Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2012 Appropriations
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
October 7, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41964
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 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
alternating years, 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.
An FY2012 Agriculture appropriations bill has been passed by the House and a separate version
has been reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. But final agreement is still pending,
and FY2012 has begun under a short-term continuing resolution through November 18, 2011.
In the House, the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee marked up its FY2012 bill by voice
vote on May 24, 2011. The following week, the full appropriations committee reported the bill
(H.R. 2112, H.Rept. 112-101) by voice vote, after adopting several amendments. On June 16,
2011, the House passed H.R. 2112 by a vote of 217-203 after adopting 22 amendments and
removing 4 provisions by point of order.
In the Senate, the full Appropriations subcommittee marked up an FY2012 Agriculture
appropriations bill (H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73) by a vote of 28-2 on September 7, 2011.
The House-passed bill would cut discretionary Agriculture appropriations to $17.25 billion, a
reduction of $2.7 billion (-14%) from FY2011 levels, and following a 15% cut in FY2011. Much
of the floor debate related to funding reductions for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
feeding program (-11%), food safety (-10%), and international food aid (-31%); preventing
USDA payments to Brazil in relation to the U.S. loss in the WTO cotton case; and programs
promoting locally produced food (USDA’s “know-your-farmer-know-your-food” initiative).
Other more notable non-money amendments that were adopted would prevent funding of blender
pumps for higher mixtures of ethanol, prevent funding related to the RU-486 abortion pill
(proposed relative to the USDA telemedicine program, but also affecting the FDA), prevent food
aid to North Korea, and prevent implementation of USDA policy on climate change adaptation.
The Senate-reported bill would cut discretionary Agriculture appropriations to $19.8 billion, a cut
of -0.8% below FY2011 levels. The Senate-reported bill is $2.7 billion more than the House bill
in its discretionary total (excluding CFTC from the House bill for comparison). The Senate bill’s
discretionary total is greater than the House bill primarily in the following areas: domestic
nutrition programs (+$645 million, mostly for WIC), foreign assistance (+$544 million), FDA
(+$350 million), agricultural research (+$320 million), rural development (+$180 million), and
fewer rescissions and farm bill limitations (+$430 million).
The House-passed bill for FY2012 contains nearly $2 billion in rescissions and limitations on
mandatory farm bill programs. The Senate-reported bill contains about $1.5 billion of such
rescissions and limitations. These actions are used to score savings that help meet the
discretionary budget allocations and help avoid deeper cuts to regular discretionary accounts. The
FY2012 bill has about the same $2 billion level of rescissions and limitations as the FY2011
appropriation. Had the FY2012 House-passed proposal not maintained this level of reductions—
which is significantly greater than in past years—even larger cuts might have been required to the
regular discretionary accounts. The FY2012 bills propose a unusually high reduction to
mandatory farm bill programs ($1.4 billion in the House bill, $1.1 billion in the Senate bill),
including about $1 billion from conservation programs.
Congressional Research Service

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 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 ..................................................................................... 3
Outlays, Budget Authority, and Program Levels ....................................................................... 4
Action on FY2012 Appropriations .................................................................................................. 5
House Action ............................................................................................................................. 5
Senate Action............................................................................................................................. 6
Continuing Resolutions ............................................................................................................. 8
Budget Resolution and Subcommittee Allocation..................................................................... 8
Historical Trends ..................................................................................................................... 14
Savings Achieved by Limits and Rescissions.......................................................................... 21
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) ..................................................... 21
Rescissions ........................................................................................................................ 23
Selected USDA Agencies and Programs ....................................................................................... 25
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................... 25
Agricultural Research Service........................................................................................... 26
National Institute of Food and Agriculture........................................................................ 27
Economic Research Service .............................................................................................. 27
National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................ 29
Marketing and Regulatory Programs....................................................................................... 29
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service..................................................................... 29
Agricultural Marketing Service and Section 32 ................................................................ 31
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration .............................................. 33
Food Safety.............................................................................................................................. 34
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .............................................................................. 37
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ...................................................................... 39
Farm Service Agency .............................................................................................................. 40
FSA Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................... 40
FSA Farm Loan Programs................................................................................................. 41
Commodity Credit Corporation............................................................................................... 43
Crop Insurance......................................................................................................................... 45
Disaster Assistance .................................................................................................................. 46
Conservation............................................................................................................................ 46
Discretionary Conservation Programs............................................................................... 47
Mandatory Conservation Programs................................................................................... 48
Rural Development.................................................................................................................. 52
Rural Housing Service (RHS) ........................................................................................... 54
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)...................................................................... 56
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)............................................................................................ 58
Domestic Food Assistance....................................................................................................... 59
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act (Formerly the Food
Stamp Act)...................................................................................................................... 60
Child Nutrition Programs .................................................................................................. 61
The WIC Program ............................................................................................................. 62
Congressional Research Service

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Commodity Assistance Program ....................................................................................... 64
Nutrition Programs Administration (and the Congressional Hunger Center) ................... 64
Child Nutrition Grant Programs Authorized and Unfunded in the FY2012
Appropriations Bills....................................................................................................... 65
Other Funding Support...................................................................................................... 65
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid............................................................................................. 66
Foreign Agricultural Service ............................................................................................. 67
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) ................................................................................... 67
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition ................................................ 68
Commodity Credit Corporation—Export Credit Guarantee Programs ............................. 68
USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative.................................................... 69
Related Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 71
Food and Drug Administration................................................................................................ 71
Commodity Futures Trading Commission .............................................................................. 72

Figures
Figure 1. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2011 ............................................ 2
Figure 2. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, FY1995-FY2011 and FY2012
Proposed ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3. Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory vs. Discretionary............................................. 15
Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition vs. Rest of Bill................................... 15
Figure 5. Domestic Nutrition Programs in Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory vs.
Discretionary .............................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 6. Non-Nutrition Programs (Rest of Bill) in Agriculture Appropriations:
Mandatory vs. Discretionary ...................................................................................................... 15
Figure 7. Agriculture Appropriations in Inflation-Adjusted 2011 Dollars..................................... 17
Figure 8. Agriculture Appropriations as a Percentage of Total Federal Budget ............................ 17
Figure 9. Agriculture Appropriations as a Percentage of GDP...................................................... 18
Figure 10. Agriculture Appropriations per Capita of U.S. Population........................................... 18
Figure 11. USDA Research Budget, FY1972-FY2011.................................................................. 26
Figure 12. Mandatory Conservation Program Reductions, FY2003-FY2011 and FY2012
Proposed ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2011.................. 73

Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations.......................................... 5
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title: FY2008-FY2011 and
FY2012 Proposed ......................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program:
FY2008-FY2011 and FY2012 Proposed ...................................................................................... 9
Congressional Research Service

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 4. Agriculture Appropriations: Percentage Changes over Time........................................... 16
Table 5. Agriculture Appropriations: Trends and Benchmarks: FY1997-FY2011 and
FY2012 Proposed ....................................................................................................................... 19
Table 6. Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS), FY2008-FY2011 and
FY2012 Proposed ....................................................................................................................... 22
Table 7. Rescissions From Prior Year Budget Authority ............................................................... 24
Table 8. USDA REE Mission Area Appropriations, FY2008-FY2011 and FY2012
Proposed ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 9. Appropriations for Food Safety....................................................................................... 36
Table 10. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority, FY2010-FY2011, and FY2012
Proposed ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Table 11. Mandatory Conservation Program Reductions, FY2011 and FY2012 Proposed........... 49
Table 12. Rural Development Appropriations, by Agency, FY2010-FY2011 and FY2012
Proposed ..................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 13. Rural Housing Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 and FY2012 Proposed ........ 54
Table 14. Rural Business-Cooperative Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 and
FY2012 Proposed ....................................................................................................................... 57
Table 15. Rural Utilities Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 and FY2012 Proposed......... 59
Table A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2012 ................... 73

Appendixes
Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 73

Contacts
Key Policy Staff............................................................................................................................. 74
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 74

Congressional Research Service

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
On October 5, 2011, a short-term continuing resolution was enacted to fund the government
through November 18, 2011 (P.L. 112-36). On September 7, 2011, the Senate Appropriations
committee reported an FY2012 Agricultural appropriations bill (H.R. 2112) using allocations
pursuant to the August 2, 2011, Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25), which set the government-wide
discretionary total at $1.043 trillion. The Senate-reported discretionary allocation for Agriculture
was $19.8 billion, about $160 million less than FY2011 (-0.8%) but nearly $2.7 billion more than
the $17.2 billion amount in the House (-14% from FY2011). Some believe that the higher totals
in the Senate bill under the Budget Control Act—relative to the earlier House-passed budget
resolution—imply that the final Agriculture appropriation might be closer to the Senate markup.
But final subcommittee allocations and chamber differences still need to be resolved.
Scope of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill
The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—provides funding for
the following agencies and departments:
• all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (except the Forest Service, which is
funded by the Interior appropriations bill),
• the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and
Human Services, and
• in the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In the
Senate, CFTC appropriations are handled by the Financial Services
Appropriations Subcommittee.
Jurisdiction for the appropriations bill rests with the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, particularly each committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. These subcommittees are separate from the
agriculture authorizing committees—the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
USDA Activities and Relationships to Appropriations Bills
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) carries out widely varied responsibilities through
about 30 separate internal agencies and offices staffed by about 100,000 employees.1 USDA
spending is not synonymous with farm program spending. USDA also is responsible for many
activities outside of the Agriculture budget function, such as conservation and nutrition.
USDA divides its activities into “mission areas.” Food and nutrition programs are the largest
mission area, with more than two-thirds of the budget, to support the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)

1 USDA, FY2012 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, February 2011, p. 123, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY12budsum.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

program, and child nutrition programs.2 The second-largest USDA mission area, with about one-
fifth of USDA’s budget, 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. Five other mission areas with a combined one-sixth of USDA’s budget
include natural resource and environmental programs, rural development, research and education
programs, marketing and regulatory programs, and food safety.
About 60% of the budget for the natural resources mission area is for the Forest Service, 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 over one-third of USDA’s
personnel, with about 35,000 staff years in FY2011.4
Comparing USDA’s organization and budget data to the Agriculture appropriations bill in
Congress is not always easy. USDA’s “mission areas” do not always correspond to the titles or
categories in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
• Foreign agricultural assistance is a separate title in the appropriations bill (Title
V, Figure 1), but is joined with domestic farm support in USDA’s “farm and
foreign agriculture” mission area.
• Title I in the agriculture appropriations bill (Agricultural Programs), covers four
USDA’s mission areas: agricultural research, marketing and regulatory programs,
food safety, and the farm support portion of farm and foreign agriculture.
Figure 1. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2011
($130.7 billion)
Title IV: Domestic nutrition
Title I: Agricultural programs
Title III: Rural Development
Title VI: FDA, CFTC
Title V: Foreign assistance
Title II: Conservation

Source: CRS, based on S.Rept. 112-73 (p. 109) and S.Rept. 112-79 (p. 147).
Notes: Includes mandatory and discretionary appropriations. Includes CFTC (House-based jurisdiction).

2 USDA, FY2012 Budget Summary, at p. 117.
3 For more on Forest Service appropriations, see CRS Report R41896, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
FY2012 Appropriations.
4 USDA, FY2012 Budget Summary, at p. 123.
Congressional Research Service
2

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The type of funding (mandatory vs. discretionary) also is an important difference between how
the appropriations bill and USDA’s mission areas are organized.
• Conservation in the appropriations bill (Title II) includes only discretionary
programs. The mandatory funding for conservation programs is included in Title
I of the appropriations bill as part of the Commodity Credit Corporation.
• Conversely, USDA’s natural resources mission area 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% (Title VI).
Jurisdiction over CFTC appropriations is assigned differently in the House and Senate. Before
FY2008, the agriculture subcommittees in both the House and Senate had jurisdiction over CFTC
funding. In FY2008, Senate jurisdiction moved to the Financial Services Appropriations
Subcommittee. Although jurisdiction may be different, CFTC must reside in one or the other in
an enacted appropriation. Placement in the enacted version now alternates each year. In even-
numbered fiscal years, CFTC has resided in the Agriculture appropriation act. In odd-numbered
fiscal years, CFTC has resided in the enacted Financial Services appropriations act.
These agencies are included in the Agriculture appropriations bill because of their historical
connection to agricultural markets. However, the number and scope of non-agricultural issues has
grown at these agencies in recent decades. Some may argue that these agencies no longer belong
in the Agriculture appropriations bill. But despite the growing importance of non-agricultural
issues, agriculture and food issues are still an important component of FDA’s and CFTC’s work.
At FDA, medical and drug issues have grown in relative importance, but food safety
responsibilities that are shared between USDA and FDA have been in the media during recent
years and are the subject of legislation and hearings. At CFTC, the market for financial futures
contracts has grown significantly compared with agricultural futures contracts, but volatility in
agricultural commodity markets has been a subject of recent scrutiny at CFTC and in Congress.
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.
Congressional Research Service
3

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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.
In FY2011, about 16% of the Agriculture appropriations bill was for discretionary programs, and
the remaining balance of 84% was classified as mandatory.
Major discretionary programs include certain conservation programs, most rural development
programs, research and education programs, agricultural credit programs, the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Food for Peace
international food aid program, meat and poultry inspection, and food marketing and regulatory
programs. The discretionary accounts also include FDA and CFTC appropriations.
The largest component 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 and related programs)—along with the farm commodity price and
income support programs, the federal crop insurance program, and various agricultural
conservation and trade programs. Some mandatory spending, such as the farm commodity
programs, is highly variable and driven by program participation rates, economic and price
conditions, and weather patterns. Formulas are set in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). But in
general, mandatory spending has tended to rise over time, particularly as food stamp participation
and benefits have risen in recent years because of the recession, rise in unemployment, and food
price inflation. See “Historical Trends” in a later section on funding.
Although these programs have mandatory status, many of these accounts receive funding in the
annual Agriculture appropriations act. For example, the food stamp and child nutrition programs
are funded by an annual appropriation based on projected spending needs. Supplemental
appropriations generally are made if these estimates fall short of required spending. The
Commodity Credit Corporation operates on a line of credit with the Treasury, but receives an
annual appropriation to reimburse the Treasury and to maintain its line of credit.
Outlays, Budget Authority, and Program Levels
In addition to the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, four other terms are
important to understanding differences in discussions about the federal spending: budget
authority, obligations, outlays, and program levels.5
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. Obligations
represent activities such as employing personnel, entering into contracts, and
submitting purchase orders.

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

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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 FY2012 Appropriations
An FY2012 Agriculture appropriations bill has been passed by the full House and reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee (Table 1). Floor consideration in the Senate is pending, as is
agreement on a final stand-alone version or an omnibus vehicle. Pending final action, a short-term
continuing resolution has been funding operations since October 1, 2011.
Table 1. Congressional Action on FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Vote
Report
Vote
Report
House Senate Law
5/24/2011 Polled outa 5/31/2011 6/16/2011
9/7/2011
— — —
—
—
Voice vote

H.Rept.
H.R. 2112
S.Rept.

112-101
112-73
Vote of

Voice vote
217-203
Vote of
28-2
Source: CRS.
a. A procedure that permits a bill to advance if subcommittee members independently agree to move it along.
Across the most recent 13 fiscal years, stand-alone Agriculture appropriations bills were enacted
five times, in FY2000-FY2002, FY2006, and FY2010 (Table A-1 in the appendix). Omnibus
appropriations were used six times, in FY1999, FY2003-FY2005, FY2008 and FY2009. Year-
long continuing resolutions were used two times, in FY2007 and FY2011. Table A-1 has links to
each appropriation and annual CRS report.
House Action
In the House, the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee marked up its FY2012 bill by voice
vote on May 24, 2011. A week later, the full appropriations committee reported the bill (H.R.
2112, H.Rept. 112-101) by voice vote, after adopting several amendments. On June 13, the Rules
Committee met to discuss the rule for floor consideration (H.Res. 300), leaving four provisions
Congressional Research Service
5

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

unprotected from points of order that were considered controversial amendments from the full
committee markup, waiving points of order against the rest of the committee-reported bill, and
allowing an otherwise open rule for floor amendments to be offered. On June 14, floor
consideration began, and on June 16, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2112 by a vote of 217-203.
Agriculture was the first non-security FY2012 appropriations bill to pass the House, and the third
bill after Homeland Security and Military Construction-Veterans Affairs.
Under the open rule for floor consideration, Members offered 61 amendments: 22 were adopted,
33 were rejected, 3 were withdrawn, and 3 were disallowed by point of order. There were 38
recorded votes on amendments. Four other provisions in the committee-reported bill fell by point
of order, left unprotected by the rule.
The House-passed bill would cut discretionary Agriculture appropriations to $17.2 billion, a cut
of 14% below FY2011 levels, following a 15% cut in FY2011 from FY2010 levels (Table 2).
Much of the floor debate related to funding reductions for the Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) feeding program (-11%), food safety (-10%), international food aid (-31%); preventing
USDA payments to Brazil in relation to the U.S. loss in the WTO cotton case; and programs
promoting locally produced food such as USDA’s “know-your-farmer-know-your-food” initiative
(Table 3).6
Other more notable non-money amendments that were adopted would prevent funding of blender
pumps for higher mixtures of ethanol, prevent funding related to the RU-486 abortion pill
(proposed relative to the USDA telemedicine program, but also affecting the FDA), prevent food
aid to North Korea, and prevent implementation of USDA policy on climate change adaptation.
The bill also includes a 0.78% across-the-board rescission to discretionary accounts (Sec. 743),
which is reflected in tables throughout this report and in the Senate’s committee report.
Senate Action
In the Senate, the full Appropriations subcommittee marked up a FY2012 Agriculture
appropriations bill (H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73) by a vote of 28-2 on September 7, 2011. The bill
awaits floor consideration, or inclusion in an omnibus appropriations vehicle.
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.7 This expedited committee procedure was formerly uncommon for the Agriculture
appropriations bill, but was used for the FY2009-FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bills as well.
The Senate-reported bill would cut discretionary Agriculture appropriations to $19.8 billion, a cut
of -0.8% below FY2011 levels (Table 2, Table 3). The Senate-reported bill is $2.7 billion more
than the House bill in its discretionary total (excluding CFTC from both bills for comparison).
The Senate bill’s discretionary total is greater than the House bill primarily in the following areas:
domestic nutrition programs (+$645 million, mostly for WIC), foreign assistance (+$544 million),
FDA (+$350 million), agricultural research (+$320 million), rural development (+$180 million),
and fewer rescissions and farm bill limitations (+$430 million).

6 Supplemental appropriations are not included in fiscal year totals because the primary purpose of this report is to
compare the regular annual appropriation across years.
7 For more about polling in the Senate, see CRS Report RS22952, Proxy Voting and Polling in Senate Committee, by
Christopher M. Davis.
Congressional Research Service
6

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title: FY2008-FY2011
and FY2012 Proposed
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Change from FY2011 to FY2012
Change
FY2010
FY2011
from
FY2012
House
Senate
FY2010
Title in Appropriations
P.L.
P.L.
to
House-
Senate
Bill
111-80
112-10
FY2011
passed
report $ % $ %
Agricultural
Programs
30,192 29,490 -2% 24,439 24,960 -5,051
-17% -4,530
-15%
Mandatory
22,855 22,605 -1% 18,293 18,293 -4,311
-19% -4,311
-19%
Discretionary
7,336 6,885 -6% 6,145 6,666 -740
-11% -219
-3%
Conservation
Programs
1,009 889
-12% 784 829 -106
-12% -60
-7%
Rural
Development
2,979 2,638 -11% 2,238 2,421 -399
-15% -217
-8%
Domestic Food Programs
82,783
95,065
+15%
96,265
105,520
+1,200
+1%
+10,454
+11%
Mandatory
75,128 87,937 +17% 89,944 98,553 +2,007
+2%
+10,616
+12%
Discretionary
7,655 7,128 -7% 6,322 6,967 -807
-11% -162
-2%
Foreign
Assistance
2,089 1,891 -9% 1,391 1,935 -500
-26% +44
+2%
FDA
2,357 2,457 +4% 2,157 2,506 -300
-12% +49
+2%
CFTC (in Agriculture) a
169

171
-32 -16%

CFTC (in Financial Services) a
202
+20%
240

+38 +19%
General
Provisions
-291 -1,958 +574% -1,986
-1,553
b -28
+1%
+405
-21%
Total in agriculture bill (no adjustment for jurisdiction over CFTC)

Mandatory
97,983 110,542 +13% 108,237 116,846 -2,305 -2% +6,305 +6%
Discretionary
23,304 19,931 -14% 17,221
19,771
b -2,710
-14% -160 -1%
Total
121,287 130,473
+8% 125,458 136,617 -5,014 -4% +6,145 +5%
Totals without CFTC in any column (Senate basis) a

Discretionary
23,135 19,931 -14% 17,051 19,771 -2,880
-14% -160 -1%
Total
121,118 130,473
+8% 125,288 136,617 -5,185 -4% +6,145 +5%
Totals with CFTC in all columns (House basis) a

Discretionary
23,304 20,133 -14% 17,221 20,011 -2,912
-14% -122 -1%
Total
121,287 130,675
+8% 125,458 136,857 -5,216 -4% +6,182 +5%
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73, H.Rept. 112-101, S. 1573, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and
unpublished appropriations tables.
Notes: na = not available. Regular appropriations only; does not include supplemental appropriations of $549
mil ion in FY2010 or $266 million proposed for FY2012.
a. CFTC is shown in different ways because of subcommittee jurisdiction differences between the House and
Senate to make totals comparable.
b. The $266 million of disaster support is not counted in the discretionary total so that it does not cause the
Senate bill to exceed the initial $19.78 billion discretionary 302(b) al ocation.

