4%
Percentages of Total
Mandatory
80% 81% 81% 86% 83%




Discretionary
20% 19% 19% 14% 17%




Domestic nutrition a 62% 70% 68% 74% 72%




Other general agr. b 38% 30% 32% 26% 28%




Source: CRS, compiled from annual appropriations tables, and H.R. 1 and S. Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates).
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 general agriculture” 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
19

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations:
Figure 5. Agriculture Appropriations:
Mandatory vs. Discretionary
Domestic Nutrition vs. Other General
Agriculture
$ billion
135
Mandatory
$ billion
120
Discretionary
135
Domestic nutrition
105
120
Other general agriculture
90
105
75
98111111
90
88
60
83 80
83 95 95
75
70 68
73
59 57
76
45
55
62 60 57 57
47
50
60
35 34
52
60
40
38 42
30
36 41
40
45
40
15
40
35
30
37
13 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 18 17 17 17 18 18 21 23 18 22
0
41 41
15
28
35 33 39 33 41 41 31 32 39 34 37
1
9
23
4
13 12 20
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
HR
1
9
SA 1

4
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
HR
Source: CRS. FY2011 pending; H.R. 1 and S. Amdt.
SA 1

149 are shown.
Source: CRS. FY2011 pending; H.R. 1 and S. Amdt.
Notes: Includes regular annual appropriations only
149 are shown.
for USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and
Notes: The largest domestic nutrition programs
CFTC (regardless of where funded). Fiscal year
are the child nutrition programs, SNAP (food
budget authority.
stamps), and WIC. “Other” includes the rest of
USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Figure 6. Domestic Nutrition Programs
Figure 7. Other General Agriculture
in Agriculture Appropriations:
Programs in Agriculture Appropriations:
Mandatory vs. Discretionary
Mandatory vs. Discretionary
$ billion
$ billion
135
Mandatory
135
Mandatory
120
Discretionary
120
Discretionary
105
105
90
90
75
75
60
60
88 88
45
75
69
45
54
30
30
36 36 36 33
31 30
31 31 30 33 37 42 47 53 52
24 20 27 21 30 28
23
19 19
23 23
15
18
15
14 4 3 10
15
4 4 4 4
4 4 4
5 5 5 6
6 6 6 7
8 7 7
9
0
9 9 9
9 10 11 11 13 12 11 11 12 12 13 16 11
0
1
9
9
4
1
4
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
HR
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
HR
SA 1

SA 1

Source: CRS. FY2011 pending; H.R. 1 and S. Amdt.
Source: CRS. FY2011 pending; H.R. 1 and S. Amdt.
149 are shown.
149 are shown.
Notes: Mandatory nutrition programs include
Notes: Includes al of USDA except nutrition and
SNAP (food stamps) and the child nutrition
Forest Service, and FDA and CFTC. Mandatory
programs. WIC is the largest discretionary nutrition
includes the farm commodity programs, crop
program.
insurance, conservation, and trade programs.
Most nutrition program spending is mandatory spending, primarily in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) and child nutrition (school lunch). Figure 6
takes the orange-colored bars from Figure 5 (total domestic nutrition programs) and divides them
into mandatory and discretionary. Over the past 10 years, mandatory nutrition spending rose at an
average rate of 9% per year, while discretionary nutrition increased at an average of 6% per year.
Spending on “other general agriculture” programs 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 7 divides the yellow-colored bars in Figure 5 into mandatory
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

and discretionary. This subtotal of mandatory spending has shown a -3% average annual change
over 10 years, and +1% per year over 15 years, primarily because of market prices and policies in
the farm commodity programs. Discretionary spending on this component—arguably where
appropriators have the most control—has grown at a 7% annual rate since 2005, but at slower 5%
and 4% annual rates over the 10- and 15-year periods, respectively (Figure 7).
The Agriculture appropriations totals can also be viewed in inflation-adjusted terms and in
comparison to other economic variables (Figure 8 through Figure 11).
Figure 8. Agriculture Appropriations in
Figure 9. 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 general agr.
Other general agr.
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 pending; H.R. 1 and S. Amdt.
Source: CRS. FY2011 pending; H.R. 1 and S. Amdt.
149 are shown.
149 are 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.
Figure 10. Agriculture Appropriations as
Figure 11. Agriculture Appropriations
a Percentage of GDP
per Capita of U.S. Population
% of GDP
Total ag bill
2010 $/capita
Total ag bill
1.00%
Nutrition
Nutrition
Other general agr.
400
Other general agr.
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 pending; H.R. 1 and S. Amdt.
Source: CRS. FY2011 pending; H.R. 1 and S. Amdt.
149 are shown.
149 are shown.
Notes: Gross domestic product (GDP) is from the
Notes: Population figures from U.S. Census Bureau,
President’s Budget, Historical Tables, Table 10.1.
National Estimates and Projections (published in
Statistical Abstract of the United States).
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
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

