.

Agriculture and Related Agencies:
FY2012 Appropriations
Jim Monke, Coordinator
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
December 14, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41964
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

.
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).
The FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-55, H.R. 2112) was signed by the President
on November 18, 2011, after passing both chambers by more than two-thirds majorities. It was
the lead division of a three-bill “minibus” appropriation that also included Commerce-Justice-
Science and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriations. The minibus was
the first FY2012 appropriation to be enacted, and it also included another short-term continuing
resolution, through December 16, 2011, for the remaining nine appropriations bills. The
Agriculture bill was the vehicle for the minibus since it was the only one of the three
subcommittee bills in the minibus to have passed the House.
P.L. 112-55 provides $20.2 billion of discretionary budget authority, including $367 million of
conservation-related disaster assistance that was not subject to the regular budgetary caps. After
subtracting the disaster funding and adjusting for CFTC jurisdiction, the $19.8 billion of regular
discretionary budget authority reflects a $372 million reduction from FY2011 levels (-1.8%). The
bill also includes $116.8 billion of mandatory funding for nutrition assistance and farm supports,
up +11% from FY2011 due to a 19% increase in nutrition assistance because of the economy.
The FY2012 Agriculture appropriation spreads its reductions in discretionary spending by
trimming most agency budgets in the range of 3%-6%, although some programs have greater
reductions. The act makes cuts to rural development programs (-$233 million, -8.8%),
discretionary agriculture programs (-$209 million, -3%), discretionary nutrition assistance (-$127
million, -1.8%), foreign assistance programs (-$56 million, -2.9%), and conservation programs
(-$45 million, -5.1%). The Food and Drug Administration and Commodity Futures Trading
Commission each receive small increases in budget authority of about 1.5% to 2%.
The appropriation increases the amount of limitations on mandatory farm bill programs by 27%
to $1.2 billion, though rescissions from prior-year appropriations were smaller by about half, at
$445 million. These limitations and rescissions, though greater than most years, were less in total
than for FY2011. Reliance on these provisions in FY2011 and relatively less use in FY2012
increased the amount of cuts required to agency programs by about $220 million to meet the bill’s
discretionary allocation.
The final appropriation is closer to the Senate-passed version from November 1, 2011, than the
House-passed version from June 16, 2011. The Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25, August
2, 2011) set the discretionary limits that were used for the Senate bill and in the conference
agreement. The Senate-passed version cut discretionary Agriculture appropriations to $19.8
billion, $2.7 billion more than the House bill in its discretionary total.
The House version of H.R. 2112, passed under the House’s more austere budget resolution, would
have cut discretionary Agriculture appropriations to $17.25 billion, a reduction of $2.7 billion
from FY2011 levels (-14%), and following a 15% cut in FY2011. Much of the floor debate in the
House 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).
Congressional Research Service

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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 ............................................................................................................................. 6
Senate Action............................................................................................................................. 6
Continuing Resolutions ............................................................................................................. 7
Conference Agreement ............................................................................................................ 14
Budget Resolution and Subcommittee Allocation................................................................... 14
Historical Trends ..................................................................................................................... 15
Savings Achieved by Limits and Rescissions.......................................................................... 23
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) ..................................................... 23
Rescissions ........................................................................................................................ 25
USDA Agencies and Programs ...................................................................................................... 27
Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension ................................................................... 27
Agricultural Research Service........................................................................................... 29
National Institute of Food and Agriculture........................................................................ 29
Economic Research Service .............................................................................................. 30
National Agricultural Statistics Service ............................................................................ 30
Marketing and Regulatory Programs....................................................................................... 30
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service..................................................................... 31
Agricultural Marketing Service and Section 32 ................................................................ 33
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration .............................................. 34
Food Safety.............................................................................................................................. 35
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .............................................................................. 37
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ...................................................................... 41
Farm Service Agency .............................................................................................................. 42
FSA Salaries and Expenses ............................................................................................... 42
FSA Farm Loan Programs................................................................................................. 43
Commodity Credit Corporation............................................................................................... 45
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Limits ............................................................................... 45
Mohair Marketing Assistance Loans................................................................................. 46
Brazil Cotton Institute ....................................................................................................... 47
Crop Insurance......................................................................................................................... 48
Disaster Assistance .................................................................................................................. 49
Conservation............................................................................................................................ 50
Discretionary Conservation Programs............................................................................... 50
Mandatory Conservation Programs................................................................................... 52
Rural Development.................................................................................................................. 55
Rural Housing Service (RHS) ........................................................................................... 56
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)...................................................................... 58
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)............................................................................................ 60
Domestic Food Assistance....................................................................................................... 61
Congressional Research Service