Congressional Research Service
7

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Continuing Resolutions
Without final enactment of any appropriations bill before October 1, 2011, FY2012 began under a
short-term continuing resolution (CR). Short-term continuing resolutions have been needed every
year since at least FY1999 (Figure A-1).
An initial four-day CR was enacted to fund discretionary operations through October 4, 2011, at
FY2011 levels minus 1.503% (P.L. 112-33). A second, seven-week CR was subsequently enacted
at the same funding level to fund the government through November 18, 2011 (P.L. 112-36). The
funding level in the CR is intended to reduce overall discretionary spending to the $1.043 trillion
government-wide total allowed for FY2012 by the Budget Control Act (see below). Entitlement
and other mandatory programs are to be continued at a rate to maintain program levels (Sec. 111).
Budget Resolution and Subcommittee Allocation
The House passed a budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 34) on April 15, 2011, with a $1.019 trillion
discretionary budget limit for FY2012. This would be a $30.4 billion cut from FY2011 (-2.3%)
across all 12 appropriations bills. For the Agriculture bill, the “302(b)” subcommittee allocation
in the House is $17.25 billion (in both H.Rept. 112-96 and H.Rept. 112-104), which is $2.7
billion less than for FY2011 (-13%).
The Senate did not pass a separate budget resolution. But on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) was enacted. Among other actions, such as establishing the Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction and raising the debt ceiling, it sets the total FY2012
discretionary limit for all 12 appropriations bills at $1.043 trillion. This is akin to the result of a
joint budget resolution that can be used for the final FY2012 appropriation bills. This amount is
$24 billion (+2.3%) higher than the $1.019 trillion discretionary limit in the House budget
resolution (H.Con.Res. 34). The $1.043 trillion level is $6.8 billion below FY2011 (-0.6%).
Given the limit set in the Budget Control Act, the Senate Appropriations committee began
markups. On September 7, 2011, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted subcommittee
allocations (S.Rept. 112-76). For the Agriculture bill, 302(b) initial subcommittee allocation was
$19.78 billion, which is $141 million less than FY2011 (-0.7%) but nearly $2.8 billion more than
the House allocation (+16%). But on September 20, the Committee adopted a revised
subcommittee allocation of $20.046 billion (S.Rept. 112-81). This revised allocation is $266
million greater than the initial one, reflecting the amount of disaster designations in the Senate
markup and as allowed under the Budget Control Act.8 Because of the disaster provisions, the
Senate’s revised $20.046 billion allocation is $124 million more than FY2011.
Regardless of the treatment of the disaster provisions in the Senate bill, a large underlying
difference between the House and Senate subcommittee allocations needs to be reconciled. Some
believe that the higher $1.043 trillion total enacted in the Budget Control Act, relative to the
earlier House-passed budget resolution, implies that the final amount for Agriculture
appropriations—and therefore agency amounts—might be closer to those in the Senate markup.
But a final agreement on the final FY2012 allocation remains to be resolved.

8 An alternative used in prior budget years is not counting the disaster provisions against the 302(b) allocation so as to
not need a revised higher allocation. This accounting alternative is used in this report to make the non-disaster portion
of the Senate bill more comparable to the House version while still recognizing the disaster designation.
Congressional Research Service
8

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program: FY2008-FY2011 and FY2012 Proposed
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Change from FY2011 to FY2012
Change

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
from
FY2012
House
Senate
FY2010
P.L. 110-
P.L.
P.L. 112-
to
Admin.
House-
Senate
Agency or Major Program
161
111-80
10
FY2011
Request
passed
report $ % $ %
Title I: Agricultural Programs

Offices of Secretary and Chief Economist
15.5
19.3
17.6
-9%
22.1
15.3
16.7
-2.3
-13%
-0.9
-5%
Healthy Food Financing Initiative

35.0

Chief Information Officer
16.2
61.6
39.9
-35%
63.6
33.7
36.0
-6.2
-16%
-3.9
-10%
Office of Inspector General
79.5
88.7
88.5
0%
90.8
79.4
84.1
-9.2
-10%
-4.4
-5%
Buildings, facilities, and rental payments
194.9
293.1
246.5
-16%
255.2
199.8
230.4
-46.7
-19%
-16.1
-7%
Other Departmental administration offices a 131.0
164.1
145.6
-11%
169.9
114.1
137.4
-31.5
-22%
-8.2
-6%
Under Secretaries (four offices in Title I) b
2.5 3.5 3.5
0% 3.6 2.9 3.3 -0.5
-14% -0.2
-6%
Research, Education and Economics

Agricultural Research Service
1,167.8
1,250.5
1,133.2
-9%
1,137.7
987.6
1,094.6
-145.6
-13%
-38.6
-3%
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
1,183.8
1,343.2
1,214.8
-10%
1,204.8
1,012.0
1,214.0
-202.8
-17%
-0.8
0%
Economic Research Service
77.4
82.5
81.8
-1%
86.0
69.5
77.7
-12.4
-15%
-4.1
-5%
National Agricultural Statistics Service
162.2
161.8
156.4
-3%
165.4
148.3
152.6
-8.1
-5%
-3.8
-2%
Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
867.6
909.7
866.8
-5%
837.4
787.0
823.3
-79.8
-9%
-43.5
-5%
Agric. Marketing Service
114.7
92.5
87.9
-5%
97.4
78.5
83.4
-9.4
-11%
-4.5
-5%
Section 32 (permanent+transfers)
1,169.0
1,320.1
1,065.0
-19%
1,080.0
1,080.0
1,080.0
+15.0
+1%
+15.0
+1%
Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards
38.5
42.0
40.3
-4%
44.2
36.7
38.2
-3.6
-9%
-2.0
-5%
Food Safety

Food Safety & Inspection Service
930.1
1,018.5
1,006.5
-1%
1,011.4
964.4
1,006.5
-42.1
-4%
+0.0
0%
Farm and Commodity Programs

Farm Service Agency: Salaries and Exp. c 1,435.2
1,574.9
1,521.2
-3%
1,718.2
1,433.9
1,479.0
-87.3
-6% -42.2
-3%
CRS-9

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Change from FY2011 to FY2012
Change

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
from
FY2012
House
Senate
FY2010
P.L. 110-
P.L.
P.L. 112-
to
Admin.
House-
Senate
Agency or Major Program
161
111-80
10
FY2011
Request
passed
report $ % $ %
Total in agriculture bill (no adjustment for jurisdiction over CFTC)
Mandatory 72,670.2
97,983.4
110,541.8
+13%
110,237.4
108,237.2
116,846.4
-2,304.6
-2%
+6,304.5
+6%
Discretionary 18,092.9
23,303.8
19,930.8
-14%
22,280.4
17,221.2
19,771.0
h -2,709.6 -14%
-159.8 -1%
Total 90,763.1
121,287.2
130,472.7
+8%
132,517.8
125,458.4
136,617.4
-5014.2
-4%
+6,144.7
+5%
Totals without CFTC in any column (Senate basis) g
Discretionary
17,981.6 23,135.0 19,930.8 -14% 21,972.4 17,050.6 19,771.0 -2,880.2 -14%
-159.8 -1%
Total 90,651.8
121,118.4
130,472.7
+8%
132,209.8
125,287.8
136,617.4
-5184.8
-4%
+6,144.7
+5%
Totals with CFTC in all columns (House basis) g
Discretionary
18,092.9 23,303.8 20,133.1 -14% 22,280.4 17,221.2 20,011.0 -2,911.9 -14%
-122.1 -1%
Total 90,763.1
121,287.2
130,674.9
+8%
132,517.8
125,458.4
136,857.4
-5216.5
-4%
+6,182.5
+5%
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73, H.Rept. 112-101, S. 1573, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, P.L. 110-161, and unpublished appropriations tables.
Notes: Does not include supplemental appropriations. Supplemental appropriations were $2.4 bil ion in FY2008 (P.L. 110-252 and P.L. 110-329 provided $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 (P.L. 111-
118 and P.L. 111-212 provided $400 million 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 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.
d. Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made or guaranteed with a loan subsidy, which covers subsidized interest rates and projected loan losses. The loan
authority amount is not added in the budget authority subtotals or totals.
e. Includes Dairy Indemnity Program, State Mediation Grants, and Grassroots Source Water Protection Program.
f.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation each receive “such sums as necessary.” Estimates are used in the appropriations bill reports.
g. CFTC is shown in different ways because of jurisdiction differences to make totals comparable.
h. The Senate-reported bill contains $266 million of emergency spending for natural disasters. An offsetting scorekeeping adjustment for the emergency designation
causes the emergency provisions to have no net effect on the General Provisions total or discretionary spending total for the bill.
CRS-13

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Historical Trends
After years of growth, discretionary Agriculture appropriations peaked in absolute terms in
FY2010, although mandatory nutrition spending continues to rise. This section offers perspective
on type of funding (mandatory or discretionary), purpose (nutrition vs. other), and relationships to
inflation, GDP, and the federal budget. The House-passed and Senate-reported versions of H.R.
2112 for FY2012 are the bases for comparison throughout most of this section .9
Figure 2 shows total discretionary appropriations levels in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
The total amount is divided between discretionary domestic nutrition assistance programs and the
rest of the bill. Over the past 10 years (since FY2002), total discretionary funding in the
Agriculture appropriations bill would be nearly flat under the House-passed bill (+0.6% average
annual growth), compared to +2.1% average annual growth under the Senate-reported bill (Table
4). The nutrition portion of this discretionary total shows a +2.6% average annual increase over
10 years in the House-passed bill (+3.6% average annual growth in the Senate-reported bill). The
rest of the bill would have an average annual 10-year decline of -0.4% in the House bill, and
+1.4% average annual increase in the Senate bill.
Figure 2. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, FY1995-FY2011 and FY2012
Proposed
$ billion
Total discretionary
25
Domestic nutrition
Rest of bill
20
S
H
15
S
H
10
S
H
5
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Source: CRS. FY2012 data from S.Rept. 112-73 show the proposed range between House and Senate bills.
Notes: Includes only regular annual appropriations for USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC
(regardless of jurisdiction). Fiscal year budget authority. The label “Domestic nutrition” includes WIC,
commodity assistance programs, and nutrition programs administration.
Figure 3 shows the Agriculture appropriations bill divided between mandatory and discretionary
spending. For the House bill, mandatory appropriations would show a 10-year average annual
growth of +6.6%, while discretionary appropriations show the +0.6% rate discussed above. The

9 For percentage changes relative to the FY2011 enacted appropriation, see “Historical Trends” in CRS Report R41475,
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
14

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

total for the House bill (mandatory plus discretionary) reflects a 5.5% average annual increase
over 10 years. For the Senate bill, the 10-year average annual changes would be +7.5% for
mandatory appropriations, +2.1% for discretionary appropriations, and +6.5% for the total
appropriation (Table 4).
Figure 3. Agriculture Appropriations:
Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations:
Mandatory vs. Discretionary
Domestic Nutrition vs. Rest of Bill
$ billion
$ billion
140
Mandatory
140
Rest of bill
Discretionary
Domestic nutrition
120
120
31
36 29
100
39
100
32
80
117
80
41
98111
41
108
31
88
39 33
60
83 80
60
70 68
73
e
e
28 23
41 41 35 33
13
95 96106
40 55
62 60 57 57
12 20
50
ous
nat
40
83
76
40
e
e
36 41
H
S
60
us
ate
20
20 40 40 40
n
37 35 35 34 38 42 47 52 59 57
Ho
Se
13 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 18 17 17 17 18 18 21 23 20 17 20
0
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Source: CRS. FY2012 data from S.Rept. 112-73.
Source: CRS. FY2012 data from S.Rept. 112-73.
Notes: Includes regular annual appropriations only
Notes: The largest domestic nutrition programs
for USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and
are the child nutrition programs, SNAP (food
CFTC (regardless of where funded). Fiscal year
stamps), and WIC. “Other” includes the rest of
budget authority.
USDA (except the Forest Service), FDA, and CFTC.
Figure 5. Domestic Nutrition Programs
Figure 6. Non-Nutrition Programs (Rest
in Agriculture Appropriations:
of Bill) in Agriculture Appropriations:
Mandatory vs. Discretionary
Mandatory vs. Discretionary
$ billion
$ billion
140
Mandatory
140
Mandatory
Discretionary
Discretionary
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
e
99
60
te
88 90
75
40
69
40
Hous
ena
S
54
se
ate
36
n
36 36
31 30
20
33 31 31 30 33 37 42 47 53 52
Hou
24 20 27 21 30 28
23
20
19 19
23
Se
18 14
18 18
4 3 10
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 8 7 6 7
0
9 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 13 12 11 11 12 12 13 16 13 11 13
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Source: CRS. FY2012 data from S.Rept. 112-73.
Source: CRS. FY2012 data from S.Rept. 112-73.
Notes: Mandatory nutrition programs include
Notes: Includes all 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, some conservation, and trade programs.
Figure 4 shows the same bill total as in Figure 3, but divided between domestic nutrition and
other program spending. The share going to nutrition has risen from 46% in FY2000 to 77% in
the FY2012 House or Senate bills (Table 5). Since FY2002, total nutrition spending has increased
at an average rate of about 10% per year, compared to a -1.2% to -1.9% average annual change
for the “rest of the bill” (the rest of USDA but excluding the Forest Service, plus FDA and
CFTC). Nutrition spending has increased faster than non-nutrition for the most recent 5-, 10-,
and 15-year periods (Table 4).
Congressional Research Service
15

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 4. Agriculture Appropriations: Percentage Changes over Time

Annualized change from the past to proposed FY2012 appropriation

Based on Nominal Value
Based on Real Value (2011 $)
FY2011
FY2007
FY2002
FY1997
FY2011
FY2007
FY2002
FY1997

(1 yr.)
(5 yrs.)
(10 yrs.)
(15 yrs.)
(1 yr.)
(5 yrs.)
(10 yrs.)
(15 yrs.)

For House-passed H.R. 2112
Discretionary
total
-14.5% -0.7% +0.6% +1.9% -15.6% -2.1% -1.5% -0.1%
Domestic nutrition a -11.3% +2.7% +2.6% +2.7% -12.5% +1.3% +0.4% +0.7%
Rest of bill b
-16.2% -2.4% -0.4% +1.4% -17.3% -3.7% -2.5% -0.6%
Mandatory
total
-2.1% +6.3% +6.6% +6.8% -3.4% +4.8% +4.4% +4.8%
Domestic
nutrition +2.3% +11.8% +10.5% +6.2% +0.9% +10.2% +8.2% +4.2%
Rest
of
bill
-19.1% -8.4% -2.6%
+11.0% -20.2% -9.6% -4.7% +8.9%
Total
bill
-4.0% +5.1% +5.5% +5.9% -5.3% +3.7% +3.3% +3.8%
Domestic
nutrition +1.3% +11.0% +9.8% +5.9% -0.1% +9.5% +7.5% +3.9%
Rest
of
bill
-18.0% -6.4% -1.9% +5.7% -19.1% -7.7% -3.9% +3.7%

For Senate-reported H.R. 2112
Discretionary
total
-0.6% +2.4% +2.1% +2.9% -2.0% +0.9% -0.1% +0.9%
Domestic
nutrition
-2.3% +4.8% +3.6% +3.4% -3.6% +3.3% +1.4% +1.4%
Rest
of
bill
+0.3% +1.2% +1.4% +2.6% -1.1% -0.2% -0.8% +0.6%
Mandatory
total
+5.7% +7.9% +7.5% +7.4% +4.3% +6.4% +5.2% +5.3%
Domestic
nutrition +12.1% +13.9% +11.5% +6.9% +10.5% +12.3% +9.2% +4.8%
Rest
of
bill
-19.1% -8.4% -2.6%
+11.0% -20.2% -9.6% -4.7% +8.9%
Total
bill
+4.7% +7.0% +6.5% +6.5% +3.3% +5.5% +4.2% +4.4%
Domestic
nutrition +11.0% +13.1% +10.8% +6.6% +9.5% +11.5% +8.4% +4.5%
Rest
of
bill
-12.0% -5.0% -1.2% +6.2% -13.2% -6.4% -3.2% +4.2%
Source: CRS.
Notes: Includes regular annual appropriations for all of USDA (except the Forest Service), the Food and Drug
Administration, and—for consistency—the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (regardless of jurisdiction).
Excludes supplemental appropriations. Reflects rescissions.
a. The largest domestic nutrition programs are the child nutrition programs, the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps)—both of which are mandatory—and the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is discretionary.
b. “Rest of bill” includes the non-nutrition remainder 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.
Most nutrition program spending is mandatory spending, primarily in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) and child nutrition (school lunch and related programs). Figure 5
takes the orange-colored bars from Figure 4 (total domestic nutrition programs) and divides them
into mandatory and discretionary. Over the past 10 years, mandatory nutrition spending rose at
about 11% per year, while the discretionary portion increased at about 3% per year.
Congressional Research Service
16

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Spending on the non-nutrition programs in the bill is more evenly divided between mandatory
and discretionary, more variable over time, and generally growing more slowly than nutrition.
Figure 6 divides the yellow-colored bars in Figure 4 into mandatory and discretionary. This
subtotal of mandatory spending has shown a -2.6% average annual change over 10 years, and
+11% per year over 15 years. Discretionary spending on this component—arguably where
appropriators have the most control—would be nearly flat since 2002 under the House-passed bill
at -0.4% average annual rate, and +1.4% per year under the Senate-reported bill. Over the five-
year period since FY2007, the House bill for FY2012 would reflect -2.4% per year and the Senate
bill +1.2% per year (Table 4).
The Agriculture appropriations totals can also be viewed in inflation-adjusted terms and in
comparison to other economic variables (Figure 7 through Figure 10, and Table 5).
If the general level of inflation is subtracted, total Agriculture appropriations show positive “real”
growth—that is, growth above the rate of inflation—but mostly because of mandatory and/or
nutrition programs. The total appropriation in the House-passed bill has increased at an average
annual real rate of +3.3% over the past 10 years, +4.2% on average in the Senate bill. Within that
total, nutrition programs have increased at a higher average annual real rate of +7.5% in the
House bill, +8.4% in the Senate bill. The non-nutrition “rest of the bill” shows a -3.9% average
annual real change over 10 years in the House bill, -3.2% average annual real change in the
Senate bill (Table 4, Figure 7).
Figure 7. Agriculture Appropriations in
Figure 8. Agriculture Appropriations as a
Inflation-Adjusted 2011 Dollars
Percentage of Total Federal Budget
$ billion
Total bill (2011 dollars)
% Fed. Bud.
Total bill
135
Domestic nutrition
S
4.5%
Domestic nutrition
120
Rest of bill
H
Rest of bill
S
105
S
H
90
H
3.0%
S
75
H
60
45
1.5%
30
S
H
S
H
15
0
0.0%
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Source: CRS. FY2012 data from S.Rept. 112-73.
Source: CRS. FY2012 data from S.Rept. 112-73.
Notes: Adjusted with the GDP Price Index, FY2012
Notes: Total federal budget authority, FY2012
President’s Budget, Historical Tables, Table 10.1.
President’s Budget, Historical Tables, Table 5.1.
Relative to the entire federal budget, 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 about 3.4% since FY2010
(Figure 8). The share for nutrition programs has declined (from 2.5% in FY1995 to 1.8% in
FY2008), although the increase since the recent recession has returned the share to over 2.6%, a
level last seen in FY1995. The share for the rest of the bill has declined from 1.8% in FY1995
and 2.1% in FY2001, to about 0.8% to 0.9% in FY2012.
As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), Agriculture appropriations have been fairly
steady at under 0.75% of GDP from FY2000-FY2009, but have risen to about 0.8% of GDP since
FY2010 (Figure 9) due to increases in nutrition program demand. Nutrition programs have been
rising as a percentage of GDP since FY2000 (0.33% in FY2001 to 0.67% in FY2012 under the
Congressional Research Service
17

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Senate-reported bill), while non-nutrition agricultural programs have been declining (0.42% in
FY2000 to about 0.2% in FY2012). 10
Finally, on a per capita basis, inflation-adjusted total Agriculture appropriations have risen
slightly over the past 10 to 15 years from about $350 per capita in 1995 and 2000 (FY2011
dollars) to about $400 per capita in recent years (Figure 10). Nutrition programs have risen more
steadily on a per capita basis from about $200 per capita in 1995 (and a low of $150 per capita in
2001) to over $300 per capita in the FY2012 House and Senate bills. Non-nutrition “other”
agricultural programs have been more steady to declining, falling from $185 per capita in 2000 to
just under $100 per capita in the FY2012 House and Senate bills.
Figure 9. Agriculture Appropriations as a
Figure 10. Agriculture Appropriations
Percentage of GDP
per Capita of U.S. Population
% of GDP
Total bill
2011 $/capita
Total bill
1.00%
Domestic nutrition
Domestic nutrition
S
Rest of bill
S
400
Rest of bil
H
H
0.75%
S
S
300
H
H
0.50%
200
0.25%
S
100
S
H
H
0.00%
0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Source: CRS. FY2012 data from S.Rept. 112-73.
Source: CRS. FY2012 data from S.Rept. 112-73.
Notes: Gross domestic product (GDP) is from the
Notes: Population figures from Census Bureau, U.S.
President’s Budget, Historical Tables, Table 10.1.
Population Projections, and Statistical Abstract of the
United States.