annual bill has increased at an average annual 2% real rate over the past 10 years (Figure 8).
Within that total, nutrition programs have increased at a higher average annual real rate of 6%,
while other general agriculture programs had a -3% average annual real change over 10 years.
Comparing Agriculture appropriations to the entire federal budget authority, the Agriculture bill’s
share has declined from 4.4% of the federal budget in FY1995 to 2.7% in FY2009, before rising
again to 3.4% in FY2010 (Figure 9). 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 FY2010 returns the
share (2.3%) 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 1.1% in FY2011.16
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 nearly 0.85% of
GDP in FY2010 (Figure 10). Nutrition programs have been rising as a percentage of GDP since
FY2000 (0.36% in FY2000 to 0.57% in FY2010), while non-nutrition agricultural programs have
been declining (0.42% in FY2000 to 0.26% in FY2010).
Finally, on a per capita basis, inflation-adjusted total Agriculture appropriations have risen
slightly over the past 10 to 15 years (Figure 11). 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.
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

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
22

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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.
Table 6. Reductions in Mandatory Programs in FY2010 and FY2011
(dollars in millions)


FY2010
FY2011
Farm bill
authoriza-
tion avail.
P.L. 111-
Admin.
S. Amdt.
Mandatory programs (in 2008 farm bill)
in FY2011
80
Request H.R.
1
149
Conservation
programs

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (sec. 2501)
1,588
-270
-380
-350
-298
Dam Rehabilitation Program (sec. 2803)
165
-165
-165 -165 -165
Wetlands Reserve Program (sec. 2201)
623
—
-142
-119
-30
Farmland Protection Program (sec. 2401)
175
—
-15
—
—
Grasslands Reserve (sec. 2403)
80
—
-14
—
—
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (sec. 2602)
85
—
-12
—
—
Agricultural Management Assistance program (sec. 2801)
15
—
-5
—
—
Conservation Stewardship Program (sec. 2301)
872
—
-2
-39
—
Subtotal of 8 conservation programs
3,603
-435
-735
-673
-493
Other

Fruit and Vegetables in Schools Program (sec. 4304)
150
-76 a —
-117
a -117
a
Biomass Crop Assistance Program (sec. 9011)
246b — —
-134 —
Total authorization in these 10 mandatory programs
3,999




Total reduction in mandatory programs

-511
-735
-924
-610
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates), P.L. 110-246, CBO data, P.L. 111-
80, S. Rept. 111-221 (for Admin. request), and unpublished appropriations tables.
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.
b. H.R. 1 would limit BCAP to $112 million in FY2011, implying $246 million was available before the
$134 million of reduction was scored.

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
23

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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, H.R. 1 contains $924 million in reductions from six mandatory programs, and S.
Amdt. 149 contains $610 million in reductions from four mandatory programs. The
Administration requested $735 million in reductions, more than the $511 million in FY2010 but
less than either chamber’s proposal (Table 6).
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 from a larger suite of programs.
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
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

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.
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

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. The number of earmarks has
declined steadily since FY2008 for agriculture, and the value of earmarks has generally declined
also. The median FY2010 project size was $422,500.
For FY2011, the short-term continuing resolutions have cancelled the effect of the FY2010
earmarks; that is, in the language of the continuing resolutions, FY2010 earmarks “have no legal
effect.”22 This statement is true regardless of the FY2011 funding available to an agency or
program that administered the earmarks. All of the agricultural programs with earmarks in
FY2010 were reduced in the last short-term CR (P.L. 112-6) by the amount of FY2010 earmarks
(that is, many of the reductions listed in Table 4 correspond to the amount of FY2010 earmarks).
Although the FY2010 disclosure lists were printed in the explanatory statements and thus alone
would not have the force of law, the FY2010 appropriations acts incorporated the earmarks into
the law by specific reference.23 The “no legal effect” language in the CRs makes all of the
earmarks nonbinding (nonstatutory) in FY2011; agencies are not legally required to continue to
fund earmarks, regardless whether funding was reduced. Nonetheless, agencies retain discretion
to allocate funding under regular program rules, and could decide to fund projects that received
earmarks in FY2010—not necessarily because of earmark instructions, but for other criteria.
Selected USDA Programs
The following tables compare the effect of H.R. 1 and S. Amdt. 149 within three USDA mission
areas for which additional information was available beyond the agency level shown in Table 3.
These include the agricultural research mission area, farm loan programs, and rural development.