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act.......................................... 62
Child Nutrition Programs .................................................................................................. 63
The WIC Program ............................................................................................................. 66
Commodity Assistance Program ....................................................................................... 67
Nutrition Programs Administration (and the Congressional Hunger Center) ................... 70
Other Funding Support...................................................................................................... 70
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid............................................................................................. 71
Foreign Agricultural Service ............................................................................................. 72
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480) ................................................................................... 72
McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition ................................................ 73
Commodity Credit Corporation—Export Credit Guarantee Programs ............................. 73
USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative.................................................... 74
Related Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 77
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) .................................................................................... 77
Commodity Futures Trading Commission .............................................................................. 80

Figures
Figure 1. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2012 ............................................ 2
Figure 2. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2012......................................... 16
Figure 3. Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory vs. Discretionary............................................. 17
Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations: Domestic Nutrition vs. Rest of Bill................................... 17
Figure 5. Domestic Nutrition Programs in Agriculture Appropriations: Mandatory vs.
Discretionary .............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 6. Non-Nutrition Programs (Rest of Bill) in Agriculture Appropriations:
Mandatory vs. Discretionary ...................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7. Agriculture Appropriations in Inflation-Adjusted 2011 Dollars..................................... 20
Figure 8. Agriculture Appropriations as a Percentage of Total Federal Budget ............................ 20
Figure 9. Agriculture Appropriations as a Percentage of GDP...................................................... 20
Figure 10. Agriculture Appropriations per Capita of U.S. Population........................................... 20
Figure 11. USDA Research Budget, FY1972-FY2012.................................................................. 29
Figure 12. Mandatory Conservation Program Reductions, FY2003-FY2012 ............................... 54
Figure A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2012 ................. 82

Tables
Table 1. Congressional Action on FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations.......................................... 5
Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title: FY2010-FY2012 ................. 8
Table 3. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Agency and Program:
FY2008-FY2012........................................................................................................................... 9
Table 4. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations: FY1995-FY2012 .................................. 18
Table 5. Agriculture Appropriations: Percentage Changes over Time........................................... 19
Congressional Research Service

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 6. Trends in Benchmarks and Real Agriculture Appropriations: FY1995-FY2012............. 21
Table 7. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks............................ 22
Table 8. Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS), FY2008-FY2012 ...................... 24
Table 9. Rescissions from Prior-Year Budget Authority................................................................ 26
Table 10. USDA REE Mission Area Appropriations, FY2008-FY2012........................................ 28
Table 11. Appropriations for Food Safety, FY2010-FY2012......................................................... 38
Table 12. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority, FY2010-FY2012.............................. 44
Table 13. Mandatory Conservation Program Reductions, FY2011-FY2012................................. 53
Table 14. Rural Development Appropriations, by Agency, FY2010-FY2012............................... 56
Table 15. Rural Housing Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012............................................. 57
Table 16. Rural Business-Cooperative Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012 ....................... 59
Table 17. Rural Utilities Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012 ............................................. 61
Table 18. Domestic Food Assistance (USDA-FNS) Appropriations ............................................. 68
Table 19. FDA Appropriations and User Fees by Program Area ................................................... 78
Table A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2012 ................... 82

Appendixes
Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 82

Contacts
Key Policy Staff............................................................................................................................. 83
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 84