10 Two other CRS reports compare various components of federal spending against GDP at a more aggregate level. See
CRS Report RL33074, Mandatory Spending Since 1962, and CRS Report RL34424, Trends in Discretionary Spending.
Congressional Research Service
18

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 5. Agriculture Appropriations: Trends and Benchmarks: FY1997-FY2011 and FY2012 Proposed
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
2012
2012

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 House Senate
Discretionary total
13.75 13.69 13.95 14.97 16.28 17.91 16.84 16.83 16.78 17.81 18.09 20.60 23.30 20.13 17.22 20.01
Domestic nutrition a
4.31 4.31 4.42 4.46 4.89 5.00 4.90 5.55 5.53 5.52 6.37 7.23 7.65 7.13 6.32 6.97
Rest of bill b
9.44 9.39 9.53 10.51 11.39 12.91 11.94 11.28 11.25 12.29 11.72 13.37 15.65 13.00 10.90 13.04
Mandatory total
35.80 41.00 61.95 59.77 56.91 56.70 69.75 68.29 83.07 79.80 72.67 87.80 97.98 110.54 108.24 116.85
Domestic
nutrition

32.91 30.51 30.63 29.66 33.06 36.89 42.36 46.94 53.37 51.51 53.68 68.92 75.13 87.94 89.94 98.55
Rest
of
bill
2.89 10.48 31.33 30.12 23.86 19.82 27.38 21.36 29.70 28.29 18.99 18.88 22.86 22.60 18.29 18.29
Total bill
49.55 54.69 75.90 74.74 73.19 74.61 86.59 85.13 99.85 97.61 90.76 108.40 121.29 130.67 125.46 136.86
Domestic
nutrition
37.22 34.82 35.04 34.12 37.95 41.89 47.26 52.49 58.89 57.03 60.06 76.16 82.78 95.07 96.27 105.52
Rest
of
bill
12.33 19.87 40.85 40.63 35.24 32.72 39.32 32.64 40.95 40.58 30.71 32.25 38.50 35.61 29.19 31.34
Percentages of Total

1.
Mandatory
72% 75% 82% 80% 78% 76% 81% 80% 83% 82% 80% 81% 81% 85% 86% 85%
2.
Discretionary
28% 25% 18% 20% 22% 24% 19% 20% 17% 18% 20% 19% 19% 15% 14% 15%
1.
Domestic
nutrition
75% 64% 46% 46% 52% 56% 55% 62% 59% 58% 66% 70% 68% 73% 77% 77%
2.
Rest
of
bill
25% 36% 54% 54% 48% 44% 45% 38% 41% 42% 34% 30% 32% 27% 23% 23%
Economic benchmarks for comparison

GDP ($ billions) c
8,663 9,208 9,821 10,225 10,544 10,980 11,686 12,446 13,225 13,896 14,439 14,237 14,508 15,080 15,813 15,813
U.S. budget authority d
1,692 1,777 1,825 1,959 2,090 2,266 2,408 2,583 2,780 2,863 3,326 4,077 3,485 3,651 3,685 3,685
Population (million) e
276.1 279.3 282.4 285.3 288.0 290.7 293.3 296.0 298.8 301.7 304.5 307.2 310.2 313.2 316.3 316.3
GDP price index c
86.03 87.17 88.89 90.99 92.49 94.42 96.84 100.00 103.42 106.54 108.98 110.43 111.27 112.75 114.3 114.3
Inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars (real dollars)

Discretionary total
18.02 17.71 17.69 18.55 19.84 21.38 19.61 18.98 18.29 18.85 18.72 21.03 23.61 20.13 16.98 19.74
Domestic
nutrition 5.65 5.57 5.60 5.53 5.96 5.97 5.70 6.26 6.02 5.85 6.59 7.39 7.76 7.13 6.23 6.87
Rest
of
bill
12.37 12.14 12.08 13.02 13.88 15.41 13.90 12.72 12.27 13.00 12.12 13.65 15.86 13.00 10.75 12.87
CRS-19

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

2012
2012

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 House Senate
Mandatory total
46.92 53.03 78.58 74.06 69.38 67.71 81.20 77.00 90.56 84.45 75.18 89.64 99.29 110.54 106.75 115.24
Domestic
nutrition 43.13 39.47 38.85 36.75 40.30 44.05 49.32 52.92 58.18 54.51 55.54 70.37 76.13 87.94 88.71 97.20
Rest
of
bill
3.79 13.56 39.74 37.32 29.08 23.66 31.88 24.08 32.38 29.94 19.64 19.27 23.16 22.60 18.04 18.04
Total bill
64.94 70.74 96.27 92.62 89.22 89.10 100.81 95.98 108.86 103.30 93.90 110.68 122.90 130.67 123.74 134.98
Domestic
nutrition 48.78 45.03 44.45 42.28 46.26 50.02 55.03 59.18 64.21 60.35 62.13 77.76 83.88 95.07 94.94 104.07
Rest
of
bill
16.16 25.70 51.82 50.34 42.96 39.07 45.78 36.80 44.65 42.95 31.77 32.92 39.02 35.61 28.79 30.91
Agriculture appropriations as a % of total federal budget

Total
bill
2.9% 3.1% 4.2% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 3.6% 3.3% 3.6% 3.4% 2.7% 2.7% 3.5% 3.6% 3.4% 3.7%
Domestic
nutrition 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.0% 1.8% 1.9% 2.4% 2.6% 2.6% 2.9%
Rest
of
bill
0.7% 1.1% 2.2% 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 1.6% 1.3% 1.5% 1.4% 0.9% 0.8% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9%
Agriculture appropriations as a % of GDP

Total
bill
0.57% 0.59% 0.77% 0.73% 0.69% 0.68% 0.74% 0.68% 0.75% 0.70% 0.63% 0.76% 0.84% 0.87% 0.79% 0.87%
Domestic
nutrition 0.43% 0.38% 0.36% 0.33% 0.36% 0.38% 0.40% 0.42% 0.45% 0.41% 0.42% 0.53% 0.57% 0.63% 0.61% 0.67%
Rest
of
bill
0.14% 0.22% 0.42% 0.40% 0.33% 0.30% 0.34% 0.26% 0.31% 0.29% 0.21% 0.23% 0.27% 0.24% 0.18% 0.20%
Agriculture appropriations per capita (2011 dollars)

Total
bill
235 253 341 325 310 306 344 324 364 342 308 360 396 417 391 427
Domestic
nutrition 177 161 157 148 161 172 188 200 215 200 204 253 270 303 300 329
Rest of bill
59
92
184 176 149 134 156 124 149 142 104 107 126 114 91 98
Source: CRS. Data for 2012 are based on Senate-reported H.R. 2112 and S.Rept. 112-73.
Notes: Regular appropriations only; includes Commodity Futures Trading Commission for consistency regardless of jurisdiction. Reflects rescissions.
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 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is discretionary.
b. “Rest of bill” includes the non-nutrition remainder 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.
c. OMB, Budget of the United States Government, “Historical Tables,” Table 10.1, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.
d. OMB, Budget of the United States Government, “Historical Tables,” Table 5.1, total federal budget authority.
e. Census Bureau, U.S. Population Projections, at http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/index.html, and Statistical Abstract of the United States.
CRS-20

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Savings Achieved by Limits and Rescissions
The House-passed bill for FY2012 contains nearly $2 billion in rescissions and limitations on
mandatory farm bill programs (Title VII in Table 3). The Senate-reported bill contains about $1.5
billion of such rescissions and limitations. These actions are used to score savings that help meet
the discretionary budget allocations and help avoid deeper cuts to regular discretionary accounts.
The FY2011 appropriation also had about $2 billion of rescissions and limitations, more than in
past years. Had the FY2012 House-passed proposal not maintained this level of reductions, even
greater cuts might have been required to regular discretionary accounts to meet the House budget
allocation’s discretionary goal of $17.25 billion. Although the Senate bill allows a greater
discretionary spending total and doesn’t achieve as large of savings from limitations and
rescissions, it too would have required greater cuts from discretionary programs had it not used
limitations and rescissions.
These types of reductions grew in importance in the FY2011 appropriation, which required a
large discretionary cut from the year before. Half of the $3.4 billion reduction in total
discretionary appropriations between FY2010 and FY2011 was achieved by a $1.7 billion
increase in the use of farm bill limitations and rescissions. In an era of annual budget cutting,
appropriators may find themselves needing to continue such cuts once they start or have increased
the practice. To lessen the use of savings achieved in this area of the budget would require an
increase of savings from another area, possibly salaries and expenses accounts at the agency
level.
The House-passed bill for FY2012 increases the amount of limitations on farm bill programs
relative to the amount of rescissions relative to the FY2011 appropriation.
In the case of the Senate-reported FY2012 bill, part of the reason the discretionary total for the
bill is greater than the House bill is the lesser use of rescissions and limitations, both compared to
the House bill and compared to FY2011.11
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)
In recent years, appropriators have placed limitations on mandatory spending authorized in the
farm bill (Table 6). 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.
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

11 The Senate-reported bill also contains $266 million of emergency spending in response to natural disasters. This is
added in the General Provisions title of the bill, along with the rescission and farm bill limitations. The initial Senate
scoring of the bill did not count the emergency spending against the 302(b) subcommittee allocation for discretionary
spending. An offsetting scorekeeping adjustment for the emergency designation, therefore, causes the emergency
provisions to have no net effect on the General Provisions total.
Congressional Research Service
21

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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.
Passage of a new farm bill in 2008 made more mandatory funds available for programs, some of
which appropriators or the Administration have chosen to reduce, either because of policy
preferences or jurisdictional issues between authorizers and appropriators.
Table 6. Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS), FY2008-FY2011 and
FY2012 Proposed
(dollars in millions)

FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate
Program in 2008 farm bill
110-161
111-8
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
report
Conservation
programs

Environmental Quality Incentives Program
-270.0
-270.0
-270.0
-350.0
-342.0
-350.0
-350.0
Dam Rehabilitation Program
-65.0
-165.0 -165.0 -165.0 -165.0 -165.0 -165.0
Wetlands Reserve Program

-119.0
-9.0
-200.0
-200.0
Conservation Stewardship Program

-39.0
-2.0
-210.0
-35.0
Farmland Protection Program

-50.0
-50.0
Grasslands
Reserve

-50.0
-30.0
-50.0
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program

-12.0
-35.0
-35.0
Voluntary Public Access Program

-17.0
-17.0
Agricultural Management Assistance

-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
Subtotal
conservation
-335.0 -435.0 -435.0 -673.0 -585.0
-1,062.0 -907.0
Other
programs

Fruit and vegetables in schools program a
-49.0 -76.0 -117.0 -114.5 -133.0 -133.0
Emergency Food Assistance Program

-51.0
Biomass Crop Assistance Program

-134.0
-45.0
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels

-50.0
-30.0
Rural Energy for America Program

-70.0
-36.0
Crop insurance good performance discount

-25.0
-25.0
-25.0
Microenterpreneur Assistance Program

-3.0
Subtotal
other
0.0 -49.0 -76.0 -276.0 -114.5 -377.0 -224.0
Total reduction in farm bill programs
-335.0
-484.0
-511.0
-949.0
-699.5
-1,439.0
-1,131.0
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 2112, H.Rept. 112-101, P.L. 112-10, H.R. 1, P.L. 111-80, P.L. 111-8, and P.L.
110-161.
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 overal support—and results in
savings being scored by appropriators.
Congressional Research Service
22

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Historically, decisions over expenditures are assumed to rest with appropriations committees.12
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 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. The dynamic changed near the turn of the century when farm bills began
using mandatory funds for programs that usually were discretionary. Appropriators had not
funded some programs as much as authorizers had desired, and authorizing committees wrote
farm bills using the mandatory funding at their discretion. Tension arose over who should fund
certain activities: authorizers with mandatory funding at their disposal, or appropriators with
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. The programs affected by CHIMPS include
conservation, rural development, bioenergy, and some smaller nutrition assistance programs.
CHIMPS have not affected the farm commodity programs or the primary nutrition assistance
programs (such as SNAP), which are generally accepted as legitimate mandatory programs.
For FY2012, the House-passed bill contains $1.439 billion of reductions from 16 mandatory
programs. The Senate-reported bill contains $1.131 billion from 13 mandatory programs (Table
6). This level of reduction in the House bill is 56% greater (+$515 million) than the $924 million
reduction in the FY2011 appropriation, which itself was $413 million greater than FY2009. The
reductions in the FY2012 bills would affect about twice as many programs as in prior years. The
level of CHIMPS in the House bill would return to the $1.5 billion level last reached in FY2006.13
CHIMPS in FY2012—the last year of the 2008 farm bill’s authorization—could have potential
noteworthy effects on the 10-year farm bill baseline budget available to the Agriculture
Committees to write the expected 2012 farm bill. This issue, as well as greater context about the
magnitude and perception of conservation CHIMPS, is discussed in the section “Mandatory
Conservation Programs” later in this report.
Rescissions
Rescissions are a method of permanently cancelling the availability of funds that were provided
by a previous appropriations law, and in doing so achieving or scoring budgetary savings. Often
rescissions relate to the unobligated balances of funds still available for a specific purpose that
were appropriated a year or more ago (e.g., buildings and facilities funding that remains available
until expended for specific projects, or disaster response funds for losses due to a specifically
named hurricane). These are often one-time savings from cancelling unobligated budget
authority that in some cases may no longer have been about to be spent.
The FY2011 appropriation made unusually large rescissions, compared with prior years, to
unobligated balances in accounts such as building and facilities, and rural broadband.
Rescissions in FY2011 totaled about $925 million, up from a more typical range of $100 million
to $500 million. Because some of these were one-time savings from cancelling unobligated

12 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.
13 For more background, see CRS Report R41245, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program Spending.
Congressional Research Service
23

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

balances, the high level was difficult to repeat in FY2012. Rescissions for FY2012 total about
$475 million in the House-passed bill and $350 million in the Senate-reported bill (Table 7).
Table 7. Rescissions From Prior Year Budget Authority
(dollars in millions)

FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate
Program
110-161
111-8
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
report
Export credit

-331.0

-15.0
ARS buildings and facilities

-229.6 -223.7

Cushion of Credit (rural development) a
-34.0 -20.0 -44.5 -207.0 -241.8 -155.0 -155.0
Section
32
-684.0 -346.0 -52.5

-150.0 -150.0
Agriculture buildings and facilities

-45.0

Broadband loan balances

-39.0

Broadband
grants

-25.0

SNAP employment and training
-10.5
-11.0
-15.0
0.0
-11.0
-11.0
NRCS expired accounts

-13.9

APHIS

-10.9

Common
Computing
Environment
-3.1

Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

-2.1

NIFA buildings and facilities

-1.0
-1.0
-2.5
Rural community advancement

-1.0

Agricultural Marketing Service

-0.7

APHIS buildings and facilities

-0.6

Forestry
incentives

-5.5
-6.0
Great
Plains
Conservation

-0.5
-1.0
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers

-90.0
USDA
unobligated
balances

-63.0

Ocean
freight

-5.0
Office of Advocacy and Outreach

-4.0
P.L. 480 Title I

-3.0
Foreign
currency
program

-0.5
CACFP
audit
-3.5

Wildlife Habitat Incentives

-10.2

Water Bank Act

-0.7

Total
-732.0 -366.0 -107.9 -925.0 -477.5 -475.0 -353.0
Source: CRS, compiled from H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, P.L. 111-8, and P.L. 110-161.
a. Tables in House and Senate report language place this rescission in the Rural Business Cooperative Service
section, causing that agency’s net appropriation to be negative. This report puts the rescission here for
consistency with other rescissions.
Congressional Research Service
24

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Selected USDA Agencies and Programs
The Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations bill covers all of USDA except for the
Forest Service. This amounts to nearly 95% of USDA’s total appropriation. The Forest Service is
funded through the Interior appropriations bill.14 The order of the following sections reflects the
order that the agencies are listed in the Agriculture appropriations bill (except for the portion of
FDA appropriations for food safety, which is discussed in a comprehensive section on food
safety). See Table 3 and tables in some of the following sections for more details on the amounts
for specific agencies.
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, education, and economics (REE) mission:
• The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Department’s intramural science
agency, conducts long-term, high-risk, basic and applied research on food and
agriculture issues of national and regional importance.
• The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) distributes federal
funds to land grant colleges of agriculture to provide partial support for state-
level research, education, and extension.
• The Economic Research Service (ERS) provides economic analysis of issues
regarding public and private interests in agriculture, natural resources, food, and
rural America.
• The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects and publishes
current national, state, and county agricultural statistics. NASS also is
responsible for administration of the Census of Agriculture, which occurs every
five years and provides comprehensive data on the U.S. agricultural economy.
The REE mission area received $2.586 billion in FY2011, which is $251.7 million (-9%) than the
mission area received in FY2010. Each of the REE agencies received a budget cut in FY2011,
relative to FY2010 levels, with ARS and NIFA experiencing the biggest cuts, almost 10% for
each agency. The FY2011 enacted appropriation did not include any earmarks or congressionally
designated spending items. For FY2012, the House-passed bill provides the REE mission area
with $2.217 billion, which is a further reduction by $369 million (-14%) from FY2011 levels.
The Senate-reported bill provides $2.538 billion for the REE mission area, which is $321.5
million more than the House-passed bill, and $47 million below FY2011(-2%). (Table 8).
The 2008 farm bill instituted significant changes in the structure of the REE mission area, but
retained and extended the existing authorities for REE programs. The 2008 farm bill called for the
establishment of a new agency called the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA,
formerly CSREES), which USDA launched on October 8, 2009. The 2008 farm bill also created
a new competitive grants program, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), which

14 See CRS Report R41896, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
25

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

replaced two previously authorized competitive grants programs, and created several new
research initiatives related to specialty crops, organic agriculture, and bioenergy.15
When adjusted for inflation, USDA-funding levels for agriculture research, education, and
extension have remained relatively flat from the early 1970s to 2000 (Figure 11).16 From
FY2001 through FY2003, supplemental funds appropriated specifically for anti-terrorism
activities accounted for most of the increases in the USDA research budget. Funding levels since
have remained fairly constant on an inflation-adjusted basis, although ARS received supplemental
funding for buildings and facilities in FY2009. ARS and NIFA account for most of the research
budget and their appropriations generally have tracked each other. Nonetheless, once adjusted for
inflation, these increases are not viewed by some as significant growth in spending for
agricultural research. Agricultural scientists, stakeholders, and partners express concern for
funding over the long term.
Figure 11. USDA Research Budget, FY1972-FY2011
Billion
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
Actual
2011 dollars
$0.0
1972
1977
1982
1987
1992
1997
2002
2007
2012

Source: Compiled by CRS from Congressional Budget Justifications, various years.
Agricultural Research Service
The enacted FY2011 appropriation provided a total of $1.133 billion for USDA’s in-house
science agency, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), which is $117.3 million less than (-9%)
the regular FY2010 level and 5.5% less than the President’s request. This FY2011 amount is
allocated entirely to salaries and expenses of the agency and does not include any resources for
ARS Buildings and Facilities. In fact, about $230 million in unobligated balances for ARS
Buildings and Facilities were rescinded.

15 For more information on USDA research, education, and extension programs, see CRS Report R40819, Agricultural
Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and Background.
16 Based on analysis of USDA data.
Congressional Research Service
26

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

For FY2012, the Administration requested $1.137 billion. The House-passed agricultural
appropriations bill, H.R. 2112, provides $987.5 million for ARS, which is $145.7 million less
than (-13%) appropriated in FY2011. The Senate-reported bill provides $1.095 billion, which is
$107.1 million more than the House-passed bill, and $38.6 million below FY2011 (-3%). Both
the House and the Senate committees concur with the USDA’s proposal to close 10 agricultural
research facilities in the following locations: Fairbanks, Alaska; Shafter, California; Brooksville,
Florida; Watkinsville, Georgia; New Orleans, Louisiana; Coshocton, Ohio; Lane, Oklahoma;
Clemson, South Carolina; Weslaco, Texas; and Beaver, West Virginia.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
The enacted FY2011 appropriation provided $1.215 billion for NIFA, which was a $128 million
decrease (-10%) from the enacted FY2010 level and the President’s FY2011 request. Research
and Education activities received about a $90 million cut (-11%), though the Agriculture and
Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive grants program and several of the formula fund
programs such as the Hatch Act, the Evans-Allen Act, and the McIntire-Stennis forestry programs
actually received funding increases compared to FY2010. Reductions in research funding was
primarily due to the removal of all congressionally earmarked programs. Extension activities
were appropriated about $16 million less (-3%) compared with FY2010, whereas Integrated
Activities were appropriated about $23 million less than (-39%) in FY2010.
For FY2012, the Administration requested $1.205 billion for NIFA. House-passed H.R. 2112
provides $1.012 billion, which is $202.8 million less than (-17%) appropriated in FY2011. The
Senate-reported bill provides $1.214 billion, which is $202 million more than the House-passed
bill, and essentially equal to FY2011.
The House-passed bill cut funding for research and education by over 15% from FY2011 levels,
specifically reducing the competitive grant program AFRI by almost 14% and the primary
formula fund that supports agricultural research under the Hatch Act by about 13%. Extension
and Integrated Activities are also reduced considerably, by 15% and 67%, respectively.
The Senate bill, on the other hand, maintains FY2012 NIFA funding close to FY2011 levels, with
a less than 1% cut. Funding for research and education activities are actually slightly higher in
the Senate-passed bill compared with FY2011, by 1.6%. Extension funding is maintained at
almost FY2011 levels, though the Smith-Lever extension formula funds received a slight increase
in funding. Integrated Activities are cut by almost 30%, though the Senate committee noted that
programs previously funded through the Integrated Activities account would be eligible for
funding under AFRI.
Economic Research Service
The enacted FY2011 appropriation provided $81.8 million for the Economic Research Service
(ERS), which was only $0.7 million less than the FY2010 level. The Administration requested
$86.0 million for ERS for FY2012. House-passed H.R. 2112 included $69.5 million, which is
more than a 15% cut from the FY2011 level, and about 19% less than the President’s request. The
Senate-reported bill provides $77.7 million, which is $8.2 million more than the House-passed
bill, and $4.1 million less (-5%) than FY2011.

Congressional Research Service
27

Table 8. USDA REE Mission Area Appropriations, FY2008-FY2011 and FY2012 Proposed
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Change from FY2011
Change from FY2011

FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
to House-passed
to Senate-report
P.L. 111-
P.L. 111-
P.L. 112-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Agency and Program
8
80
10
Request
passed
report
$ % $ %
Agric. Research Service
1,187.2
1,250.5
1,133.2
1,137.7
987.5
1,094.6
-145.7
-12.9
-38.6
-3.4
Nat’l Institute of Food & Agriculture
1,222.2
1,343.2
1,214.8
1,205.0
1,012.0
1,214.0
-202.8
-16.7
-0.80
-0.07
Research
and
Education
691.0 788.2 698.7 708.0 591.7 709.8 -107.0 -15.3 +11.1 +1.6
AFRI
201.5 262.5 264.5 262.5 227.7 266 -36.8 -13.9 +1.5 +0.6
Hatch-Act
207.1 215.0 236.3 215.0 206.4 236.3 -29.9 -12.7 -0.03 -0.01
Evans-Al en
45.5 48.5 50.9 48.5 47.6 50.9 -3.3 -6.4 0
0
McIntire-Stennis
27.5 29.0 32.9 27.6 29.8 32.9 -3.2 -9.6 -0.03 -0.1

Extension
474.3 494.9 479.1 467.0 408.0 478.2 -71.1 -14.9 -0.9 -0.2
Smith-Lever
(b)&(c)
288.5 297.5 293.9 282.6 257.2 295.8 -36.7 -12.5 +1.9 +0.6
Integrated
Activities
56.9 60.0 36.9 30.0 12.3 26.0 -24.6 -66.7 -10.9 -29.6
Economic
Research
Service
79.5 82.5 81.8 86.0 69.5 77.7 -8.1
-15.11 -4.1 -5.0
Nat’l Agricultural Statistics Service
151.6
161.8
156.4
165.4
148.3
152.6
-368.9
-5.2
-3.9
-2.5
Total, REE Mission Area
2,640.4
2,838.0
2,586.3
2,594.1
2,217.4
2,538.9
-368.9
-14.3
-47.4
-1.8
Source: Compiled by CRS.