(...continued)
available in CRS Report R40976, Earmarks Disclosed by Congress: FY2008-FY2010 Regular Appropriations Bills, by
Carol Hardy Vincent and Jim Monke.
22 Sec. 168 [of P.L. 111-242, as amended by P.L. 112-4]. “Any language specifying an earmark in an appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2010, or in a committee report or joint explanatory statement accompanying such an Act, shall have
no legal effect with respect to funds appropriated by this Act. For purposes of this section, the term ‘earmark’ means a
congressional earmark or congressionally directed spending item, as defined in clause 9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and paragraph 5(a) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.”
23 For example, an appropriations bill would state an amount for an agency, followed by, “of which $X 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.” This incorporation by reference began in FY2009 and was a congressional response
to a George W. Bush Administration policy (Executive Order 13457) that agencies should not honor earmarks that
were not in the text of the bill (see CRS Report RL34648, Bush Administration Policy Regarding Congressionally
Originated Earmarks: An Overview).
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 7. Research, Education and Economics Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011





House
Senate
Admin.
S. Amdt.
P.L.
111-80
Request
H.R. 1
149
$ % $ %
Agricultural
Research
Service
1,250.5 1,199.7 1,065.4 1,158.2 -185.1 -15% -92.3 -7%
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
Research and Education
788.2
838.7
648.0
730.0
-140.3
-18%
-58.2
-7%
Extension 494.9
479.2
453.3
487.8
-41.7
-8%
-7.1
-1%
Integrated Activities
60.0
24.9
24.9
50.2
-35.1
-58%
-9.8 -16%
Subtotal,
NIFA
1,343.2 1,342.8 1,126.1 1,268.0 -217.1 -16% -75.2 -6%
Economic Research Service
82.5
87.2
79.5
82.5
-3.0
-4%
0.0
0%
National Agric. Statistics Service
161.8
164.7
151.6
156.8
-10.3
-6%
-5.1
-3%
Total: Research, Education, and
Economics mission areas
2,838.0
2,794.4
2,422.6
2,665.5
-415.5
-15%
-172.6
-6%
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates), P.L. 111-80, S. Rept. 111-221 (for
Admin. request), and unpublished appropriations tables.

Congressional Research Service
26

---

Table 8. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority, FY2010-FY2011
(dollars in millions)
Change from Regular

FY2010
FY2011
FY2010 to FY2011
Supplemental
Regular Appropriation
Appropriation (P.L.
S. Amdt.

P.L. 111-80
111-212)
House H.R. 1
Senate S. Amdt. 149
H.R. 1
149
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Loan
Loan
FSA Farm Loan Program
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Farm ownership loans










Direct 27
650
—
—
33
475
33
475
-175
-175
Guaranteed 6
1,500
1
300
6
1,500
6
1,500
0
0
Farm operating loans










Direct 47
1,000
17
350
55
900
58
950
-100
-50
Guaranteed (unsubsidized)
35
1,500
6
250
35
1,500
35
1,500
0
0
Guaranteed (interest assistance)
24
170
7
50
20
144
20
144
-26
-26
Conservation loans










Direct 1.1
75
—
—
0
0
0
0
-75
-75
Guaranteed 0.3
75
—
—
0
0
0
0
-75
-75
Indian tribe land acquisition
0
4
—
—
0
0
0
4
-4
0
Indian highly fractured land loans
0.8
10
—
—
0
0
0.2
10
-10
0
Boll weevil eradication loans
0
100
—
—
0
100
0
100
0
0
Subtotal, FSA Farm Loan Program
141
5,084
31
950
148
4,619
151
4,683
-465
-401
Salaries and expenses
313
—
—
—
306
—
313
—
—
—
Administrative expenses
8
—
1
—
13
—
8
—
—
—
Total, FSA Farm Loan Program
462
5,084
32
950
466
4,619
472
4,683
-465
-401
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates), P.L. 111-80, P.L. 111-212, and unpublished appropriations tables.
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-27