Congressional Research Service

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
The FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-55) was signed by the President on
November 18, 2011, as the lead division of a three-bill “minibus” appropriation. The minibus
passed both chambers by more than two-thirds majorities on November 17, 2011. It reduces
regular discretionary Agriculture appropriations by $372 million to $19.8 billion, a cut of -1.8%
below FY2011 levels after adjusting for disaster designations and certain jurisdiction issues. The
act also includes $367 million of conservation-related disaster assistance that was not subject to
the same budgetary caps; with this spending, the appropriation is $20.2 billion, a slight increase
over unadjusted FY2011 levels.
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)
program, and child nutrition programs.2 The second-largest USDA mission area, with about one-

1 USDA, FY2012 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, February 2011, p. 123, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY12budsum.pdf.
2 USDA, FY2012 Budget Summary, at p. 117.
Congressional Research Service
1

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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, FY2012
($138 billion in Titles I-VI)
Title IV: Domestic nutrition
Title I: Agricultural programs
Title VI: FDA, CFTC
Title III: Rural Development
Title V: Foreign assistance
Title II: Conservation

Source: CRS, based on P.L. 112-55 and H.Rept. 112-284, p. 213.
Notes: Includes mandatory and discretionary appropriations. Excludes general provisions.

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
Congressional Research Service
3

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Committees originate bills each year that provide funding and direct activities among
discretionary programs.5
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.6
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

5 The distinction between discretionary and mandatory spending was highlighted by Rep. Kingston during House floor
debate on Agriculture appropriations on June 16, 2011, using a version of Figure 3 from later in this report; http://
www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSession5217/start/4762/stop/4883.
6 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

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.
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
Both chambers passed the conference agreement for the FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act
on November 17, 2011, and the President signed it the next day (Table 1). It was the lead division
of a three-bill “minibus” appropriation that also included Commerce-Justice-Science and
Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriations. The minibus was the first
FY2012 appropriation to be enacted, and it also included another short-term continuing
resolution, through December 16, 2011, for the remaining nine appropriations bills. The
Agriculture bill was the vehicle for the minibus since it was the only one of the three
subcommittee bills in the minibus to have passed the House.
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
11/1/2011 11/14/2011 11/17/2011 11/17/2011 11/18/2011
Voice vote

H.R. 2112
H.R. 2112 H.R. 2112 H.R. 2112, H.R. 2112
Vote of
Vote of P.L. 112-55
Division A Division A 298 - 121
70-30
Division A
H.Rept.
Vote of
S.Rept.
112-101
217-203
112-73
Vote of
H.Rept.
69-30
112-284
Voice vote
Vote of
28-2

Source: CRS.
a. A procedure that permits a bill to advance if subcommittee members independently agree to move it along.
Congressional Research Service
5

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Across the most recent 14 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 seven times, in FY1999, FY2003-FY2005, FY2008, FY2009, and
FY2012. Year-long continuing resolutions were used two times, in FY2007 and FY2011. Table
A-1 lists each appropriation and annual CRS report. Figure A-1 shows a timeline of enactment.
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
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 have cut discretionary Agriculture appropriations to $17.2 billion,
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).7
Other more notable non-money amendments that were adopted would have prevented funding of
blender pumps for higher mixtures of ethanol (a similar amendment in the Senate was
withdrawn), prevented funding related to the RU-486 abortion pill (proposed relative to the
USDA telemedicine program, but also affecting the FDA), prevented food aid to North Korea,
and prevented implementation of USDA policy on climate change adaptation. The bill also
included a 0.78% across-the-board rescission to discretionary accounts (§743), which is reflected
in tables throughout this report and in the Senate committee report’s tables.
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 full
committee bypassed subcommittee action by “polling” the bill out of subcommittee—a procedure
that permits a bill to advance if subcommittee members independently agree to move it along.8

7 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.
8 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