CRS-28

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

National Agricultural Statistics Service
The enacted FY2011 appropriation provided $156.4 million for the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS), which is a decrease of $5.4 million (-3%) from the FY2010 level. The
Administration requested $165.4 million for NASS for FY2012. H.R. 2112 included $148.3
million, which is a 5% decrease from the FY2011 level, and more than 10% less than the
Administration’s request. The Senate-reported bill provides $152.6 million, which is $4.3 million
more than the House-passed bill, and $3.9 million less than FY2011 (-2.5%).
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Three agencies carry out USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs mission area: the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for protecting U.S.
agriculture from domestic and foreign pests and diseases, responding to domestic animal and
plant health problems, and facilitating agricultural trade through science-based standards. APHIS
has key responsibilities for dealing with prominent concerns such as avian influenza (AI), bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), bovine tuberculosis, a growing number
of invasive plant pests—such as the Emerald Ash Borer, the Asian Long-horned Beetle, and the
Glassy-winged Sharpshooter—and a national animal identification (ID) program for animal
disease tracking and control. APHIS also is charged with administering the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA), which seeks to protect pets and other animals used for research and entertainment.
The House-passed bill proposes sharper reductions than the Senate committee bill. The House bill
provides a total of $787 million for APHIS for FY2012. This includes $783.8 million for APHIS
salaries and expenses (reflecting the 0.78% rescission), which is nearly $80 million less than
FY2011 ($863.3 million) and $50 million less than the Administration’s request ($832.7 million).
The Senate bill provides a total of $823.3 million for APHIS for FY2012, which is about $43
million less than FY2011 and about $14 million less than the Administration’s request. Both the
House and Senate bill authorize $3.2 million for buildings and facilities (compared to a proposed
$4.7 million in the Administration’s request).
Both the House and Senate bills authorize APHIS to collect fees to cover the total costs of
providing technical assistance, goods, or services in certain cases. Both bills also direct APHIS to
use cost-sharing agreements or matching requirements with states, territories, producers, foreign
governments, and other entities to reduce the agency’s cost burden.
The Administration’s FY2012 budget request proposed a new budget structure for APHIS to
manage 29 budgetary line items instead of 45 line items. The committee report expresses support
for this proposed budget structure. Currently, APHIS individual budget line items are associated
with a specific animal or plant pest or disease. The new budget structure proposes moving from
specific animal disease line items to a commodity-based structure with commodity “Health” lines
that “integrate the activities needed to address the health concerns for each commodity” and will
Congressional Research Service
29

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

facilitate “the Agency’s ability to adjust rapidly or efficiently to new or emerging situations.”17
Both the House and Senate bills appear to support this restructuring. The House report states “this
increased flexibility will allow APHIS to apply the greatest resources to the greatest threats or
risks within a line item and to prioritize funds accordingly”; however, the committee reiterates
that it expects APHIS “to apply appropriated funds to the agency’s historical core programs and
mission area first before allocating resources to those less critical functions or initiatives.”18
Within APHIS, the two bills differ across each of the proposed budget categories. Differences
between the House and Senate bills, respectively, are as follows: animal health ($288.5 million
versus $287.4 million); plant health ($293.2 million versus $317.4 million); wildlife services
($88.8 million versus $90.6 million); regulatory services ($31.3 million versus $34.4 million);
safeguarding and emergency preparedness ($18.9 million versus $18.8 million); safe trade and
international technical assistance ($31.8 million versus $33.5 million); animal welfare ($22.3
million versus $27.1 million); and agency management ($9.1 million versus $10.2 million).
The two bills also differ in terms of the types of highlighted programs and/or funding levels under
consideration. The House bill identifies funding for certain programs (to remain available until
expended), including $16.0 million for the cotton pests program for either cost share purposes or
for debt retirement for active eradication zones; $32.5 million for Animal Health Technical
Services; $54.0 million to support avian health; $4.2 million for information technology
infrastructure; $147.0 million for specialty crop pests; $9.0 million for field crop and rangeland
ecosystem pests; $52.0 million for tree and wood pests; $2.3 million for the National Veterinary
Stockpile; $1.5 million for the scrapie program for indemnities; $1.0 million for wildlife services
methods development; and $1.5 million for the wildlife damage management program for
aviation safety (before 0.78% rescission). The House bill further specifies certain funding
requirements regarding the screwworm program; encourages APHIS to fund the Pale Cyst
Nematode eradication program at levels above the President’s FY2012 budget request of $6.2
million;19 and directs APHIS to provide funding for sudden oak death and to work with other
USDA agencies and states to implement a control program for the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug.
The House committee report further directs APHIS to use resources to enforce the Horse
Protection Act and maintain the Designated Qualified Person program and use its animal welfare
resources to regulate the pets of extras in filmed entertainment. The House bill also requires that
APHIS submit two reports to the committee: one report to examine the range and degree of
equine diseases in the United States, along with estimated program spending for FY2011-2012,
and a second report to address the status of USDA’s Animal Disease Traceability/National Animal
Identification System, whether the mandatory approach is low cost, provide an update on the cost,
schedule, and/or milestones, and describe any cost differences and plans for corrective actions.20
Highlighted programs and/or funding levels differ in the Senate bill, including $17.8 million for
cotton pests program; $7 million for Animal Disease Traceability; $0.9 million for activities under
the Horse Protection Act of 1970; $48.7 million to support avian health; $4.5 million for
information technology infrastructure; $154.0 million for specialty crop pests; $9.1 million for

17 USDA, “2012 Explanatory Notes, APHIS,” pp. 18-47 through 18-50, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
18aphis2012notes.pdf.
18 H.Rept. 112-101.
19 USDA, “2012 Explanatory Notes, APHIS,” pp. 18-30, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/18aphis2012notes.pdf.
20 See CRS Report R40832, Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues.
Congressional Research Service
30

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

field crop and rangeland ecosystem pests; $59.0 million for tree and wood pests; $3.6 million for
the National Veterinary Stockpile; $1.5 million for the scrapie program for indemnities; $1
million for wildlife services methods development; $1.5 million for the wildlife services damage
management program for aviation safety; $5.0 million for the screwworm program; $27.5 million
be used for agricultural quarantine inspection; $18.1 million for the continued development of
technical and scientific information on wildlife damage management; and $72.5 million for
wildlife damage control, including preventing the transport of invasive and other harmful species.
The Senate committee report further expresses concern about declining bee populations and
invasive honey bee pests, issues surrounding equine transport, and increasing loses of livestock to
predation; directs USDA to engage the private sector in evaluating proposals regarding livestock
warranty programs; and directs APHIS to focus its standardized wildlife services education and
training programs in the areas of pyrotechnics, firearms, hazardous materials, immobilization and
euthanasia drugs, pesticides, and animal care and handling. The Senate also expresses the
expectation that APHIS direct funding for sudden oak death, and the expectation that APHIS
funding for Specialty Crop Pests be supplemented with contingency or CCC funds for the
emergency purpose of eradicating the European Grape Vine Moth.
Both the House and Senate bills require that matching state funds be at least 40% for formulating
and administering a brucellosis eradication program, and set limitations on the operation and
maintenance of aircrafts and aircraft purchases, and requires that any repair and alteration of
leased buildings and improvements not exceed 10% of the current replacement value of the
building.
As in previous years, both bills highlight that appropriators expect USDA to continue to use the
authority provided in this bill to transfer funds from other appropriations or funds available to
USDA for activities related to the arrest and eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases.21
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and congressional appropriators have sparred for
years over whether APHIS should—as appropriators have preferred—reach as needed into
USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) account for mandatory funds to deal with
emerging plant pests and other plant and animal health problems on an emergency basis, or be
provided the funds primarily through the annual USDA appropriation, as OMB has argued. In
particular, both committees highlight the need for USDA to use its authority to transfer CCC
funds to address emerging plant pests. Both the House and Senate bills provide money be
available until expended for a “contingency fund” to control outbreaks of insects, plant diseases,
animal diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to meet
emergency conditions. The House bill provides for a $2 million contingency fund, whereas the
Senate bill provides $1 million for such a fund.
Agricultural Marketing Service and Section 32
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is responsible for promoting the marketing and
distribution of U.S. agricultural products in domestic and international markets. User fees and
reimbursements, rather than appropriated funds, account for a substantial portion of funding for
the agency. Such fees cover AMS activities like product quality and process verification
programs, commodity grading, and Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act licensing.

21 Per the conference report, this provision is in accordance with the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and
8316, sections 10411 and 10417) and the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7751 and 7772, sections 431 and 442).
Congressional Research Service
31

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

AMS historically receives additional funding each year through two separate appropriations
mechanisms—the direct annual USDA appropriation, and a transfer from the so-called Section 32
account. For FY2012, the House-passed bill would provide $78.5 million (AMS expenses plus
payments to states and possessions), 11% less than the FY2011 enacted appropriation of $87.9
million. The Senate-reported bill would provide $83.4 million for the same purposes, 5% less
than the FY2011 amount.
As mentioned above, the Section 32 account is also funded by a permanent appropriation of 30%
of the previous calendar year’s customs receipts, less certain mandatory transfers. AMS uses
these additional Section 32 funds (not reflected in the above totals) to pay for a variety of
programs and activities, notably child nutrition, and government purchases of surplus farm
commodities not supported by ongoing farm price support programs. The 2008 farm bill set the
maximum annual amount of Section 32 funds that would be available for obligation by AMS.
This amount is $1.199 billion for FY2010, $1.215 billion for FY2011, and $1.231 billion for
FY2012. At the same time, the 2008 farm bill also mandated that funding for a newly authorized
fresh fruit and vegetable program in schools comes from the amount of Section 32 funds
available for obligation by AMS.22 The 2008 farm bill also requires additional purchases of
Section 32 funds to be used during FY2011 to purchase fruit, vegetables, and nuts for domestic
food assistance programs. 23
The Senate-reported bill, like the House-passed bill provides $1.08 billion of Section 32 funds for
AMS, an increase of 1% over the $1.065 billion in FY2011. This amount represents the actual
level of funding available for obligations by AMS, after rescissions and mandatory transfers have
been made, and is considered mandatory spending. Section 32 funds available for obligation by
AMS have been used at the Secretary’s discretion, primarily to fund commodity purchases to
support the agriculture sector and farm prices, for the school lunch and other domestic programs,
and to provide disaster assistance.
Rescissions of Section 32 carryover funds are generally used to achieve budgetary savings. The
enacted appropriation for FY2010 contained, under Title VII (General Provisions), a rescission of
$52.5 million from unobligated balances carried over from FY2009. The FY2011 enacted
appropriation did not rescind any Section 32 funds, but both the House-passed agriculture
appropriations and the Senate-reported bill for FY2012 include a $150 million rescission of
unobligated balances. In addition, both the House and Senate FY2012 agriculture appropriations
include a provision that effectively prohibits the use of Section 32 funds for direct payment to
farmers: “none of the funds appropriate or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall
be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any employee of the Department of Agriculture or
officer of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out clause 3 of section 32 of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 195 (Public Law 74-320, 7 U.S.C. 612c, as amended) or for any
surplus removal activities or price support activities under section 5 of the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act”.24

22 Under Sec. 4304, funding for the fresh fruit and vegetable school snack program is mandated to come from Section
32 in the following amounts: $40 million on October 1, 2008; $65 million on July 1, 2009; $101 million on July 1,
2010; $150 million on July 1, 2011; and for each succeeding July 1, the 2011 amount is to be adjusted for inflation.
23 For more details about Section 32 and the farm bill changes, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support
Under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
24 Clause 3 of Section 32 provides that funds shall be used to: Re-establish farmers’ purchasing power by making
payments in connections with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption.
(7.U.S.C 612c)
Congressional Research Service
32

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration
USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) oversees the
marketing of U.S. grain, oilseeds, livestock, poultry, meat, and other commodities. GIPSA’s
Federal Grain Inspection Service establishes standards for the inspection, weighing, and grading
of grain, rice, and other commodities. The Packers and Stockyards Program monitors livestock
and poultry markets to ensure fair competition and guard against deceptive and fraudulent trade
practices.
The Senate-reported bill provides $38.2 million for GIPSA salaries and expenses for FY2012.
This is $1.5 million more than the House-passed bill. The Senate-reported appropriation is $2.0
million (-5%) less than appropriated for FY2011 and $5.9 million (-13%) below the
Administration’s budget request of $44.2 million. The Senate appropriation authorizes GIPSA to
collect up $50 million in user fees for inspection and weighing services, matching the
Administration’s request.
The House-passed bill provides $36.7 million (after the 0.78% rescission) for GIPSA salaries and
expenses for FY2012, which is $3.5 million (-9%) less than FY2011, and $7.5 million (-17%) less
than the Administration’s budget request. GIPSA is authorized to collect up to $47.5 million in
user fees to cover inspection and weighing services, unchanged from the FY2011 appropriation.
The Senate-reported bill, unlike the House-passed bill, does not include a provision to prohibit
GIPSA from spending funds to finalize its proposed rule on livestock and poultry marketing
practices. Section 721 of the House-passed bill includes language that prohibits GIPSA from
spending funds to write, prepare, develop, or publish a final rule or an interim final rule in
furtherance of, or otherwise to implement, the proposed rule entitled “Implementation of
Regulations Required Under Title XI of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008;
Conduct in Violation of the Act’’ (75 Fed. Reg. 35338, June 22, 2010).
In June 2010, GIPSA issued the proposed rule as mandated by the 2008 farm bill. The proposed
rule addresses how “harm or likely harm to competition” is treated under the Packers and
Stockyards Act (7 USC §181 et seq.), sets criteria for unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive
practices, and includes arbitration provisions that give contract growers opportunities to
participate in meaningful arbitration.25 The proposed rule is contentious and generated more than
60,000 public comments.
In the House report accompanying H.R. 2112, the Committee expressed its concern that GIPSA’s
proposed rule misinterpreted the intent of Congress concerning the regulation of livestock
marketing practices. The Committee report also expressed concern that USDA may not have
complied with the Administrative Procedures Act that governs rulemaking by publishing its
“Farm Bill Regulations—Misconceptions and Explanations” document. In addition, by closing
the comment period in November 2010 before holding the last of five workshops on competition
held jointly with the Department of Justice in December 2010, the Department might have limited
the public’s ability to comment on the proposed rule.

25 See CRS Report R41673, USDA’s Proposed Rule on Livestock and Poultry Marketing Practices.
Congressional Research Service
33

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Food Safety
Numerous federal, state, and local agencies share responsibilities for regulating the safety of the
U.S. food supply.26 Federal responsibility for food safety rests primarily with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). FDA, an agency of the
Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for ensuring the safety of the majority
of all domestic and imported food products (except for meat and poultry products). USDA’s Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates most meat, poultry, and processed egg products.
The agriculture appropriations subcommittees oversee both the FDA and FSIS budgets.
Historically, funding and staffing levels between FDA and FSIS have been disproportionate to
their respective responsibilities to address food safety activities. FSIS is responsible for between
10%-20% of the U.S. food supply, while FDA is responsible for the remainder.27 However, FSIS
has had approximately 60% of the two agencies’ combined food safety budget, and FDA had the
other approximately 40%. For example, in FY2011, FSIS received $1.007 billion in appropriated
funds plus another approximately $150 million in industry-paid user fees.28 By contrast, FDA’s
FY2011 budget for foods was $835.7 million, virtually all of it appropriated with limited
authorized user fees.29 Staffing levels also vary considerably among the two agencies: FSIS staff
numbers around 9,600 FTEs, while FDA staff working on food-related activities numbers about
3,400 FTEs (FY2011 estimates).
The comprehensive food safety legislation that was enacted in the 111th Congress (FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), P.L. 111-353) authorized additional appropriations and staff
for FDA’s future food safety activities.30 FSMA was the largest expansion of FDA’s food safety
authorities since the 1930s. Among its many provisions, FSMA increases frequency of
inspections at food facilities, tightens record-keeping requirements, extends oversight to certain
farms, and mandates product recalls. It requires food processing, manufacturing, shipping, and
other facilities to conduct a food safety plan of the most likely safety hazards, and design and
implement risk-based controls. It also mandates improvements to the nation’s foodborne illness
surveillance systems and increased scrutiny of food imports, among other provisions. FSMA did
not directly address meat and poultry products under USDA’s jurisdiction.
Prior to enactment, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that implementing FSMA
could increase net federal spending subject to appropriation by about $1.4 billion over a five-year
period (FY2011-FY2015).31 This cost estimate covers activities at FDA and other federal

26 For more information, see CRS Report RS22600, The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer.
27 The 20% estimate is based on information reported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in “Revamping
Oversight of Food Safety,” prepared for the 2009 Congressional and Presidential Transition, and appears to represent
proportions of total spending for food consumed at home. The 10% estimate is based on data from USDA’s Economic
Research Service (ERS) on U.S. per capita food consumption at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/.
28 USDA, 2012 Explanatory Notes, Food Safety and Inspection Service, February 12, 2011, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
21fsis2012notes.pdf.
29 FDA “Operating Plan for FY 2011 and Comparisions to FY 2010,” http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/
2011operatingplan_fda.pdf.
30 P.L. 111-353 amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA; 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.).
31 CBO, Cost Estimate, “S. 510, Food Safety Modernization Act, as reported by the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions on December 18, 2009, incorporating a manager’s amendment released on August 12,
2010,” August 12, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11794/s510.pdf. Reflecting the August 2010 Senate
amendment to S. 510. Estimated total costs would be covered by a combination of user fees and direct appropriations
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
34

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

agencies, and does not include offsetting revenue from the collection of new user fees authorized
under FSMA. New fees authorized under FSMA include an annual fee for participants in the
voluntary qualified importer program (VQIP) and three fees for certain periodic activities
involving reinspection, recall, and export certification.32 FSMA did not impose any new facility
registration fees. Prior to enactment, CBO estimated that about $240 million in new fees would
be collected over the five-year period (FY2011-FY2015).33 Taking into account these new fees,
CBO estimated that covering the five-year cost of new requirements within FDA, including more
frequent inspections, would require additional outlays of $1.1 billion. FSMA also authorized an
increase in FDA staff, reaching 5,000 by FY2014.34
Although Congress authorized appropriations when it enacted FSMA, it did not provide the full
funding needed for FDA to perform these activities. After FSMA was signed into law in January
2011, concerns were voiced about whether there would be enough money to overhaul the U.S.
food safety system and also whether expanded investment in this area is appropriate in the current
budgetary climate.35 The Administration’s budget requested a more than 30% increase in
additional funding for FDA’s food program, while its request for USDA’s FSIS was lower
compared to FY2010 appropriations (Table 9).36
As part of the House Appropriations Committee Oversight Plan, the Agriculture subcommittee
held two budget hearings on USDA and FDA food safety in March 2011.37 The Subcommittee
also discussed the federal food safety inspection system, including coordination between USDA
and FDA, and also FSMA implementation.
Not including funding from expected user fees, the House-passed FY2012 agriculture
appropriations bill (H.R. 2112) provides for a reduction in agency funding for food safety efforts
within FDA (-11%) and USDA (-4%), compared with the FY2011 appropriations.38 The Senate
bill provides an increase (4%) for FDA above FY2011 appropriations, and maintains FSIS
funding at FY2011 levels.

(...continued)
(budget authority).
32 FSMA, P.L. 111-353, Sections 107 and 401. Details of these annual and periodic fees are presented in CRS Report
R40443, The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (P.L. 111-353).
33 As estimated by CBO, these fees would be phased in as follows: $15 million (FY2011), $27 million (FY2012); $47
million (FY2013); $63 million (FY2014); and $89 million (FY2015).
34 FSMA, P.L. 111-353, Section 401. By fiscal year, staff level increases were authorized to a total of not fewer than:
4,000 staff members (FY2011); 4,200 staff (FY2012); 4,600 staff (FY2013); and 5,000 staff (FY2014).
35 See “Food Safety Bill Advocates Expect Funding Fight,” Food Safety News, January 4, 2011.
36 See “Obama’s Budget Plan Would Boost FDA, Cut FSIS,” Food Safety News, February 15, 2011.
37 House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies, Budget Hearing on USDA Food Safety (March 15, 2011) and Food and Drug
Administration (March 11, 2011), http://appropriations.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=235975 and
http://appropriations.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=235976.
38 Measured against FY2011 appropriations as reported in the FDA “Operating Plan for FY 2011 and Comparisons to
FY 2010,” http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2011operatingplan_fda.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 9. Appropriations for Food Safety
(FTEs as indicated, and budget authority in millions of dollars)
Program Level,
Agency/Year FTEsa Appropriationb
Including Fees
HHS Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “Foods” Subtotal Only
FY2010 Appropriation
3,387
782.6
782.6
FY2011 Appropriation
3,387
835.7
835.7
FY2012 Administration Budget
4,173
955.3
1,035.1
H.R. 2112, House (before rescission)
NA
752.2
799.8
H.R. 2112, House (after 0.78% rescission)
NA
746.3
794.0
H.R. 2112, Senate
NA
867.1
946.2
Comparison with House bill (after 0.78% rescission) to:
FY2011 Appropriation
NA
-89.4 (-10.7%)
-41.7 (-5.0%)
FY2012 Administration Budget
NA
-209.0 (-21.9%)
-241.1 (-23.3%)
Comparison with Senate bill to:
FY2011 Appropriation
NA
31.4 (3.8%)
110.5 (13.2%)
FY2012 Administration Budget
NA
-88.2 (-9.2%)
-88.9 (-8.6%)
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
FY2010 Appropriation
9,401
1,018.5
NA
FY2011 Appropriation
9,587
1,006.5
NA
FY2012 Administration Budget
9,625
1,011.4
NA
H.R. 2112, House (before rescission)
NA
972.0
NA
H.R. 2112, House (after 0.78% rescission)
NA
964.4
NA
H.R. 2112, Senate
NA
1,006.5
NA
Comparison with House bill (after 0.78% rescission) to:
FY2011 Appropriation
NA
-42.1 (-4.2%)
NA
FY2012 Administration Budget

-47.0 (-4.6%) NA
Comparison with Senate bill to:
FY2011 Appropriation
NA
0.0 (0%)
NA
FY2012 Administration Budget
NA
-4.9 (-0.5%)
NA
Source: CRS using data from House and Senate bill versions (H.R. 2112); H.Rept. 112-101; and S.Rept. 112-73.
FTEs and FDA “Foods” are from USDA and FDA. May not add due to rounding. FY2010 and FY2011 reflect
updated numbers reported in the Senate bill.
Notes: Percentages in parentheses reflect the difference between H.R. 2112 and FY2011 and budget request.
a. Staffing in full time equivalents. HHS, “Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” Fiscal
Year 2012 FDA, February 14, 2011, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/
Reports/BudgetReports/CM243370.pdf; and USDA, “2012 Explanatory Notes,” Food Safety and Inspection
Service, February 12, 2011, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/21fsis2012notes.pdf.
b. FY2010 and FY2011 appropriations as reported in the FDA “Operating Plan for FY 2011 and Comparisons
to FY 2010,” http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2011operatingplan_fda.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
36

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
FDA’s foods program account for about one-third of FDA’s budget authority for all its programs.
The House-passed bill appropriates $746.3 million, after the 0.78% rescission and not including
funding from expected user fees; the Senate bill appropriates $867.1 million, not including user
fees (Table 9). Compared to FY2011, the House bill provides about $90 million less for FDA’s
foods program for FY2012, approximately an 11% reduction in appropriated funding. The Senate
bill provides an additional roughly $30 million for FDA’s foods program for FY2012, about a 4%
increase compared to FY2011 (Table 9). Neither bill provides break outs by the various activities
within FDA’s foods program or other FDA program areas.
Both bills assume FDA will collect additional revenue in new user fees under its foods program,
but they differ in terms of which activities and how much will be collected. These authorized
fees, as amended under FSMA, include food and feed recall fees, food reinspection fees, export
certification fees, and voluntary qualified importer program fees. The House bill assumes that
food-related user fees will total about $48 million, whereas the Senate bill assumes about $72
million in user fees. Both the House and Senate bills provide less than that requested in the
President’s FY2012 budget. This has raised questions about how FDA will be able to implement
food safety reforms authorized in the 111th Congress, and also questions about how FDA and
USDA will be able to invest in preventive efforts intended to address existing and emerging food
safety threats. The President’s request projected a total need of $1.035 billion for FDA’s food
program for FY2012, not including expected fees.39 FDA justifies its requested increase to
implement the various elements of the newly enacted food safety law, FSMA, including
preventive controls on farms (FSMA Section 105); preventive controls for food and feed
processing (FSMA Sections 101, 103, 104, 110, 204, 405); safe food transport (FSMA Section
111); retail food safety (FSMA Section 209); import oversight (FSMA Sections 201, 211, 301-
308); and integrated Food Safety System (FSMA Sections 201, 205, 209 and 210), among other
activities.40
The House committee acknowledges CBO’s projected estimate that FSMA implementation could
require an additional $1.4 billion in new program level funding for FDA’s foods program;
however, the committee further states that if the President’s FY2012 budget request were adopted,
this would result in a 156% increase for FDA since 2004—a level of spending the committee
deems “unsustainable.”41 The Obama Administration has criticized the House-passed reduction in
funding for FDA’s foods program.42
The Senate also recognizes that current budget constraints do not allow for the Administration’s
full funding request for FSMA implementation. The Senate directs FDA to “apply these increased
funds to the highest priority food safety activities” including “publication of new preventative
controls for food processing facilities, additional import oversight and inspections of both foreign
and domestic facilities, and improved scientific capabilities.”43 FDA is directed to report within