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 9. Rural Housing Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011





House
Senate
P.L.
Admin.
S. Amdt.
Program
111-80
Request
H.R. 1
149
$ % $ %
Rural Housing Insurance Fund (RHIF) programs
Administrative expenses (transfer)
468.6
454.4
454.4
458.3
-14.2
-3%
-10.3
-2%
Single family direct loans (sec. 502)
40.7
75.1
70.2
70.2
+29.5
+72%
+29.5
+72%
Loan authority
1,121.5
1,200.0
1,121.5
1,121.5
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Single family guaranteed loans
172.8
0.0 a 0.0
a 0.0
a -172.8 -100% -172.8 -100%
Loan authority
12,000.0
12,000.0 12,000.0
24,000.0
0.0
0%
+12,000.0
+100%
Other RHIF programs b 25.4
52.2
43.5
30.4
+18.1
+71%
+5.0
+20%
Loan authority
254.5
279.8
254.1
129.7
-0.4
0%
-124.8
-49%
Subtotal,
RHIF
707.5 581.7
568.1 558.9
-139.4 -20% -148.6
-21%
Loan authority
13,376.0 13,479.8 13,375.6
25,251.2
-0.4
0%
+11,875.2
+89%
Other housing programs
Rental assistance (sec. 521)
968.6
959.6
950.6
953.7
-18.0
-2%
-14.9
-2%
Other rental assistance c 11.4
6.0
5.0
11.0
-6.4
-56%
-0.4
-4%
Multifamily housing revitalization
43.2
18.0
16.4
40.8
-26.8
-62%
-2.4
-6%
Mutual & self-help housing grants
41.9
37.0
37.0
37.0
-4.9
-12%
-4.9
-12%
Rural housing assistance grants
45.5
40.4
40.4
40.4
-5.1
-11%
-5.1
-11%
Farm labor housing: Grants
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Farm labor housing: Loan subsidy
9.9
10.5
9.9
9.9
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Loan
authority
27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 0.0 0%
0.0 0%
Rural Community Facilities Program
Community Facilities: Grants
20.4
29.6
20.4
20.4
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Community Facilities: Direct loans
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Loan authority
295.0
295.0
295.0
295.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Community Facilities: Guarantees
6.6
8.2
6.6
6.6
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Loan authority
206.4
206.4
206.4
206.4
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Rural community dev. initiative
6.3
0.0
0.0
6.3
-6.3
-100%
0.0
0%
Economic impact initiative grants
13.9
0.0
0.0
7.0
-13.9
-100%
-6.9
-50%
Tribal col ege grants
4.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
-4.0
-100%
0.0
0%
Subtotal, Rural Comm. Facil.
55.0
41.7
32.5
48.1
-22.5
-41%
-6.9
-13%
Loan authority
501.4
501.4
501.4
501.4
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations


FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011





House
Senate
P.L.
Admin.
S. Amdt.
Program
111-80
Request H.R.
1
149 $ % $ %
Total, Rural Housing Service (Table 3)
Budget authority
1,892.8
1,704.8
1,669.7
1,709.6
-223.1
-12%
-183.2
-10%
Less transfer of salaries & exp.
-468.6
-454.4
-454.4
-458.3
+14.2
-3%
+10.3
-2%
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,424.2
1,250.4
1,215.3
1,251.3
-208.9
-15%
-172.9
-12%
Loan authority
13,904.7 14,008.6 13,904.3
25,779.9
-0.4
0%
+11,875.2
+85%
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates), P.L. 111-80, S. Rept. 111-221 (for
Admin. request), and unpublished appropriations tables.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority totals.
a. The defunding of appropriations for this loan guarantee program does not reflect a reduction in loan
authority. It became self-funding in 2010 after enactment of higher loan guarantee fees being charged to
banks (sec. 102 of P.L. 111-212)
b. 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,
c. Sec. 502(c)(5)(D) eligible households, Sec. 515 new construction, and farm labor housing new construction.

Congressional Research Service
29

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 10. Rural Business-Cooperative Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2010
FY2011
Change from FY2010 to FY2011





House
Senate
P.L.
Admin.
S. Amdt.
Program
111-80
Request
H.R. 1
149
$ % $ %
Rural Business Program Account
97.1
81.5
84.5
89.2
-12.6
-13%
-7.9
-8%
Guaranteed Business & Ind. Loans
52.9
40.3
na
na
na
na
na
na
Loan
authority
993.0
942.0 na na na na na na
Rural business enterprise grants
38.7
38.7
na
na
na
na
na
na
Rural business opportunity grants
2.5
2.5
na
na
na
na
na
na
Delta regional authority grants
3.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Rural Development Loan Fund Program
Administrative expenses (transfer)
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.9
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Loan
subsidy
8.5 14.0 8.5 8.5 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Loan
authority
33.5
36.4 21.9
21.9 -11.6 -35% -11.6 -35%
Rural Econ. Dev.: Loan authority
33.1
33.1 21.9
21.9 -11.1 -34% -11.1 -34%
Rural cooperative development grants
34.9
40.1
30.3
34.6
-4.6
-13%
-0.3
-1%
Rural Microenterprise Inv.: Grants
2.5
0.9
1.7
0.0
-0.8
-32%
-2.5
-100%
Loan subsidy
2.5
6.9
1.7
0.0
-0.8
-32%
-2.5
-100%
Loan
authority
11.8 23.5 na na na na na na
Rural Energy for America: Grants
19.7
34.0
19.7
19.7
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Loan
subsidy
19.7
5.3
5.3
5.3 -14.3 -73% -14.3 -73%
Loan
authority
144.2 11.5 na na na na na na
Biorefinery Assistance: Loan subsidy
0.0
17.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Loan authority
0.0
49.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Table 3)
Budget
authority
189.7 205.0 156.5 162.1 -33.2 -17% -27.6 -15%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-4.9
-5.0
-4.9
-4.9
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Rescission: cushion of credit
-44.5
-103.0
-207.0
-44.5
-162.5
+365%
0.0
0%
Total, Rural Bus.-Coop Svc.
140.3
97.0
-55.4
112.7
-195.7
-139%
-27.6
-20%
Loan authority
1,215.7
1,096.3
na na na na na na
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates), P.L. 111-80, S. Rept. 111-221 (for
Admin. request), and unpublished appropriations tables.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority totals.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Table 11. Rural Utilities Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

FY2010
FY2011

Change from FY2010 to FY2011





House
Senate
Admin.
S. Amdt.
Program P.L.
111-80
Request
H.R. 1
149
$ % $ %
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program
Loan subsidy and grants
568.7
534.4
405.6
556.2
-163.2
-29%
-12.5
-2%
Direct loan authority
1,022.2
1,036.3
na
na
na
na
na
na
Guaranteed loan authority
75.0
75.0
na
na
na
na
na
na
Rural Electric and Telecommunication Loans
Administrative expenses (transfer)
40.0
38.4
38.4
38.4
-1.6
-4%
-1.6
-4%
Telecommunication loan authority
690.0
690.0
na
na
na
na
na
na
Electricity loan authority
7,100.0
4,100.0
na
na
na
na
na
na
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, Broadband
Distance learning and telemedicine
37.8
30.0
16.6
35.0
-21.2
-56%
-2.8
-7%
Broadband: Grants
18.0
18.0
13.4
18.0
-4.6
-26%
0.0
0%
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
29.0
22.3
0.0
22.3
-29.0
-100%
-6.6
-23%
Direct loan authority
400.0
400.0
0.0
na
-400.0
-100%
na
na
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service (Table 3)
Budget authority
693.4
643.1
473.9
669.9
-219.4
-32%
-23.5
-3%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-40.0
-38.4
-38.4
-38.4
+1.6
-4%
+1.6
-4%
Total, Rural Utilities Service
653.4
604.7 435.6 631.5
-217.9
-33% -21.9 -3%
Loan authority
9,287.2
6,301.3
na
na
na
na
na
na
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 (unofficial estimates), P.L. 111-80, S. Rept. 111-221 (for
Admin. request), and unpublished appropriations tables.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority totals.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

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
32

---

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Jim Monke, Coordinator
Joe Richardson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Social Policy
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
jirichardson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7325
Megan Stubbs
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Resources Policy
Development
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Renée Johnson
Dennis A. Shields
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
dshields@crs.loc.gov, 7-9051
Melissa D. Ho
Remy Jurenas
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
mho@crs.loc.gov, 7-5342
rjurenas@crs.loc.gov, 7-7281

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
33

---