39 Includes $955.3 million in budget authority plus $79.8 million in expected user fees. HHS, Fiscal Year 2012 FDA,
“Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” February 14, 2011, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/UCM243370.pdf.
40 Ibid.
41 H.Rept. 112-101.
42 See, for example, Helena Bottemiller, “Obama Blasts GOP for Food Safety Budget Cuts,” Food Safety News, June
30, 2011.
43 S.Rept. 112-73.
Congressional Research Service
37

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

30 days of enactment on how FDA intends to allocate these funds. Nevertheless, the Senate bill
specifically provides a $40 million increase for FDA to begin implementing FSMA.
The House committee report contains other recommendations for FDA. It recommends that FDA
further clarify its seafood advisory regarding seafood consumption during pregnancy, and directs
FDA to initiate formal reconsideration of the 2004 advisory in consideration of the 2010 Dietary
Guidelines. The committee makes certain recommendations regarding FDA’s 2011 proposed rule
on nutrition labeling of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments.
It also directs FDA to issue its final rule to define and permit the use of the term `gluten-free’ on
food labels before December 31, 2011.
During the House floor debate, both Representatives Dingell and DeLauro introduced
amendments to restore funding for FDA’s food safety programs. These amendments were not
adopted. Representative Dingell’s amendment would have increased funding by $49 million for
FDA’s FSMA implementation and other food safety efforts, while Representative DeLauro’s
amendment would have increased funding by $1 million for FDA’s Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) to invest in foodborne illness preventive efforts.44
The House-passed bill also specifies that funds not be used for USDA’s Microbiological Data
Program, which is administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and tests samples
of domestic and imported fresh fruits and vegetables to monitor for microbial contamination and
foodborne pathogens frequently associated with foodborne illness. The committee report states
that “other Federal and state public health agencies are better equipped to perform this function”
and that these agencies, including FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
and/or the state departments of health and agriculture, should either collect such data under their
purview or “consider entering into reimbursable agreements with USDA.”45 During House floor
debate, Representative Clarke introduced an amendment to restore $1 million for the
Microbiological Data Program; however, this amendment was not adopted.
The Senate committee report also contains a series of recommendations for FDA. It recommends
that USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services engage in food safety information
sharing by entering into a memorandum of understanding between the relevant HHS and USDA
agencies, including FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FSIS, ARS, and APHIS
“to ensure the timely and efficient sharing of all information collected by such agencies related to
foodborne pathogens, contaminants and illnesses.” The committee also makes recommendations
regarding concerns about seafood safety, especially imported product, as well as concerns about
antimicrobial resistance and FDA’s publication of its draft industry guidance.
Both the House and Senate committee recommends that FDA “collaborate on its research needs
where possible to reduce redundancy regarding food safety research in produce and to find
efficiencies where possible when constructing new research facilities.”46 Both committees also
direct FDA to enhance its trade facilitation and interagency cooperation efforts towards the most
serious compliance infractions, and recommend that FDA establish a pilot project to expedite
imports for “highly compliant importers,” modeled after the Customs and Border Protection

44 See, for example, Congressional Record, June 14-15, 2011, pp. H4164-H4165, H4253-H4256, and H4179-H4181.
45 H.Rept. 112-101.
46 H.Rept. 112-101 and S.Rept. 112-73.
Congressional Research Service
38

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

(CBP) Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and Importer Self-Assessment programs,
thereby facilitating trade and interagency cooperation.
The bill reported by the House committee had included a provision seeking to prohibit funding
for FDA rulemaking activities or guidance “intended to restrict the use of a substance or a
compound” unless such a rule, regulation or guidance is based on “hard science” and “that the
weight of toxicological evidence, epidemiological evidence, and risk assessments clearly justifies
such action.”47 The provision was added in committee as an amendment by Representative Denny
Rehberg. Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton, challenged the
amendment as a violation of the House rule against legislating on a spending bill. Some media
reports claim this provision is intended to prevent the FDA from restricting the use of antibiotics
in feed for farm animals,48 among other FDA actions including its consumer safety and tobacco
regulation efforts.49 The provision was later removed under a point of order.
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
For USDA’s FSIS, the House-passed bill provides $964.4 million for FY2012, including the
rescission. This compares to $1.007 billion for FY2011 and $1.011 billion in the Administration’s
request, a 4%-5% reduction from each (Table 9). The Senate-reported bill maintains funding for
FSIS at FY2011 levels with $1,006.5 million, which is nearly $5 million (under 1%) of the
President’s FY2012 request.
These congressional appropriations are expected to be augmented by existing (currently
authorized) user fees, which FSIS had earlier estimated would total approximately $150 million,50
as well as another $1 million credited to FSIS from fees collected for the cost of laboratory
accreditation.51 Neither the House or Senate bill assumes the adoption of two new user fees,
proposed by the Administration, to partly recover the increased costs of providing additional
inspections and related services. Estimated revenue from these two fees, which would require
new authorizing legislation, would be an estimated $8.6 million and $4.0 million, respectively.52
The House report includes recommendations for FSIS to continue its efforts under an ongoing
pilot inspection program for poultry slaughter inspection and its efforts to improve enforcement
of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. The committee also urges FSIS to take the necessary
steps to protect the public health from E. coli serotypes other than E. coli 0157:H7. The House-
passed bill would further prohibit any funds from being paid for salaries or expenses of personnel
to inspect horses under various meat inspection laws and regulations.

47 Committee-reported bill, H.R. 2112, Section 740.
48 “Upton Wants Amendment on FDA Rule Struck from Spending Bill,” CQ Today Online, June 8, 2011; “Republicans
target Obama anti-obesity measures,” Washington Post, June 2, 2011; and “Farm, Food Programs Up for Cuts In House
Agriculture Spending Bill,” CQ Weekly, June 6, 2011.
49 “House expected to strip FDA language, other parts of agriculture approps bill,” The Hill, June 14, 2011; and “House
Appropriations Amendment Would Weaken FDA’s Authority over Tobacco, Unleash Big Tobacco on America’s
Kids,” American Lung Association, June 1, 2011.
50 USDA, 2012 Explanatory Notes, Food Safety and Inspection Service, February 12, 2011, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
21fsis2012notes.pdf.
51 Authorized by section 1327 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f).
52 USDA 2012 Explanatory Notes, Food Safety and Inspection Service, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
21fsis2012notes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
39

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The Senate bill includes recommendations regarding the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
(HMSA), requiring FSIS to maintain no fewer than 148 FTEs to inspect and enforce HMSA
during FY2012 and to report to the committee on the implementation of objective scoring
methods to enforce the HMSA, as well as provide assurances that personnel hired with funding
provided specifically for HMSA were used for such purposes. The Senate committee report also
directs FSIS to continue its implementation of a grading and inspection program for catfish as
required under the 2008 farm bill.53 It also expresses concerns regarding the implementation of
USDA’s Public Health Information System, and specifies that $3.9 million be used for activities
including international outreach and education of the U.S. office of the Codex Alimentarius.
Finally, the bill also specifies that no appropriated funds be used for the “Safe Meat and Poultry
Inspection Panel” advisory panel tasked with reviewing and evaluating the adequacy, necessity,
safety, cost-effectiveness, and scientific merit of inspection procedures, among other matters.54
Both the bills require that funds for the Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure system
remain available until expended, and that the cost of altering any one building during the fiscal
year not exceed 10% of the current replacement value of the building.
Farm Service Agency
USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) is probably best known for administering the farm
commodity subsidy programs and the disaster assistance programs. It makes these payments to
farmers through a network of county offices. In addition, FSA also administers USDA’s direct and
guaranteed farm loan programs, certain mandatory conservation programs (in cooperation with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service), and supports certain international food assistance
and export credit programs administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service and the U.S. Agency
for International Development.
FSA Salaries and Expenses
All of the administrative funds used by FSA to carry out its programs are consolidated into one
account. A direct appropriation for FSA salaries and expenses pays to carry out the activities such
as the farm commodity programs. Transfers also are received from other USDA agencies to pay
for FSA administering CCC export credit guarantees, P.L. 480 loans, and the farm loan programs.
This section discusses amounts for regular FSA salaries and expenses, plus the transfer within
FSA for the salaries, expenses, and administrative expenses of the farm loan programs. Amounts
transferred to FSA from the Foreign Agricultural Service for administrative support are not
included with the FSA totals in this report.
The Senate-reported bill for FY2012 would provide $1.479 billion for FSA salaries and expenses,
$42 million less than FY2011 (-3%). The House-passed bill would provide $1.434 billion, $87
million less than FY2011 (-6%) and $45 million less than the Senate bill. USDA’s budget
justification for FY2012 proposed $1.718 billion, nearly a $200 million increase above FY2011
and therefore about $250 million above the House and Senate amounts. Despite requesting

53 P.L. 110-246, section 11016.
54 Senate version of H.R. 2112, Section 706. Authorized in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (P.L. 90-201, section 410;
21 U.S.C. 679a) and in the Poultry Products Inspection Act (P.L. 90-492, Section 30; 21 U.S.C. 471).
Congressional Research Service
40

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

greater funding, the Administration’s proposal incorporated a 10% reduction in staffing (about
504 positions) for FY2012, after reducing the number of positions by about 363 in FY2011.55
The Administration’s request, therefore, likely prioritizes funding for the information technology
modernization plan.
FSA Farm Loan Programs
The USDA Farm Service Agency serves as a lender of last resort for family farmers unable to
obtain credit from a commercial lender. USDA provides direct farm loans (loans made directly
from USDA to farmers), and it also guarantees the timely repayment of principal and interest on
qualified loans to farmers from commercial lenders. FSA loans are used to finance farm real
estate, operating expenses, and recovery from natural disasters. Some loans are made at a
subsidized interest rate.
An appropriation is made to FSA each year to cover the federal cost of making direct and
guaranteed loans, referred to as a loan subsidy. Loan subsidy is directly related to any interest rate
subsidy provided by the government, as well as a projection of anticipated loan losses from
farmer non-repayment of the loans. The amount of loans that can be made—the loan authority—
is several times larger than the subsidy level.
The Senate-reported bill for FY2012 provides $107 million of loan subsidy to support $4.757
billion direct and guaranteed loans. The House-passed bill is essentially identical for most of the
loan program (Table 10). The loan subsidy is about $40 million less than FY2011 (-27%), while
the loan authority is about $120 million more than FY2011 (+3%).
Compared to FY2011, both the House and Senate bills eliminate funding for the guaranteed
interest assistance operating loan program, consistent with the Administration’s request and due
to less demand for the program in the current lower interest rate environment. Both increase
direct farm operating loan authority by nearly $100 million, and restore $150 million of loan
authority for the 2008 farm bill’s new conservation guaranteed loan program. The conservation
loan program, new in the 2008 farm bill, was defunded for one year in FY2011.
Following the global financial crisis that began in 2008, demand for FSA farm loans and
guarantees increased dramatically as bank lending standards became more strict.56 In FY2009
and FY2010, supplemental appropriations increased the FSA loan authority by nearly $1 billion
each year in order to meet demand. Thus, although the FY2012 loan authority proposed in the
House is fairly consistent with the loan authority in recent regular annual appropriations, it is $1.2
billion less than the loan authority available in FY2010 including supplementals. Loan demand
has remained fairly high in FY2011 and some programs in some states have at times exhausted
their loan availability.

55 USDA, FY2012 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, p. 22-9 and 22-16, at http://
www.obpa.usda.gov/22fsa2012notes.pdf.
56 For more background, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
Congressional Research Service
41

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 10. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority, FY2010-FY2011, and FY2012 Proposed
(dollars in millions)

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Change to FY2012 Senate bill
Total,
From

Regular
w/ Supp.
P.L. 112-10
House-passed
Senate report
From FY2011
FY2010
Type of authority
Loan
Loan
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Budget
Loan
Loan
Farm
ownership
loans

Direct
650 650 33 474 23 471 23 475 -10.0 1 -175
Guaranteed
1,500 1,800
6 1,497
0 1,500
0 1,500
-5.7
3 -300
Farm operating loans

Direct
1,000
1,350 57 948 59
1,042 57
1,020 0.0 72
-330
Guaranteed
(unsubsidized)
1,500 1,750
35 1,497
26 1,488
26 1,500
-8.8
3 -250
Guaranteed (interest assistance)
170
220
17
122
0
0
0
0
-16.9
-122
-220
Conservation loans

Direct
75 75 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0
-75
Guaranteed
75 75 0 0 0
150 0
150 0.0
150 75
Individual
Development
Accounts

0

0

Indian
tribe
land
acquisition
4 4 0 4 0 2 0 2 0.0 -2 -2
Indian
highly
fractured
land
loans
10 10 0 0 0 10 0 10 0.2 10 0
Boll
weevil
eradication
loans
100
100 0
100 0
100 0
100 0.0 0 0
Subtotal, FSA Farm Loan Program
5,084
6,034
148
4,642
107
4,763
107
4,757
-41.2
115
-1,277
Salaries and expenses

305
259
290
-15.2

Administrative expenses

8

8

8

-0.4

Total, FSA Farm Loan Program
5,084
9,618
461
4,642
374
4,763
404
4,757
-56.8
115
-1,277
Source: CRS, compiled from House-passed H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73, P.L. 112-10, 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-42

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Commodity Credit Corporation
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is the funding mechanism for the mandatory subsidy
payments that farmers receive. (Discretionary appropriations for Farm Service Agency salaries
and expenses pay for administration of the programs.) Most spending for USDA’s mandatory
agriculture and conservation programs was authorized by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246).57
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation that has the legal authority to borrow up to
$30 billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury (15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.). These borrowed funds
finance spending for programs such as farm commodity subsidies and various conservation, trade,
food aid, and rural development programs. Emergency supplemental spending also has been paid
from the CCC over the years, particularly for ad hoc farm disaster payments, for direct market
loss payments to growers of various commodities in response to low farm commodity prices, and
for animal and plant disease eradication efforts.
Although the CCC can borrow from the Treasury, it eventually must repay the funds it borrows. It
may earn a small amount of money from activities such as buying and selling commodities and
receiving interest payments on loans. But because the CCC never earns more than it spends, its
borrowing authority must be replenished periodically through a congressional appropriation so
that its $30 billion debt limit is not depleted. Congress generally provides this infusion through
the annual Agriculture appropriation law. In recent years, the CCC has received a “current
indefinite appropriation,” which provides “such sums as are necessary” during the fiscal year.
Mandatory outlays for the commodity programs rise and fall automatically based on economic or
weather conditions. Funding needs are difficult to estimate, which is a primary reason that the
programs are mandatory rather than discretionary. More or less of the Treasury line of credit may
be used year to year. Similarly, the congressional appropriation may not always restore the line of
credit to the previous year’s level, or may repay more than was spent. For these reasons, the
appropriation to the CCC may not reflect outlays.
To replenish CCC’s borrowing authority with the Treasury, both the FY2012 House-passed and
Senate-reported appropriations concur with the Administration request for an indefinite
appropriation (“such sums as necessary”) for CCC. The appropriation is estimated to be $14.1
billion, up 1% from FY2011. Such amounts ranged from $13.0 billion in FY2008, to $15.1
billion in FY2010.
Several amendments were raised in the House Appropriations Committee markup and floor
proceedings that would affect CCC programs.
First, CCC funding that is used to make a payment to the Brazil Cotton Institute—per an
agreement under a WTO settlement stemming from a case that Brazil won against the U.S. farm
subsidy program58—was used as a budgetary offset in a committee-adopted amendment to

57 For more information on the provisions of the farm bill, see CRS Report RL34696, The 2008 Farm Bill: Major
Provisions and Legislative Action.
58 In 2009, Brazil announced that it was authorized by the WTO to impose trade retaliation against U.S. goods. Among
the countermeasures was $147.3 million for the adverse effects from U.S. price-contingent subsidies. The United States
agreed to pay $147.3 million annually into a Brazilian fund known as the Brazilian Cotton Institute for technical
assistance and capacity building for Brazil’s cotton sector. For more background, see CRS Report RL32571, Brazil’s
WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program.
Congressional Research Service
43

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

increase funding for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. An amendment by
Representative DeLauro was adopted in the committee-reported version of the bill that increased
the funding for WIC by $147 million (relative to the subcommittee draft) by prohibiting USDA
from making the Brazil Cotton Institute payment. The DeLauro amendment had two parts. The
increased money for WIC was built into the $6.048 billion for WIC in the committee-reported
version of the bill. The offset portion of the DeLauro amendment—the payment to Brazil—was
to come from mandatory funds under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture authorizing committee
(sec. 743 of the committee-reported bill). This offset provision was left unprotected from points
of order by the rule for floor consideration (H.Res. 300). Subsequently, on the floor,
Representative Lucas successfully raised a point of order against the offset portion on the grounds
that it violated a rule against legislating in an appropriations bill, and the provision was
removed.59
Second, a Brazil Cotton Institute amendment did survive in the House-passed bill, however. A
floor amendment by Representative Kind to prohibit payment to the Brazil Cotton Institute was
adopted by a vote of 223-197 (sec. 751 of the House-passed bill). The Kind amendment had
essentially the same language as the DeLauro offset provision, except it states, “None of the
funds made available by this Act,” rather than the more strict “None of the funds made available
by this Act or any other Act.” The difference was significant enough not to prompt a point of
order. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office did not assign any budgetary savings to the
provision. Thus, while the House-passed provision appears to prevent the payment to the Brazil
Cotton Institute, CBO’s budget scoring does not suggest that it has the same effect as the original
DeLauro language.
Third, a committee-adopted amendment (sec. 741 of the committee-reported bill) would have
required USDA to reduce the payment rate for upland cotton—part of the direct payment program
in the 2008 farm bill—by an amount to offset the costs of the $147 million payment to the Brazil
Cotton Institute. Like the DeLauro amendment, it was unprotected in the rule for floor
consideration, and was stripped by a point of order for legislating in an appropriations bill.
Fourth, another related committee-adopted amendment (sec. 744 of the committee-reported bill)
would have prevented USDA from making certain farm commodity program payments to farmers
with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) exceeding $250,000. This would have effectively lowered the
2008 farm bill AGI limitations of $500,000 nonfarm AGI and $750,000 of farm AGI. As in the
cases above, the amendment was unprotected in the rule for floor consideration, and Chairman
Lucas from the Agriculture Committee successfully challenged the provision by a point of order.
Finally, Representative Flake offered a floor amendment to the same effect as the AGI
amendment above, but it was rejected by a vote of 186-228. Representative Blumenauer also
offered a different payment limits amendment—to prevent payments in excess of $125,000 per
year to any individual. It was rejected by a vote of 154-262.

59 But only the prohibition against making the payment to Brazil was removed; the increase to WIC was retained since
it was embedded in a separate portion of the bill. Then, in order to preserve the increased funding for WIC but keep the
bill at the same funding level so that it did not exceed the House’s discretionary limit for the whole agriculture
appropriations bill (since the $147 million of savings from sec. 743 was removed), Rep. Kingston offered an
amendment—adopted by voice vote—for an across-the-board 0.78% rescission to discretionary accounts in the bill (a
new sec. 743 of the House-passed bill) that was scored to save $147 million.
Congressional Research Service
44

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Crop Insurance
The federal crop insurance program is administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency
(RMA). It offers basically free catastrophic insurance to producers who grow an insurable crop.
Producers who opt for this coverage have the opportunity to purchase additional insurance
coverage at a subsidized rate (about 60% subsidy, on average). Policies are sold and completely
serviced through approved private insurance companies that have their program losses reinsured
by USDA and are reimbursed by the government for their administrative and operating
expenses.60
The annual Agriculture appropriations bill traditionally makes two separate appropriations for the
federal crop insurance program. First, it provides discretionary funding for the salaries and
expenses of the RMA. Second, it provides “such sums as are necessary” for the Federal Crop
Insurance Fund, which finances all other expenses of the program, including premium subsidies,
indemnity payments, and reimbursements to the private insurance companies.
For the salaries and expenses of the RMA in FY2012, the Senate-reported bill provides $75
million, and the House-passed bill provides $68 million. Compared with FY2011, these figures
are down 5% and 14%, respectively. For FY2012, the Administration requested a 4% increase
from FY2011 to cover additional information technology costs.
In FY2012, the bill would also provide $3.1 billion for the Federal Crop Insurance Fund, or $4.5
billion less than estimated for FY2011.61 The FY2012 amount is substantially lower than for
FY2011, largely because of a one-time shift in the timing of cash flows specified in the 2008 farm
bill to generate budgetary savings within the five-year horizon of the bill. The farm bill provisions
allow USDA to collect two crop years of premiums from farmers during FY2012 (by moving
forward the premium billing date beginning with 2012), and delay the 2012 payment of
reimbursements and underwriting gains to insurance companies into the next fiscal year.
Therefore, the reduction reflected in the FY2012 appropriation mostly reflects an accounting
change, rather than a reduction in program benefits to farmers.
The Senate-reported bill for FY2012, House-passed bill for FY2012 and the enacted
appropriation for FY2011 all prohibit use of funds under the Federal Crop Insurance Act for
performance-based premium discounts to farmers. In early 2011, RMA had proposed a program
to reward farmers participating in the federal crop insurance program for good performance. It
would have been funded by savings derived from USDA’s renegotiation of the Standard
Reinsurance Agreement with insurance companies in 2010. As designed by USDA, the program
would have made payments based on each qualified producer’s history in the program. Members
of Congress were concerned about program design, including the possibility of sending payments
to producers who were no longer in the program and how such payments would constitute a
discount on current crop insurance purchases.

60 For more information on crop insurance, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background and Issues.
61 The actual amount required to cover program losses and other subsidies is subject to change based on actual crop
losses and farmer participation rates in the program.
Congressional Research Service
45

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Disaster Assistance
Most agricultural-related disaster assistance is funded on an ad hoc basis and is not typically
provided through annual appropriations. The Senate-reported bill includes $266 million of
funding for three watershed and conservation recovery programs. Funding for all three of these
programs is designated as disaster funding for the purpose of budget scoring.
The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) provides financial and technical assistance to
rehabilitate farmland and conservation practices destroyed by natural disasters (e.g., flood, fire,
drought, etc.). ECP is administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and has not received
funding since FY2009. In mid-September the program carried a backlog of unfunded requests
totaling more than $77 million. USDA anticipates an additional $72 million will be requested
before the end of calendar year 2011. The Senate-reported bill would provide $78 million to
remain available until expended.
The Senate-reported bill would also fund the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) at
$49 million. EFRP, also administered by FSA, provides assistance to nonindustrial private
forestland owners to restore forestland following a natural disaster.
The Senate-reported bill also proposes funding for the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)
program. The EWP program is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and
provides financial and technical assistance to relieve imminent hazards to life and property
caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural occurrences. Similar to ECP, EWP has not
received funding since FY2009 and carries a backlog of unfunded requests totaling over $187
million. The Senate-reported bill would provide $138 million to remain available until expended
and repurpose $31 million of previously authorized funding.
According to staff guidance, the Senate-reported bill does not include amounts for damage caused
by hurricane Irene and recent flooding events as damage is still begin assessed.62 Under the three
recovery programs a national or state emergency does not have to be declared in order to receive
assistance. The Senate-reported bill, however, would require that only areas with a disaster
designation63 be eligible for funding. This could potentially limit the distribution of recovery
assistance.
Conservation
More than 20 USDA agricultural conservation programs assist private landowners with natural
resource concerns. These include working land programs, land retirement and easement
programs, watershed programs, technical assistance, and other programs. The two lead
agricultural conservation agencies within USDA are the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), which provides technical assistance and administers most programs, and the Farm

62 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, Memorandum, prepared by
Republican Subcommittee staff to Minority Subcommittee staff, 112th Cong., 1st sess., September 2, 2011, p. 2.
63 Funds may only be used for expenses resulting from a major disaster designation pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)). For more information on Stafford Act
designations, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible
Activities, and Funding
Congressional Research Service
46

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Service Agency (FSA), which administers the largest program, the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP). The majority of conservation program funding is mandatory and funded through
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Other conservation programs, mostly technical
assistance, are discretionary and funded through annual appropriations.64
The Senate-reported and House-passed bills accepted, and in some programs exceeded, many of
the Administration’s proposed reductions to both mandatory and discretionary conservation
programs for FY2012. The Senate-reported bill would reduce discretionary NRCS funding by
$60 million (from $888 million in FY2011 to $829 million in FY2012). The House-passed bill
would reduce funding by $100 million to $781 million in FY2012, and the Administration’s
proposal would increase discretionary funding $10 million to $899 million in FY2012.
Mandatory programs authorized under the 2008 farm bill are authorized to automatically increase
by an estimated $880 million in FY2012. The Senate-reported bill would reduce certain
mandatory conservation programs by $907 million in FY2012. This is slightly less than the
House-passed bill, which would reduce certain mandatory conservation programs by over $1
billion in FY2012. The Administration request would make smaller total reductions ($585
million) to fewer programs. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have proposed reductions
in conservation funding in the past, most of which are more substantial than Congress has
supported. The FY2012 appropriation may revert to a trend prior to the 2008 farm bill that
reduces mandatory funding for multiple conservation programs.
Discretionary Conservation Programs
All of the discretionary conservation programs are administered by NRCS. Most of the reduction
in discretionary funding is for Conservation Operations (CO), the largest discretionary program.
The Senate-reported bill would provide $829 million for FY2012, $64 million more than
proposed in the House-passed bill (after rescission; $106 million less than FY2011 and $134
million less than the Administration’s request). The House report directs funding for several
Administration initiatives proposed in the budget, including $5 million for the Conservation
Effects Assessment Project (the Administration requested a $7 million increase), $5 million for
the Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative (the Administration requested an $11.3 million
increase), and the removal of funds for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative. Other
Administrative initiatives proposed in the budget were rejected in the House report, including a
$15 million requested increase for the Strategic Watershed Action Teams and the Administration’s
proposal to charge a fee for comprehensive conservation planning, a core activity currently
provided to producers for free. The Senate-reported bill was silent on these provisions.
The House report also urged NRCS to continue collaboration with the National Marine
Sanctuaries. The U.S. Forest Service and NRCS, along with other public agencies, private
industries, and conservation groups, have partnered with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Sanctuaries to address water quality concerns in the
Monterey Bay watershed of California.65 The Senate-reported bill includes congressionally

64 For a brief description of the individual USDA agricultural conservation programs, see CRS Report R40763,
Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
65 NOAA, National Marine Sanctuaries, Monterey Bay Issue Name: Water Quality – WQPP Implementation, http://
sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan/mb_wq_wqpp.html.
Congressional Research Service
47

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

directed project language within the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) discussed
further below.
The House-passed bill maintains funding for other discretionary programs that the Administration
and Senate-reported bill proposed to terminate, including the Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations ($3 million to remain available until expended; $2.9 million after rescission) and the
Watershed Rehabilitation Program ($15 million; $14.9 million after rescission). Funding for the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations was included in the House-passed bill as an
amendment introduced and passed on the floor. The increase was offset by a reduction to the
agricultural buildings and facilities and rental payments account.
The FY2011 long-term continuing resolution terminated funding for the Resource Conservation
and Development (RC&D) program. The RC&D program was authorized in 1962 and consists of
375 designated RC&D areas across the country. An RC&D area is a locally defined multi-county
area, sponsored and directed by an RC&D council. NRCS assists RC&D councils through an
RC&D coordinator, who facilitates the development and implementation of an individualized and
locally determined program (i.e., area plan). According to testimony offered by the Chief of
NRCS, approximately 80% of the RC&D budget is directed toward personnel.66 The Chief also
testified that termination of RC&D funding could mean that the 140 healthiest RC&D councils
might survive on funds from elsewhere, while the other 235 will likely be dissolved.67
Following termination of the RC&D program, as well as other funding reductions in FY2011, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved buyout and early retirement packages for
544 positions at USDA. Over 400 of the 544 buyout offers were made available to NRCS
employees.68 It is unclear how many buyout offers will be accepted at NRCS and whether buyout
packages will provide enough budgetary relief from the FY2011 funding reductions. Additional
reductions in staffing could be necessary if the Senate-reported reduction of $60 million or the
House-passed reductions of $106 million in discretionary funding and $906 million or $1 billion
(Senate-reported or House-passed, respectively) in mandatory funding are adopted for FY2012.
Mandatory Conservation Programs
Mandatory conservation programs are administered by NRCS and FSA. Funding comes from the
CCC and therefore does not require an annual appropriation. The Senate-reported and House-
passed bills accept many of the Administration’s proposed $585 million of reductions to
mandatory conservation programs and makes further cuts below authorized levels. The Senate-
reported bill would reduce these programs by $907 million, which is $234 million more than the
FY2011 reduction of $673 million, but not as much as the over $1 billion proposed reduction in
the House-passed bill (see discussion in “Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)”
and Table 11).

66 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Budget Hearing, USDA—Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, Testimony of Dave White, Chief of NRCS, 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 2011.
67 “USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Leadership Testifies at House Appropriations Hearing,” National
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, April 6, 2011, http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/nrcs-appropriations-hearing/.
68 “USDA: Buyouts offered to 400 conservation-service employees,” Greenwire, June 3, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
48

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 11. Mandatory Conservation Program Reductions, FY2011 and FY2012
Proposed
(dollars in millions)

FY2011
FY2012
Differences
Allowed
Authorized
Between
Between
Levels
Level Under
Senate
H.R. 2112
H.R.
Under P.L.
the 2008
Admin.
House
H.R.
and
2112_RS and
Program
112-10
Farm Bill
Request
H.R. 2112
2112_RS
Authorized
Authorized
EQIP 1,238
1,750
1,408
1,400
1,400
-350
-350
CSP 649
844
a 842
a 634 809 -210
-35
WRP 425
a 617
a 608
a 417
a 417
a -200 -200
Dam Rehab
0
165
0
0
0
-165
-165
FPP 175
200
200
150
150
-50
-50
WHIP 85
85
73
50
50
-35
-35
GRP 120
a 92
a 42
a 62
a 42
a -30 -50
VPAHIP 21
b 17
17
0 0
-17 -17
AMA 15
15
10
10
10
-5
-5
Total 2,162
2,232
1,708
2,244
2,878
-1,062
-907
Sources: P.L. 112-10, House-passed H.R. 2112, Senate-reported H.R. 2112, and CBO March 2011 Baseline for
CCC & FCIC.
Notes: EQIP = Environmental Quality Incentives Program; CSP = Conservation Stewardship Program; WRP =
Wetlands Reserve Program; Dam Rehab = Watershed Rehabilitation Program; FPP = Farmland Protection
Program; WHIP = Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; GRP = Grasslands Reserve Program; VPAHIP =
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentives Program; and AMA = Agricultural Management Assistance
Program.
a. Calculated by CRS based on CBO estimates. CSP, WRP, and GRP are authorized to enroll acres and are
not limited by dollar amounts. Estimates are based on the total acres each program is authorized to enroll.
b. VPAHIP is authorized to spend $50 million between FY2009 and FY2012. Annual levels are CBO estimates
based on program expenditures.
Funding for the largest conservation program, FSA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
would not change and was estimated at about $2.2 billion for FY2012. Both the Senate-reported
and House-passed bills would limit EQIP, NRCS’s largest working lands program, to $1.4 billion
for FY2012—a reduction of $350 million from the authorized level of $1.75 billion in the 2008
farm bill. The Senate-reported bill’s reductions are more extensive than USDA’s proposal for
other programs, but not as extensive as the House-passed bill (Table 11). The primary difference
between the House and Senate bills are in the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP, $35
million reduction in the Senate-reported compared to $210 million reduction in the House-passed)
and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP, estimated $50 million reduction in the Senate-
reported compared to $30 million reduction in the House-passed).
The Senate-reported bill could also fund a long dormant program known as the Water Bank
Program (WBP) by redirecting $20 million of EQIP funds. The WBP was authorized in 197069

69 Water Bank Act (P.L. 91-559), as amended.
Congressional Research Service
49

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

and operated until funding was eliminated in the FY1995 agriculture appropriations act.70
According to FY1995 House and Senate appropriations report language, the program was
duplicative of the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and less effective because of shorter
contract lengths.71 Under the WBP, USDA entered into agreements with landowners and
operators in migratory waterfowl nesting, breeding, and feeding areas for the conservation of
specified wetlands. The program operated in 12 states, primarily in the northern part of the central
flyway, and the northern and southern parts of the Mississippi flyway. The state that received the
greatest benefit, in terms of most acres enrolled and payments received, was North Dakota.
Although the Senate-reported provision does not specify location, the Devils Lake and Stump
Lake basins in North Dakota have been cited as the potential beneficiaries of the proposed WBP
funding.72 Incidentally, the Administration’s proposal requested that an unobligated balance of
$745 million in the WBP be rescinded and permanently cancelled because the last WBP
agreement expired on December 31, 2010. The House and Senate reported bills do not rescind the
funding.
Congress has included reductions in mandatory conservation programs each year since FY2003 in
the annual Agricultural appropriations law. It usually does not reduce funding as much as
requested by the Administration. And because money is fungible, the savings from these
reductions are not necessarily applied toward other conservation activities. Prior to the 2008 farm
bill, reductions to conservation programs through appropriations law peaked in FY2006 with a
reduction totaling $638 million (Figure 12). Since the passage of the 2008 farm bill, reductions
have been made primarily to EQIP and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. The reductions in
the Senate-reported and House-passed bills for FY2012 would be the largest reduction to
mandatory conservation programs to date.
Several conservation, environmental, and farm constituency groups that support conservation
programs decry reductions from the funding commitment established in the farm bill. Members of
the House Agriculture Committee also have expressed concern over the reductions, which some
consider to be an encroachment of the committee’s jurisdiction.73 House Appropriators
acknowledged these concerns with the following statement in the House report:74
The bill includes over $1.5 billion in limitations on mandatory programs, most of them
funded in the 2008 farm bill and most of them in the conservation and bio-energy areas. We
expect deep concern about these cuts from the Agriculture Committee, as well as persons
supporting these programs.

70 P.L. 103-330.
71 The WBP agreements were for 10 years with provisions for renewal, while the WRP easements are for 30 years or
permanent. See H.Rept. 103-542 and S.Rept. 103-290.
72 Shawna (Robertson) Aakre, “Appropriations Committee votes additional support for FEMA, USDA Disaster Relief
Programs,” American Ag Radio Network, September 8, 2011, http://americanagnetwork.com/2011/09/appropriations-
committee-votes-additional-support-for-fema-usda-disaster-relief-programs/.
73 Letter from Frank Lucus, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and Collin Peterson, Ranking Majority
Member, to Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Committee on Budget, March 15, 2011, http://agriculture.house.gov/
pdf/business-meeting/BudgetviewsestimateletterFY12.pdf; and Letter from Collin Peterson, Ranking Member of the
House Committee on Agriculture, to David Dreier, Chairman of the House Committee on Rules, June 13, 2011, http://
democrats.agriculture.house.gov/06-13-2011%20Peterson%20to%20Rules%20HR2112.pdf.
74 H.Rept. 112-101, page 105.
Congressional Research Service
50

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Figure 12. Mandatory Conservation Program Reductions, FY2003-FY2011 and
FY2012 Proposed
1200
VPAHIP
GRP
1000
AMA
GSWC
FPP
800
WHIP
d
CSP
e
c
u
WRP
d
re
Dam Rehab
600
n
EQIP
$ millio
400
200
0
8
11
2)
)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
200
2009
2010
20
12
(201
2
(20
RS
R.211
H.
2112_
H.R.
Fiscal Year

Source: CRS. For more information, see CRS Report R41245, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program
Spending, by Jim Monke and Megan Stubbs.
Notes: The figure only reflects reductions to mandatory conservation programs through appropriations and
does not include reconciliation actions. The FY2008 appropriations act (P.L. 110-161) limited EQIP by $270
million. The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) was enacted after the appropriations act and superseded the reduction
to restore and increase EQIP funding. The FY2008 farm bill also suspended the Conservation Security Program
and created the Conservation Stewardship Program. Therefore, prior to 2008, CSP refers to the Conservation
Security Program; after 2008, CSP refers to the Conservation Stewardship Program.
While most conservation advocates criticize reduced conservation funding for any fiscal year,
additional emphasis is placed on reductions proposed in FY2012. Most farm bill program
authority will expire at the end of FY2012. Because CBO uses the last year of authorization to
determine the 10-year funding baseline for the farm bill reauthorization, a reduction in the last
year of a farm bill’s authorization could multiply the effect on the 10-year farm bill.
To address this concern, the Senate-reported and House-passed bills would extend select farm bill
expiration dates to 2014. These programs’ authorities—EQIP, WHIP, CSP, and FPP—currently
expire in 2012. The extension allows appropriators to score savings in FY2012, but not affect the
overall farm bill baseline. CBO could score the amended conservation programs based on their
authorized funding level in 2014, which is higher than their reduced level in the Senate-reported
and House-passed bills. Thus the reductions in the Senate and House bills would have less of an
effect on the Agriculture Committee’s overall farm bill baseline. Just as the savings from
conservation reductions in the 2012 Senate-reported and House-passed bills are not always
redirected toward other conservation activities, the reestablishment of the farm bill baseline
Congressional Research Service
51

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

through expiring conservation programs does not guarantee that future farm bills will extend the
same level of support for conservation.
Programs that are reduced in the Senate-reported and House-passed bills but do not have a
baseline beyond 2012—when most farm bill program’s authority expires—are not extended.
Programs such as WRP and GRP do not have a budget baseline beyond 2012 and therefore
reductions in 2012 would not affect the overall farm bill baseline. For this reason, some view
these programs to be more vulnerable to reductions in appropriations. For example, the Voluntary
Public Access and Habitat Incentives Program has authority to spend $50 million until September
30, 2012, and has no baseline funding beyond 2012.75 Under the Senate-reported and House-
passed bills, no funds are to be expended in FY2012, effectively terminating the program before
its authorized expiration. Extending the authority of these programs would require an offset or
reduction elsewhere under current budget law and procedures.
Rural Development
Three agencies are responsible for USDA’s rural development mission area: the Rural Housing
Service (RHS), the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS). An Office of Community Development provides community development support
through field offices. This mission area also administers Rural Economic Area Partnerships and
the National Rural Development Partnership.76
For FY2012, the Senate-reported appropriations bill (H.R. 2112) recommends $2.42 billion in
discretionary budget authority to support $36.13 billion in USDA rural development loan and
grant programs (Table 12). The House-passed appropriation recommends $2.24 billion (after the
0.78% across-the-board rescission) to support a program level of $34.8 billion. The
Administration had requested $2.44 billion in budget authority and $33.8 billion in loan authority.
The Senate committee’s recommendation is $216.9 million less (-8%) in budget authority than
FY2011, the House recommendation is $399 million less (-15%), and the Administration had
requested a $194 million reduction (-7%). For loan authority, the Senate measure is $279 million
more in loan authority than FY2011 (+0.7), while the House measure is nearly $1 billion less in
loan authority (-3%).
Salaries and expenses within Rural Development are funded from a direct appropriation and
transfers from each of the agencies. The combined salaries and expenses total in the Senate-
reported bill is $653.8 million, $34.4 million less than FY2011 (-5%). The House-passed bill
recommends $590 million for salaries and expenses, $98 million less than FY2011 (-14%).
Amounts for programs in each agency, after the transfer of salaries, are discussed in the following
sections.
The Senate-reported bill would permit the Secretary to provide up to 5% of the funds available
for certain rural development programs for projects in rural areas that are engaged in strategic
regional development planning (sec. 725). The eligible programs are: Business and Industry

75 For more information about programs without a baseline, see CRS Report R41433, Previewing the Next Farm Bill:
Unfunded and Early-Expiring Provisions.
76 For more about rural development programs generally, CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural
Development Programs.
Congressional Research Service
52

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Guaranteed loans; Rural Development Loan Fund (Intermediary Relending Program); Rural
Business Enterprise Grants; Rural Business Opportunity Grants; Rural Economic Development
Program (Cushion of Credit loan program); Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program;
Biorefinery Assistance Program; Rural Energy for America Program (REAP); Value-Added
Producer Grants; Broadband program; Water and Waste Water Program; and Rural Community
Facilities Program.
For the House bill, report language noted that the FY2012 budget proposed a Regional Innovation
Initiative that would support a proposed new rural development strategy based on five pillars: (1)
rural broadband, (2) biofuels and biobased products, (3) linking local production and
consumption of farm products, (4) ecosystem markets to pay producers for sequestering carbon,
and (5) forest restoration and private land conservation. The Committee provides no funding for
the Initiative, stating that they have not received requested information from USDA on the
Initiative’s purpose and plans. The Committee directs USDA not to spend any funds of the Rural
Community Development Initiative on the Regional Innovation Initiative. In a related provision,
the Committee also directs USDA not to spend any funds on the Know Your Farmer, Know Your
Food Initiative.77 Local and regional food projects may be eligible for funding independently
under several USDA Rural Development programs (e.g., Business and Industry Guaranteed loans,
Rural Business Enterprise Grants, Community Facilities loans).
Table 12. Rural Development Appropriations, by Agency, FY2010-FY2011 and
FY2012 Proposed
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Change from FY2011 to FY2012

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House
Senate
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate
Program
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
report
$ % $ %
Salaries and expenses (direct)
202.0
191.6
234.3
159.8
182.0
-31.8
-17%
-9.6
-5%
Transfers from RHS, RBCS, RUS
513.5
496.7
456.7
430.1
471.9
-66.6
-13%
-24.8
-5%
Subtotal, salaries and exp.
715.5
688.3
691.0
589.9
653.9
-98.4
-14%
-34.4
-5%
Rural Housing Service
1,424.2
1,224.0
1,034.3
1,037.3
1,090.2
-186.6
-15%
-133.8 -11%
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
184.8
127.8
180.5
93.6
119.1
-34.3
-27%
-8.8
-7%
Rural Utilities Service
653.4 596.7 537.0 516.9 556.8 -79.8
-13% -39.9
-7%
Undersecretary for Rural Development
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
-0.1
-11%
0.0
0%
Total, Rural Development
2,978.8
2,637.8
2,443.6
2,238.5
2,420.8
-399.3
-15%
-216.9
-8%
Source: CRS, complied from House-passed H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and unpublished
appropriations tables.

77 For more information and a discussion of a funding limitation in the House-passed bill, see the section “USDA’s
“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative” later in this report.
Congressional Research Service
53

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Rural Housing Service (RHS)
The Senate-reported bill recommends $1.52 billion in budget authority for RHS, $156.5 (-9%)
million less than for FY2011. The House-passed bill recommends $1.43 billion (after the 0.78%
across-the-board rescission, Table 13), $243.2 (-14%) million less than FY2011. After
transferring salaries and expenses, the Senate-recommended amount for RHS loans and grants is
$1.09 billion, $134 million less than FY2011 (-11%). The House bill recommends $1.04 billion,
$187 million (-15%) less than FY2011. The Senate measure recommends $26.4 billion in RHS
loan authority for FY2012, $696 million (+3%) more than FY2011. The House bill recommends a
total of $26.0 billion in RHS loan authority for FY2012, $273 million more than enacted for
FY2011 (+1%).
Within RHS, the Senate-reported bill would provide $26.3 million in budget authority for the
Rural Community Facilities account, providing loans and grants for “essential community
facilities” in areas with less than 20,000 population. This amount is $20 million less than enacted
for FY2011 (-48%). The House bill recommends $18 million for the account, about $24 million
less than FY2011 (-57%).
• In the Senate measure, the Community Facilities budget would include $12.7
million in grants, $2.2 million less than FY2011(-15%) . The Senate bill also
provides an appropriation for the Rural Community Development Initiative ($4.2
million), the Economic Impact Initiative Grants ($5.9 million), and grants to
tribal colleges ($3.4 million). It authorizes $1.3 billion in direct loans, but does
not include an authorization for guaranteed loans. The Senate bill provides no
budget authority to subsidize the direct loan program.
• The House bill would provide approximately $10 million in grant funding for
Community Facilities (-33% compared to FY2011), $5 million to support $1.1
billion of direct and guaranteed loans, and $3.0 million for the Rural Community
Development Initiative (-40% compared to FY2011). The House bill proposes to
eliminate funding for Economic Impact Initiative grants and grants to tribal
colleges.
Table 13. Rural Housing Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 and FY2012
Proposed
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Change from FY2011 to FY2012

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House
Senate
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate
Program
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
report $ % $ %
Rural Housing Insurance Fund (RHIF) programs
Administrative expenses (transfer)
468.6
453.5
411.8
396.9
430.8
-56.6
-12%
-22.7
-5%
Single family direct loans (sec. 502)
40.7
70.1
10.0
39.7
42.6
-30.4
-43%
-27.5
-39%
Loan
authority
1,121.5 1,119.2 211.4 839.1 900.0 -280.1 -25% -219.2 -20%
Single family guaranteed loans a 172.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0% 0.0 0%
Loan authority
12,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0
24,000.0 0.0
0% 0.0 0%
Congressional Research Service
54

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Change from FY2011 to FY2012

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House
Senate
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate
Program
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
report $ % $ %
Other RHIF programs b
45.1 51.6 51.7 32.2 39.4 -19.4
-38% -12.2 -24%
Loan authority b 281.8
170.7
122.5
76.3
242.9
-94.4
-55%
+72.2
+42%
Subtotal, RHIF
727.2
575.2
473.5
468.8
512.8
-106.4
-18%
-62.4
-11%
Loan
authority
13,403.3
25,289.9
24,333.9
24,915.4
25,142.9 -374.5 -1% -147.0 -1%
Other housing programs
Rental assistance (sec. 521)
968.6
948.7
900.7
879.1
900.7
-69.6
-7%
-48.1
-5%
Other rental assistance c
11.4 5.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 -1.1
-22% -1.0
-20%
Multifamily housing revitalization
43.2
29.9
16.0
10.9
13.0
-19.0
-63%
-16.9
-56%
Mutual & self-help housing grants
41.9
36.9
0.0
21.8
30.0
-15.1
-41%
-6.9
-19%
Rural housing assistance grants
45.5
40.3
11.5
31.8
34.3
-8.6
-21%
-6.0
-15%
Rural Community Facilities Program
Community Facilities: Grants
20.4
15.0
30.0
9.9
12.7
-5.0
-33%
-2.2
-15%
Community Facilities: Direct loans
3.9
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.9
-101%
-3.9
-101%
Loan authority
295.0
289.9
1,000.0
1,000.0
1,300.0 +710.1
+245%
+1,010.1 +348%
Community Facilities: Guarantees
6.6
6.6
0.0
5.0
0.0
-1.7
-26%
-6.6
-100%
Loan authority
206.4
167.4
0.0
104.9
0.0
-62.5
-37%
-167.4
-100%
Rural community dev. initiative
6.3
5.0
8.4
3.0
4.2
-2.0
-40%
-0.7
-14%
Economic impact initiative grants
13.9
7.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
-7.0
-100%
-1.0
-14%
Tribal col ege grants
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
-4.0
-101%
-0.6
-15%
Subtotal, Rural Comm. Facil.
55.0
41.4
38.4 17.9 26.3 -23.5
-57% -15.1 -36%
Loan
authority
501.4 457.4 1,000.0 1,104.9 1,300.0 +647.5
+142% +842.6 +184%
Total, Rural Housing Service
Budget
authority
1,892.8 1,677.5 1,446.0 1,434.2 1,521.0 -243.2 -14% -156.5 -9%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-468.6
-453.5
-411.8
-396.9
-430.8
+56.6
-12%
+22.7
-5%
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,424.2
1,224.0
1,034.3
1,037.3
1,090.2
-186.7
-15%
-133.8
-11%
Loan
authority
13,904.7 25,747.2 25,333.9 26,020.3 26,442.9 +273.1 +1% +695.7 +3%
Source: CRS, complied from House-passed H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, 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) and therefore no longer needs an appropriation.
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, Sec. 523 self-help housing land development, and
farm labor housing,
c. Sec. 502(c)(5)(D) eligible households, Sec. 515 new construction, and farm labor housing new construction.
Congressional Research Service
55

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Single-family housing loans (also known as “Section 502” direct and guaranteed loans; that is,
Section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949) constitute the largest RHS loan account and represent
95% of the total loan authority under RHS for FY2012. The Senate bill recommends $24.9 billion
in loan authorization for Section 502 direct and guaranteed loans, $275 million less than FY21011
but $688.6 million more than requested. The recommended appropriation is nearly the same as
that in the House bill $24.8 billion). The guaranteed loan program is by far the larger than direct
loans, with $24 billion of the $24.9 billion total.78 The Senate measure recommends $10 million
for the Section 504 Housing Repair loan programs, and $130 million for the Section 538 Multi-
Family Housing loan guarantee program. The House bill would eliminate funding for housing
repair loans (Section 504, $23.4 million in FY2011), and multi-family loan guarantees (Section
538, $31.0 million in FY2011).79 The Senate bill also recommends $22 million in loan subsidies
to support $64.5 ($5 million less than FY2011) in loan authority for the Section 515 rental
housing program. This is $1.4 less than FY2011. The House bill’s recommended funding is close
to that of the Senate measure: $20.0 million in loan subsidies for Section 515 rental housing to
support $58.6 million in loans.
For the rental assistance program (Section 521), the Senate bill recommends $904.6 million, a
decrease of $47 million from FY2011 (-5%). The House bill recommends $897 for the program.
For mutual and self-help housing grants, the Senate bill recommends $30 million, $7 million less
than FY2011 (-17%), and $8 million more than the House bill; for rural housing assistance grants,
$34.3 million, $6 million less than FY2011 (-15%), and $2.5 million more than the House bill
recommendation.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
The Senate-reported bill recommends $119.1 million in budget authority (after transferring
salaries), a decrease of $8.8 million over FY2011 (-7%).80 The House-passed bill recommends
$93.6 million in budget authority for RBS for FY2012 (after the 0.78% rescission, Table 14),
about $36 million less than enacted for FY2011 (-27%). For all RBS loan programs, the Senate
measure recommends $885 million in loan authorization, approximately $60 million less than
FY2011 (-6%). The House bill recommends $674 million in loan authority, approximately $271
million (-29%) less than FY2011.
Under the Senate recommendations, the Rural Business Program account would receive $79.6
million ($64.5 million in the House bill), about $5.6 million less than FY2011 (-6.5%). The Rural
Business Program account includes the Business and Industry Loan Guarantee program ($45.3 in
budget authority), the Rural Business enterprise Grant program ($29.3 million), Rural Business
Opportunity Grant program ($2.1 million), and Delta Regional Authority grants ($2.9 million).

78 The Senate Report (S.Rept. 112-73) expresses concern that lenders and USDA will not complete their automated
system changes necessary to support the October 1, 2011, implementation of the annual fee for the Section 502 loan
program. S.Rept. 112-73 permits the Secretary to increase the existing fee sufficient to cover the subsidy costs of the
Section 502 loan guarantees.
79 S.Rept. 112-73 rescinds the prohibition against the use of authorized fees, and directs the Secretary to implement fees
sufficient to cover Section 538 Guaranteed Multi-Family Housing loan subsidy costs.
80 Amounts for the RBS in this report are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This approach
allows the total appropriation for RBS to remain positive. In S.Rept. 112-73 and H.Rept. 112-101, tables include the
rescission in the RBS section, causing the agency total to be less than zero. This CRS report includes the Cushion of
Credit rescission in the General Provisions section with other rescissions (Table 7).
Congressional Research Service
56

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 14. Rural Business-Cooperative Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 and
FY2012 Proposed
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Change from FY2011 to FY2012

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House
Senate
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate
Program
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
report $ % $ %
Rural Business Program Account
Guar. Bus. & Ind. (B&I) Loans
52.9
44.9
52.5
39.7
45.3
-5.2
-12%
+0.4
+1%
Loan authority
993.0
887.3
822.9
622.1 822.9 -265.3
-30% -64.4 -7%
Rural bus. Enterprise grants
38.7
34.9
29.9
19.8
29.3
-15.1
-43%
-5.6
-16%
Rural bus. opportunity grants
2.5
2.5
7.5
2.2
2.1
-0.2
-8%
-0.4
-16%
Delta regional authority grants
3.0
3.0
0.0
2.2
2.9
-0.7
-24%
-0.1
-3%
Rural Development Loan Fund Program
Admin. expenses (transfer)
4.9
4.9
4.9
3.5
4.7
-1.5
-30%
-0.2
-4%
Loan subsidy
8.5
7.4
12.3
5.0
7.0
-2.4
-32%
-0.4
-5%
Loan
authority
33.5 19.1 36.4 14.6 20.7 -4.5
-24% +1.5
+8%
Rural Econ. Dev.: Loan authority
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Rural coop. development grants
34.9
30.2
35.9
22.3
27.9
-7.9
-26%
-2.3
-8%
Rural Microenterprise Inv.: Grants
2.5
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Loan subsidy
2.5
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Loan
authority
11.8 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
0% 0.0
0%
Rural Energy for America: Grants
19.7
2.5
34.0
1.1
2.3
-1.4
-56%
-0.2
-8%
Loan subsidy
19.7
2.5
2.8
1.1
2.3
-1.4
-56%
-0.2
-8%
Loan authority
144.2
5.4
10.6
4.4
8.6
-1.0
-19%
+3.2 +59%
Biorefinery Assist.: Loan subsidy
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Loan authority
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0%
0.0
0%
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Budget authority
189.7
132.8
185.5
97.0
123.8
-35.7
-27%
-9.0
-7%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-4.9
-4.9
-4.9
-3.5
-4.7
+1.5
-30%
+0.2
-4%
Total, Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc.
184.8
127.8
180.5
93.6
119.1
-34.3
-27%
-8.8
-7%
Loan authority
1,215.7
944.9
925.4
674.1
885.2
-270.8
-29%
-59.7
-6%
Source: CRS, complied from House-passed H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and unpublished
appropriations tables.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority totals.
The Senate-reported bill also recommends $7 million in budget authority to support $20.6 million
in loans for the Intermediary Relending Program. This level is about $1 million more in loan
authority than FY2011 and nearly the same in budget authority. For Rural Cooperative Grants, the
Senate measure recommends a total of $27.9 million, divided among Cooperative Development
Congressional Research Service
57

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Grants ($6.7 million), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas ($2.2 million), Value-
Added Product Grants ($16 million), and grants to assist minority producers ($2.9 million).
For the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), the Senate bill recommends $4.5 million in
loan subsidies and grants, $1 million less than FY2011, and $22.3 million more than the House
bill. The recommended loan subsidies would support $8.6 million in loans for FY2012,
approximately $3.2 million more than in FY2011. Neither Senate nor House measure
recommended discretionary fund for the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program, the same
as for FY2011. The House bill also would rescind the $3.0 million in authorized mandatory
spending for the program in FY2012 (Table 6).
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
The Senate-reported bill recommends $593 million in budget authority (after transferring salaries)
for RUS for FY2012. This is $40 million less (-7%) than in FY2011. The House-passed bill
recommends $517 million (after the 0.78% across-the-board rescission, Table 15). Under the
Senate measure, the total loan authority for RUS programs would be $8.8 billion, about $357
million (-3.9%) less than FY2011 ($8.2 billion under the House bill, -10%).
Loan subsidies and grants under the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account represent
the largest share of FY2012 budget authority under RUS programs (approximately 92% of the
total). The Senate-reported bill recommends $509.3 million in budget authority, $18.6 million less
than FY2011 (-3.5%). The House bill recommends $496 million for the water and waste water
account. The Senate-recommended budget authority would support $805.7 million in direct and
guaranteed loans, $165.8 million less than FY2011 (-17%). The budget authority is divided
among the following programs: (1) Water/Waste Water direct loan subsidies ($70.0 million) and
grants ($323.9 million); (2) Solid Waste Management program ($2.9 million); Individual Well
Water grants ($844,000); and Water and Waste Water revolving fund ($422,000). The bill also
recommends $10 million for High Energy Cost grants ($12.0 million in FY2011). The House bill
recommended no appropriation for the program.
The Senate measure would authorize $7.7 billion in electric, $75 million less than FY2011. Most
of the recommended loan authority is for direct Federal Finance Bank electric loans. The House
bill recommends $7.3 billion in loan authority.
Under the Distance Learning/Telemedicine program, the Senate bill recommends $28.6 million in
grant support, $3.9 million less than FY2011 (-12%). The House bill recommends $14.9 million
for the program (-54%).
The Senate-reported bill recommends $8 million in loan subsidies and $10.4 million in grants for
the rural broadband program. This is approximately $17 million less than FY2011. Loan subsidies
would support $282.7 million in broadband loans (-29% from FY2011). The Committee-reported
bill in the House would have eliminated funding for rural broadband ($13 million of grants and
$22 million of loan subsidy supporting $400 million of loans in FY2011). However, a floor
amendment restored $6 million of subsidy to support $210 million of rural broadband direct
loans.
Congressional Research Service
58

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 15. Rural Utilities Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 and FY2012
Proposed
(budget authority in millions of dollars)

Change from FY2011 to FY2012

FY2010 FY2011
FY2012
House
Senate
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate
Program
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
report $ % $ %
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program
Loan subsidy and grants
568.7
527.9
489.0
496.1
509.3
-31.8
-6%
-18.6
-4%
Direct loan authority
1,022.2
896.5
770.2
725.0 730.7 -171.5
-19% -165.8
-18%
Guaranteed loan authority
75.0
75.0
12.0
0.0
75.0
-75.0 -100%
0.0
0%
Rural Electric and Telecommunication Loans
Admin. expenses (transfer)
40.0
38.3
40.0
29.8
36.4
-8.5
-22%
-1.9
-5%
Telecommunication loan authority
690.0
690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Guar. underwriting loan subsidy

0.7
0.0
0.0
0.6
-0.7 -100%
-0.1
-14%
Electricity loan authority
7,100.0
7,099.0
6,100.0 6,600.0 7,024.3 -499.0 -7% -74.7 -1%
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, Broadband
Distance learning & telemedicine
37.8
32.4
30.0
14.9
28.6
-17.6
-54%
-3.9
-12%
Broadband: Grants
18.0
13.4
18.0
0.0
10.4
-13.4 -100%
-3.0
-22%
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
29.0
22.3
0.0
6.0
8.0
-16.3
-73%
-14.3
-64%
Direct loan authority
400.0
399.2
0.0
210.4 282.7 -188.8
-47% -116.5
-29%
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service
Budget authority
693.4
635.0
576.9
546.7
593.2
-88.3
-14%
-41.8
-7%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-40.0
-38.3
-40.0
-29.8
-36.4
+8.5
-22%
+1.9
-5%
Total, Rural Utilities Service
653.4
596.7
537.0
516.9
556.8
-79.8
-13%
-39.9
-7%
Loan authority
9,287.2
9,159.7
7,572.2
8,225.4
8,802.7
-934.3
-10%
-357.0
-4%
Source: CRS, complied from House-passed H.R. 2112, S.Rept. 112-73, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and unpublished
appropriations tables.
Notes: Loan authority is the amount of loans that can be made and is not added to budget authority totals.
Domestic Food Assistance
Funding for domestic food assistance represents over two-thirds of USDA’s budget. These
programs are, for the most part, mandatory entitlements; that is, funding depends directly on
program participation and, in some cases, indexing for inflation. The biggest mandatory programs
include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp
program), child nutrition programs, and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The
three main discretionary budget items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and
federal nutrition program administration.
Congressional Research Service
59

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The Senate-reported bill would provide a total of $105.5 billion for domestic food assistance
programs, while the House bill would provide a total of $96.3 billion.81 The Senate amount is
approximately $6 billion more than requested by the Administration in February ($99.8 billion),
but that is a result of more recently updated estimates to SNAP. House-passed and Senate-
reported bills increased SNAP and child nutrition from FY2011 levels in accordance with the
Administration’s forecast for need. Whereas the House’s bill reduced funding to the WIC
program, SNAP contingency reserve fund, and TEFAP, the Senate-reported bill did provide
comparatively higher funding for WIC and TEFAP.
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act (Formerly the
Food Stamp Act)
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act support (1) the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), (2) a Nutrition Assistance Block Grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition
assistance grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(all in lieu of the SNAP), (3) the cost of food commodities and administrative/distribution
expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), (4) the cost of
commodities for TEFAP (but not administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under
the Commodity Assistance Program budget account), and (5) Community Food Projects and
grants to improve access to the SNAP.
The Senate-reported bill would provide a total of $80.4 billion for programs under the Food and
Nutrition Act, compared to the House’s $71.1 billion.82 Funding in the Senate bill represents a
$9.8 billion increase (+12%) over the total amount available for FY201183 (primarily because of
Administration-forecasted increases in SNAP participation) and is $7.3 billion less than the
amount requested by the Administration, presumably due to updates in SNAP participation
estimates. Both Senate and House bills include a $3 billion contingency reserve for SNAP; the
Administration requested $5 billion.
The Senate bill would provide for Food and Nutrition Act appropriations:
• $78.3 billion for SNAP, including a $3 billion contingency reserve and $5.5
million set aside for certain administrative costs,
• $1.84 billion for grants for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
• $260 million for TEFAP commodities (with permission to use up to 10% of this
amount for distribution costs),84

81 See later section headed “Other Funding Support” for domestic food assistance funding from non-appropriations bill
sources.
82 This total takes into account that Section 730 of the House-passed bill would effect a $50 million reduction to
TEFAP.
83 In Section 1109 of P.L. 112-5, the FY2011 continuing resolution, activities in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
were provided “amounts necessary to maintain current program levels under current law.” For SNAP, this means that
the program will provide costs and benefits for all that are eligible.
84 The way the Senate report is written it appears that though the 2008 farm bill provides for $248.75 million in
entitlement commodities for TEFAP, the Senate-reported bill will provide approximately $12.5 million above that
amount.
Congressional Research Service
60

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

• $5 million each for Community Food Projects and SNAP program access grants,
and
• for FDPIR, the Senate report and language is not clear what would be
appropriated for this program.
The total House-passed appropriation for TEFAP commodities is $200 million, $50 million below
the approximately $250 million that is included in the Food and Nutrition Act and was
appropriated for FY2008, FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011. The House-passed bill achieves this
reduction by including a cap in Section 730 of the bill (included in Table 6).
In addition to the FY2012 regular appropriation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA, P.L. 111-5) is scheduled to continue to provide added SNAP benefits through October
31, 2012.85
Child Nutrition Programs
Appropriations under the child nutrition budget account fund a number of programs and activities
covered by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These
include the School Lunch and Breakfast programs, the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP), the Summer Food Service program, the Special Milk program, assistance for child-
nutrition-related state administrative expenses (SAE), procurement of commodities for child
nutrition programs (in addition to those funded from separate budget accounts within USDA),
state-federal reviews of the integrity of school meal operations (“Coordinated Reviews”), “Team
Nutrition” and food safety education initiatives to improve meal quality and safety in child
nutrition programs, and support activities such as technical assistance to providers and
studies/evaluations. (In addition to these appropriations, child nutrition efforts are supported by
mandatory permanent appropriations and other funding sources discussed below in “Other
Funding Support.”)
The Senate-reported total for child nutrition programs is approximately $18.2 billion, 4% above
the amount provided in FY2011 and $40 million below the Administration’s request. This is
primarily the result of added funding for school meal programs (based on estimates of increased
participation) but not providing funding for “Hunger-Free Community” grants (-$25 million),
State Childhood Hunger Challenge grants (-$10 million).86 The Senate-reported bill would
appropriate $620 million less than the House-reported bill would have; since the bill does not
change the underlying law with regard to child nutrition this change likely reflects updated
estimates on participation and costs. The Senate bill did include $1 million for School Breakfast
Expansion grants, where the House did not include any funding and the Administration asked for
$10 million.
While the child nutrition appropriation itself is not broken down program by program and funding
can be shifted among program areas if needed, report language in S.Rept. 112-73 breaks out the
FY2012 funding as follows (significant House difference are noted where applicable):

85 See CRS Report R41374, Reducing SNAP (Food Stamp) Benefits Provided by the ARRA: P.L. 111-226 and P.L. 111-
296.
86 These programs are discussed later in the section headed “ in H.R. 2112.”
Congressional Research Service
61

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

• $10.2 billion for the School Lunch program (compared to $10.9 in the House-
passed bill),
• $3.3 billion for the School Breakfast program,
• $2.8 billion for the CACFP,
• $1.1 billion ($973 million in House bill) for procurement of commodities for
child nutrition programs,87
• $400 million for the Summer Food Service program, and
• $279 million for SAE.
The WIC Program
The Senate-reported bill would provide $6.582 billion for WIC in FY2012. This is about $582
million more than the House-passed bill would provide, $150 million below the FY2011
appropriation (-2%) , and roughly $800 million less than the $7.390 billion requested by the
Administration in February. The House-passed WIC appropriation also allocates some $139
million of the total for specific WIC support activities: at least $64 million for program
infrastructure development and state management information systems and $75 million for
breastfeeding peer counseling. The Senate included $60 million for breastfeeding programs.
While SNAP (and other Food and Nutrition Act programs) and child nutrition programs are
appropriated entitlements, meaning that the money appropriated is to be enough to provide
services to all that are entitled according to underlying law’s program requirements, WIC is a
discretionarily funded program. Nonetheless, historically, appropriators have treated WIC as
though it was an entitlement, appropriating enough to serve all eligible. This change in tenor is
newly significant in light of the discretionary caps in the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25). There
are questions as to whether the rising cost of food is accounted for in the Senate-reported WIC
amount, although Administration forecasts have incorporated a 2% rise in food inflation, critics
contend that this is not adequately capture the current growth of costs in the program.88 Unlike the
appropriated entitlements, an inadequate appropriation for the WIC program may reduce the
number of pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children that the program can serve.
WIC Amendments in Committee and House-Passed H.R. 2112
For the House-passed bill, the funding level for WIC was subject to amendments in subcommittee
and on the floor, and a topic for extensive floor debate over the direction of and/or need for cuts
in the bill. An amendment by Representative Rosa DeLauro was adopted in the committee-
reported version of the bill that increased the funding for WIC by $147 million (relative to the
subcommittee draft) by prohibiting USDA from making a payment to the Brazil Cotton
Institute.89 The DeLauro amendment was in two parts: (1) an increase to the WIC appropriation
section in the subcommittee draft from $5.901 billion to the $6.048 billion in the committee-
reported version of the bill, and (2) the offset from mandatory funds under the jurisdiction of the

87 This represents approximately half of the expected value of commodities to be provided to child nutrition programs.
88 Zoë Neuberger, Will WIC Turn Away Eligible Low-income Women and Children Next Year?, Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, September 19, 2011, http://www.cbpp.org/files/9-19-11fa.pdf.
89 The payment to the Brazil Cotton Institute is discussed in the “Commodity Credit Corporation” section of this report.
Congressional Research Service
62

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Agriculture authorizing committee (sec. 743 of the committee-reported bill). The rule for floor
consideration (H.Res. 300) of H.R. 2112 did not protect the offset from points of order. On the
floor, Representative Lucas successfully raised a point of order against the offset on the grounds
that it violated a rule against legislating in an appropriations bill, and the offset provision was
removed.
With the offset struck, the increase to WIC was retained and unpaid for. In order to preserve the
increased funding for WIC but keep the bill at the same funding level so that it did not exceed the
House’s discretionary limit for the whole agriculture appropriations, Chairman Kingston offered
an amendment, adopted by voice vote, for an across-the-board 0.78% rescission to discretionary
accounts in the bill (a new section 743 of the House-passed bill) that was scored to save $147
million. This rescission affects the WIC section as well, so that WIC funding in H.R. 2112 is
$6.001 billion rather than the $6.048 billion figure in legislation.
Additional WIC Issues in House Subcommittee Report and Floor Debate
In addition to the WIC appropriation itself, Chairman Kingston’s subcommittee report language
and the floor debate included discussion of several WIC issues.90 Some of the issues discussed
include:
• Adjunctive eligibility. WIC law allows eligibility for WIC benefits based on
enrollment in other low-income programs, including Medicaid. Because certain
states have Medicaid income limits as high as 250% of the Federal Poverty
Level, some WIC participants in some states have higher incomes than the 185%
FPL limit in WIC’s authorizing statute.91
• Administrative costs. Because of how cost data is collected, the costs of
nutrition counseling are included in the overall administrative costs for the
program. This can create a deceptively high percentage of WIC’s administrative
costs, depending on whether one considers nutrition counseling to be a
fundamental service of the WIC program.92
• Carryover funds. In both the Subcommittee Print and on the floor, Chairman
Kingston discussed that $562 million in WIC funding would have been available
as carryover funds if it had not been rescinded as an offset for the Claims
Resolution Act of 2010, P.L. 111-291, a law which funded, among other
provisions, the Pigford settlement and an extension to the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families program.93

90 For a summary of some of the issues discussed, see Pete Kasperowicz, “House Bogged down in Fight over Women,
Infant, and Children Food Program,” The Hill, June 14, 2011, http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/166415-
house-bogged-down-in-fight-over-women-infant-and-children-food-program.
91 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2012, committee print, 112th Cong., 1st sess., June 3, 2011, H.Rept. 112-101, pp.
43-44.
92 Kerry Young, “WIC Program Counseling: All Talk or Essential Action?,” CQ Today Online News, June 13, 2011,
http://public.cq.com/docs/news/news-000003887202.html.
93 For more information on the Pigford settlement, see CRS Report RS20430, The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of
Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers, by Tadlock Cowan and Jody Feder.
Congressional Research Service
63

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Commodity Assistance Program
Funding under the Commodity Assistance Program budget account supports several discretionary
programs and activities: (1) the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), (2) funding for
TEFAP administrative and distribution costs, (3) the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition program, and
(4) special Pacific Island assistance for nuclear-test-affected zones in the Pacific (the Marshall
Islands) and in the case of natural disasters.
The Senate-reported bill would provide $242 million for the commodity assistance program
account ($46 million more than the House-passed bill). This total is $4 million less than was
included in FY2011 appropriations for this account and $54 million less than the Administration’s
request.
Of the total, approximately $176.8 million would be allocated to the CSFP,94 which is about equal
to the Administration’s request and less than 1% more than FY2011. The Senate is 25% above
the House’s $142 million.
The Senate-reported bill includes $48 million for TEFAP costs other than the value of federally
provided commodities (which are funded under the Food and Nutrition Act budget account). The
House bill had $10 million less.
The Senate bill would provide approximately $17 million for the FY2012 WIC Farmers’ Market
Nutrition Program.95 The Administration had requested $20 million for this program. The House-
passed bill would provide.
The Senate bill would a total of $1 million available for Pacific Island assistance in FY2012; this
is the same level as in FY2011.
Nutrition Programs Administration (and the Congressional Hunger Center)
This budget account covers spending for federal administration of all the USDA domestic food
assistance program areas noted above, special projects for improving the integrity and quality of
these programs, and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), which provides
nutrition education and information to consumers (including various dietary guides).
The Senate-reported bill would provide $140 million, up from the House-passed $124 million
(13% increase) but just under $147.5 million in FY2011 and an 18% reduction from the $170
million the Administration requested. Neither of the committee reports nor legislative language
indicates how the funding would be allocated.

94 See footnote Error! Bookmark not defined..
95 Unlike the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program discussed here, the Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program
receives $21 million a year from outside the regular appropriations process under the terms of its underlying law.
Congressional Research Service
64

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Child Nutrition Grant Programs Authorized and Unfunded in the FY2012
Appropriations Bills
Neither the FY2011 continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10) nor H.R. 2112 fund the authorized
programs discussed below.
Hunger-Free Community Grants
Section 4405 of the 2008 farm bill authorized Hunger-Free Community grants (1) to food
program service providers and nonprofits for collaborative efforts to assess community hunger
problems and to achieve “hunger-free” communities and (2) to emergency feeding organizations
for infrastructure development. This program was last funded in FY2010 with a $5 million
appropriation.
State Childhood Hunger Challenge Grants
The Administration requested $25 million to fund the State Childhood Hunger Challenge Grants
program. This discretionary grant program was authorized in the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act
of 2010, P.L. 111-296. Neither the Senate-reported or House-passed bill would appropriate any
funding for the program. These grants would go to governors to support innovative strategies to
end childhood hunger. No funding was provided in FY2011 for this program.
Other Funding Support
As in earlier years, domestic food assistance programs will receive FY2012 support from sources
other than FY2012 appropriations:
• Food commodities are provided to child nutrition programs in addition to those
purchased with appropriations from the Child Nutrition account. They are
financed through the use of permanent appropriations under Section 32.96 For
example, out of a total of about $1.1 billion in commodity support provided in
FY2008, about $480 million worth came from outside the Child Nutrition
account. Historically, about half the value of commodities distributed to child
nutrition programs has come from the Section 32 account.
• The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program offers fresh fruits and vegetables in
selected elementary schools nationwide. It is financed with mandatory funding
directed by the 2008 farm bill. The underlying law (Section 4304 of the farm bill)
provides funds at the beginning of every school year (each July)—$101 million
in July 2010, $150 million in July 2011, $133 in July 2012. However, as was
done for FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011, Section 718 of H.R. 2112 delays the
availability of much of the $133 million scheduled for July 2012 until October
2012. As a result, H.R. 2112, as the Agriculture appropriations acts which
preceded it, effectively would allocate the total annual spending for the Fresh

96 For more information on Section 32, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32
Program.
Congressional Research Service
65

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Fruit and Vegetable program mandated by the farm bill by fiscal year rather than
school year, with no reduction in overall support (savings scored in Table 6).
• The Food Service Management Institute (providing technical assistance to child
nutrition providers) is funded through a permanent annual appropriation of $4
million a year.
• The Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program receives $21 million of
mandatory funding per year (FY2008-FY2012) from outside the regular
appropriations process under the terms of its underlying law (Section 4402 of the
2008 farm bill).
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid
The Agriculture appropriations act funds farm bill programs that promote U.S. commercial
agricultural exports, provide international food aid, and provide technical assistance to
developing countries to improve global agricultural productivity and market development. All
programs are administered by the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service, except for the Title II of the
Food for Peace Program—the largest of the suite—that is administered by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).97
Appropriations for agricultural trade and food aid are made in the following areas:
• The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is the main USDA agency responsible
for international activities. It works to improve the competitive position of U.S.
agriculture and products in the world market, and also administers USDA’s
export credit guarantee and food aid programs.
• The Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) is administered by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and aims to combat hunger and
malnutrition, and promote equitable and sustainable development and global food
security.
• The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Export Credit Guarantee
Program provides payment guarantees for the commercial financing of U.S.
agricultural exports. An appropriation is made for salaries and expenses.
• The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program provides donations of U.S. agricultural products and financial and
technical assistance for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects
in developing countries.
For FY2012, the Administration requested $2.13 billion for foreign agriculture-related activities.
In addition, the FY2012 request allocated about $416 million in mandatory spending for
programs authorized in the 2008 farm bill, specifically for overseas market development,
technical assistance for specialty crops, and for foreign food assistance. The President’s request
for FY2012, however, did not include funding for dairy export subsidies or trade adjustment
assistance for farmers.

97 For additional information on USDA’s international activities, see CRS Report R41072, International Food Aid
Programs: Background and Issues.
Congressional Research Service
66

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The FY2012 House-passed bill would provide $1.39 billion for foreign agriculture-related
activities, $500 million less than (-26%) the FY2011 appropriation billion. The Senate-reported
bill would provide $1.93 billion, which is actually an increase of $44.5 million (+2%). The
FY2011 appropriation was 9% less than the FY2010 amount.
Foreign Agricultural Service
The Administration’s FY2012 budget request for FAS is $230 million, and includes $20 million
in discretionary funding for trade expansion and promotion activities as part of the National
Export Initiative (NEI), a government-wide effort to double U.S. exports over the next five
years.98 The FAS budget also includes $14.6 million to support the Department’s participation in
reconstruction and stabilization activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other food insecure
countries. In prior years, this funding was provided to Departmental Management, but is now
requested in the FAS budget because FAS has assumed full management of the operational and
policy components of USDA’s reconstruction and stabilization activities.
The House-passed bill would provide $171 million for FAS salaries and expenses, 8% less than
the FY2011 appropriation. The Senate-reported bill would provide $176.4 million, which is 5%
less than the FY2011 appropriation.
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480)
Food for Peace (P.L. 480) Title II humanitarian food aid, which is by far the largest component of
international agriculture expenditures, was appropriated $1.5 billion for FY2011. This was a $193
million decrease (-11%) from the Administration’s request and FY2010 levels.
For FY2012, the Administration requested $1.69 billion for Title II food aid, as it did in FY2011.
H.R. 2112 provided $1.03 billion for Title II, $465 million less (-31%) than FY2011, and 38%
below FY2010 and the President’s FY2012 request. No funding for Title I or Title III activities
has been requested since 2002. The Senate-reported bill would provide $1.56 billion for Title II
food aid, which is actually an increase of $65 million more (+4%) than FY2011. The Committee
report for the Senate bill noted that within a period of declining Federal spending, it is providing
an increase of funding for Public Law 480 title II grants, and noted with concern the reality that
rising program demand, such as in the Horn of Africa, transportation costs, and consequential
human tragedy in the absence of assistance. As has been done in the past, the Senate-reported bill
also includes a provision that would limit up the amount of Food for Peace Act funds up to $20
million allowable to reimburse the CCC for the release of commodities from under the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1).
Unlike the Bush Administration, the Obama budget requests have not proposed to allow the
Administrator of USAID to use up to 25% of Food for Peace Title II funds for local or regional
purchases of commodities (i.e., non-U.S. commodities) to address international food crises. To
date, Congress has not supported this request. Instead, for FY2012, similar to the previous two
years, the President requested that $300 million from the International Disaster Assistance (IDA)
account within USAID be made available for local and regional procurement of food assistance to

98 See CRS Report R41929, Boosting U.S. Exports: Selected Issues for Congress.
Congressional Research Service
67

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

address food insecurity in emergency situations.99 In addition, the 2008 farm bill authorized $60
million of CCC funds (mandatory funds, not Title II appropriations), over four years for a pilot
project to assess local and regional purchases of food aid for emergency relief.
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition
The President’s request for FY2012 included $200.5 million for the McGovern-Dole Program, the
same as FY2011.
The House-passed bill would provide $179 million, $20 million less (-10%) than FY2011. The
Senate-reported bill would provide $188 million, $11 million less (5.5%) than FY2011.
The FY2011 appropriation was $10 million less than FY2010, which marked a doubling of the
appropriation from FY2009. The FY2010 expansion in appropriated funds for McGovern-Dole
built upon an expansion that occurred via a one-time authorization in the 2008 farm bill of $84
million of mandatory CCC funding in FY2009.
Commodity Credit Corporation—Export Credit Guarantee Programs
The FY2012 request includes $6.8 million of discretionary appropriations for administrative
expenses to support an CCC’s overall program level of $5.5 billion, which includes $5.4 billion
for the Export Credit Guarantee Program, also known as GSM-102, and $100 million for the
Facilities Financing Guarantees. The House-passed bill would provide a little bit less than $6.8
million for CCC export credit guarantee activities, which is similar to FY2010-FY2011, and the
Administration’s FY2012 request. The Senate-reported bill provides $6.5 million for
administrative expenses. The export credit programs are permanently authorized. Appropriations
to this account are used for administrative expenses.
In addition, the 2008 farm bill provides mandatory funding to other programs that promote export
market development. These amounts are not directly appropriated, but are included within the
CCC amount elsewhere in the bill. These include:
• $200 million for the Market Access Program;
• $34 million for the Foreign Market Development Program;
• $9 million for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) Program; and
• $10 million for the Emerging Markets Program;.
Mandatory funding levels requested by the Administration for international food assistance
programs include:
• $156 million for Food for Progress; and
• $5 million for the Local and Regional Commodity Procurement Pilot Program.

99 IDA funding is covered in the Foreign Operations appropriations; see CRS Report R41905, State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs: FY2012 Budget and Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
68

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative
The House-passed bill contains a number of provisions that restrict funding for activities under
the USDA-wide initiative, “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food,” as well as reduce funding for
selected USDA research and rural development programs for local and regional food production.
The Senate bill does not put restrictions on the use of USDA funds to support any “Know Your
Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative. The Senate committee report (S.Rept. 112-73) makes no
other recommendations or clarifications regarding this USDA initiative.
“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” is a USDA-wide initiative that was launched by USDA
in September 2009 to “begin a national conversation to help develop local and regional food
systems and spur economic opportunity.”100 The initiative was designed to eliminate
organizational barriers between existing USDA programs and promote enhanced collaboration
among staff, leveraging existing USDA activities and programs, and thereby “marshalling
resources from across USDA to help create the link between local production and local
consumption.”101 It is not a stand-alone program and does not have its own budget;102 instead, it is
a departmental initiative, and not connected to a specific office or subagency. This is done by
highlighting various existing programs within USDA that are available to support local farmers;
strengthen rural communities; promote healthy eating; protect natural resources; and provide
grants, loans and support.103 Linking local production with local consumption of farm products
also is one of the primary goals of USDA’s Regional Innovation Initiative.104
Among the programs mentioned for leveraging local and regional food production systems are (1)
marketing and promotion programs (such as the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, Farmers
Market Promotion Program, and Federal State Marketing Improvement Program); (2) rural and
community development programs (such as Value-Added Producer Grants, Community Food
Projects Competitive Grants, Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Rural
Business Enterprise Grants, Rural Business Opportunity Grant, Rural Cooperative Development
Grant, Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program, and Farm Storage Facility
Loans); and (3) selected USDA research and cooperative extension programs.105 In response to
demand for farm-to-school activities, certain USDA nutrition and domestic food programs, such
as the farm-to-school and some fresh fruit and vegetable programs, also have been associated

100 USDA, “USDA Launches ‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’ Initiative to Connect Consumers with Local
Producers to Create New Economic Opportunities for Communities,” September 15, 2009, Release No. 0440.09.
101 USDA, “Our Mission,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navtype=KYF&navid=
KYF_MISSION; and AMS, “Regional Food Hubs: Linking Producers to New Markets,” May 2011.
102 Letter to Senators McCain, Roberts, and Chambliss from USDA Secretary Vilsack, April 30, 2010.
103 USDA, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER; see also USDA
memos at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navtype=KYF&navid=KYF_GRANTS.
104 The other goals of USDA’s Regional Innovation Initiative include rural broadband, biofuels and biobased products,
ecosystem markets to pay farmers for storing carbon, and forest restoration and private land conservation. USDA
proposed this initiative as part of its FY2011 budget request (USDA, “FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual
Performance Plan, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY11budsum.pdf). Like “Know Your Farmer, Know Your
Food,” it also spans several mission areas such as Rural Development, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, and
Natural Resources and Environment. See the introduction of the “Rural Development”section earlier in this report.
105 See USDA at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navtype=KYF&navid=KYF_MISSION; also,
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, “Guide to USDA Funding for Local and Regional Food Systems,” at http://
sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/NSAC_FoodSystemsFundingGuide_FirstEdition_4_2010.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
69

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

with the initiative. Since its launch, USDA has announced funding for various projects under
these and other programs identified as promoting local-scale sustainable operations.106
Some in Congress have challenged USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative. In
April 2010, three Senators wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack expressing concerns about
“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food.” The letter stated: “[T]his spending doesn't appear geared
toward conventional farmers who produce the vast majority of our nation’s food supply, but is
instead aimed at small, hobbyist and organic producers whose customers generally consist of
affluent patrons at urban farmers markets,” among other concerns regarding USDA’s promotion
and prioritization of local food systems. The letter also requested evidence of USDA’s
congressional authority to spend money for “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” and to
provide a full itemized accounting of all spending under the initiative.107
In response, USDA clarified that the initiative “does not have any budgetary or programmatic
authority.... Rather, it is a communications mechanism to further enable our existing programs to
better meet their goals and serve constituents as defined in the respective authorizing legislation
and regulations. While there are no programs under the initiative, since September 2009 a number
of our program funding announcements have included a reference to [“Know Your Farmer, Know
Your Food”].”108
USDA also asserts that “none of these programs are providing preference to local and regional
food system projects, except as provided for in their existing regulatory rules or legislative
authority.”109 Such cases are limited to two statutory cases: (1) a 5% set-aside established in the
2008 farm bill for rural development Business and Industry loans, and (2) an allowance for
schools to use $5 million for local purchases under the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program (DoD Fresh). The regulatory case (set by administrative notice) is in USDA’s
Rural Housing and Community Facilities Program that states, “[The] goal that each state must
fund at least one project” that supports the initiative in FY2010.110
The FY2012 House-passed bill includes a number of provisions restricting funding for selected
USDA programs that fund local and regional food production projects, and also for USDA’s
“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative.111 For example, the House bill provides that
no USDA funds be used to support any “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative. The
House committee report (H.Rept. 112-101) further includes language requiring USDA to “provide
an electronic notification to the Committee at least 72 hours prior to any travel in support of the
‘‘Know Your Farmer-Know Your Food’’ initiative, and such notification shall include the agenda
for the entire trip along with the cost to U.S. taxpayers.” The House committee also directs the

106 For example, USDA’s initial press release announced the following funding under the initiative: Risk Management
Agency for collaborative outreach and assistance programs to socially disadvantaged and underserved farmers; Food
Safety and Inspection Service to implement a new voluntary cooperative program for state-inspected establishments to
ship meat and poultry in interstate commerce; Rural Development grants to help local business cooperatives, and grants
to the to the Northwest Food Processors Association under its Rural Business Opportunity Grant.
107 Letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack from Senators McCain, Roberts, and Chambliss, April 27, 2010.
108 Letter to Senators McCain, Roberts, and Chambliss from USDA Secretary Vilsack, April 30, 2010.
109 Ibid.
110 Letter to State Directors, Rural Development, from Tammye Treviño, Administrator, regarding the Community
Facilities Funding for Local and Regional Food Systems Projects and Know Your Farmer Know Your Food Initiative,
June 2010.
111 H.R. 2112, House reported version, sec. 750.
Congressional Research Service
70

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

USDA to “post media advisories of all such trips on its website, and that such advisories include
the same information.” In addition, the committee report expresses concern that USDA has
awarded “more than $23 million in grants to improve regional and local food systems,” and
directs the agency to focus “its research efforts on only the highest priority, scientifically merited
research.” The committee also provided that no funding be used “for any work related to the
Community Access to Local Food proposal” at USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS).
Building on the House report, Representative Foxx introduced a floor amendment, which was
adopted, to prohibit USDA from using funds for USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food”
initiative. Failed floor amendments from Representatives Pingree, Jackson Lee, and others would
have supported local and regional food systems, removed some of the restrictions, and funded
USDA’s Urban Gardening Program, the Healthy Food Financing Initiative ($5 million) to address
so-called “food deserts” in underserved urban and rural communities.112
Separately, neither the House nor Senate bills recommend any appropriation for USDA’s Healthy
Food Financing Initiative. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative is intended to provide for
various types of financing to support businesses that expand the supply of and demand for
nutritious foods, including tax credits, grants, loans, and other types of technical assistance. The
President’s budget proposed that $35 million be appropriated to this USDA initiative. The Senate
committee points out that elsewhere in its proposed bill, loans and grants and other forms of
technical assistance are made available that may be used toward some of the objectives of this
USDA initiative.
Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration
In FY2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received an appropriation of $2.447 billion
for salaries and expenses, $100 million more than FY2010 and one of the only agencies in the bill
to receive an increase. In addition, FDA received nearly $10 million for buildings and facilities,
for a total appropriation of $2.457 billion. If funding is included from all authorized FDA user
fees, the total FDA activity level in FY2011 was $3.690 billion.
For FY2012, the Administration requested $2.744 billion for salaries and expenses and buildings
and facilities (+12% over FY2011). With authorized user fees, and buildings and facilities, the
total activity level would be $4.3 billion (+16%).
The House-passed bill would provide a total appropriation of $2.157 billion for salaries and
expenses and buildings and facilities, $300 million less than FY2011 (-12%). The Senate-
reported bill would provide $2.506 billion, $350 million more than the House and about $49
million more than FY2011 (+2%).
Including funding from all authorized FDA user fees, the House bill estimates that total available
funding for all of FDA would be $3.677 billion, which the committee reports as comparable to
total available funds in FY2011. The Senate bill would provide a total with user fees of $3.899

112 See, for example, Congressional Record, June 14-15, 2011, pp. H4164-H4165, H4253-H4256, and H4179-H4181.
Congressional Research Service
71

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

billion, about $200 million greater than FY2011. Compared to the President’s budget request,
funding for all FDA program areas is about $600 million lower in the House-passed bill and about
$400 million lower in the Senate bill.
Details about the food safety portion of FDA are available in the “Food Safety” section earlier in
this report.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is the independent regulatory agency
charged with oversight of derivatives markets. The CFTC’s functions include oversight of trading
on the futures exchanges, registration and supervision of futures industry personnel, prevention of
fraud and price manipulation, and investor protection. The Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203)
brought previously unregulated swaps markets under CFTC jurisdiction.
Although most derivatives trading is related to financial variables (interest rates, currency prices,
and stock indexes), congressional oversight remains vested in the Agriculture committees because
of the market’s historical origins as an adjunct to agricultural trade. Appropriations for the CFTC
are under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee in the House, and the
Financial Services and General Government appropriations subcommittee in the Senate.
For FY2011, P.L. 112-10 provided $202 million for the CFTC, up 20% from the $169 million
provided for FY2010 before enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. For FY2012, the President
requested $308 million, which would be $105 million more than FY2011 enacted appropriations.
The requested increase was intended to ensure that the CFTC can meet its new regulatory
responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Act.
For FY2012, the Senate Appropriations committee has recommended $240 million (Financial
Services appropriations bill, S. 1573,), an increase of about $38 million from FY2011 (+19%),
but $38 million below the Administration’s request. The House-passed amount in the Agriculture
appropriations bill is $172 million, $32 million below FY2011 (-16%) and $136 million less than
the President’s request.

Congressional Research Service
72

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Appendix.
Table A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2012
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 Separate
P.L.
106-78 RL30201
2001 7/11/2000
7/20/2000
10/28/2000 Separate
P.L.
106-387 RL30501
2002 7/11/2001
10/25/2001
11/28/2001 Separate
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 Separate
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 Separate
P.L.
111-80 R40721
2011
—
—
4/15/2011
Year-long CR
P.L. 112-10
R41475
2012 6/16/2011 —
—
—
—
R41964
Source: CRS.
Figure A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2011
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
FY2011
** 4/15
Sep
Nov
Feb
May
Source: CRS.
Notes: An asterisk (*) denotes an omnibus appropriation. A double asterisk (**) denotes a year-long continuing
resolution.
Congressional Research Service
73

Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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 and related disaster provisions
Megan Stubbs
7-8707
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov
Crop insurance and crop 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
Randy Aussenberg
7-8641
raussenberg@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

Author Contact Information

Jim Monke, Coordinator
Tadlock Cowan
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
Development
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Megan Stubbs
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Analyst in Social Policy
Resources Policy
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Renée Johnson
Joel L. Greene
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
jgreene@crs.loc.gov, 7-9877
Melissa D. Ho
Dennis A. Shields
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
mho@crs.loc.gov, 7-5342
dshields@crs.loc.gov, 7-9051

Congressional Research Service
74