This expedited committee procedure was formerly uncommon for the Agriculture appropriations
bill, but was used for the FY2009-FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bills as well.
Floor consideration of the bill began on October 18, 2011, as part of a “minibus” of three
appropriations bills (S.Amdt. 738, in the nature of a substitute, to H.R. 2112) that included
Agriculture (Division A), Commerce-Justice-Science (Division B), and Transportation-Housing
and Urban Development (Division C). The Agriculture bill was the vehicle for the minibus, since
it was the only one of the three to have passed the House. Cloture was approved on October 21,
and final passage occurred on November 1, 2011, by a vote of 69-30.
Results of Senate floor action for the Agriculture portion of the bill included 19 amendments
proposed and raised on the floor for consideration, out of a much larger pool of amendments
introduced and numbered. Of the 19 proposed, 12 were adopted, 4 were rejected, 2 were
withdrawn, and 1 fell by point of order (eliminating the SNAP benefit in the Recovery Act).
There were six recorded votes among these Agriculture-related amendments: passage of a farm
subsidy AGI payment limit (84-15) and an increase in disaster funding (58-41), and failure of an
FDA drug import provision (44-55), an FDA drug regulatory provision (44-54), SNAP categorical
eligibility (41-58), and a reduction in rural development funding (13-85). Besides the two
amendments that passed by recorded votes, the other 10 added amendments were adopted by
voice vote or unanimous consent. Only two of the amendments that were adopted changed
amounts in the bill from the Senate-reported version—to increase disaster funding by $110
million, which is offset by a disaster declaration so as to not count against the regular bill total;
and to transfer $8 million between accounts to increase conservation (these are reflected in the
updated tables in this report). The rest were policy-related amendments controlling how the
appropriations may be used, ranging from the adoption of nutrition standards to uses of funds for
vehicles, conferences, and USDA loan programs.
The Senate-passed bill would have cut discretionary Agriculture appropriations to $19.8 billion, a
cut of -0.8% below FY2011 levels (Table 2, Table 3), after adjusting for disaster designations of
certain provisions. This Senate total was $2.7 billion more than the House bill’s discretionary
total (excluding CFTC from both bills for comparison). The Senate bill’s discretionary total was
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). In addition to the amounts above, the Senate bill would have
provided $376 million in disaster assistance for conservation and forestry; this amount had a
disaster designation for budgetary purposes and is not counted in the discretionary total in the
following tables, in order to facilitate comparison of the regular appropriation.
Continuing Resolutions
FY2012 began under a short-term continuing resolution (CR) on October, 1, 2011. 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 was 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 were continued at a rate to maintain program levels.
Congressional Research Service
7

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 2. Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Title: FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Change
Change from

FY2010
FY2011
from
FY2012
FY2011 to FY2012
FY2010
P.L.
P.L.
to
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Title in Appropriations Bill
111-80
112-10
FY2011
passed
passed
112-55
$ %
Agricultural Programs
30,192
29,490
-2.3%
24,439
24,952
24,970
-4,520
-15.3%
Mandatory 22,855
22,605
-1.1%
18,293
18,293
18,293
-4,311
-19.1%
Discretionary 7,336
6,885
-6.1%
6,145
6,658
6,677
-209
-3.0%
Conservation Programs
1,009
889
-11.9%
784
837
844
-45
-5.1%
Rural Development
2,979
2,638
-11.4%
2,238
2,421
2,405
-233
-8.8%
Domestic Food Programs
82,783
89,655
+8.3%
96,265
105,520
105,553
+15,898
+17.7%
Mandatory 75,128
82,527
+9.8%
89,944
98,553
98,552
+16,025
+19.4%
Discretionary 7,655
7,128
-6.9%
6,322
6,967
7,001
-127
-1.8%
Foreign Assistance
2,089
1,891
-9.5%
1,391
1,935
1,836
-56
-2.9%
FDA 2,357
2,457
+4.2%
2,157
2,506
2,506
+49
+2.0%
CFTC (in Agriculture) a 169

—
—
171
—
205
+3
+1.5%
CFTC (in Financial Services) a
—
202 +19.8% —
240
— — —
General Provisions
-238
-1,871
+685.2%
-1,914
-1,106
-1,274
+598
-31.9%
Total in agriculture bill (no adjustment for jurisdiction over CFTC, as listed in Committee reports)
Mandatory 97,983
105,131
+7.3%
108,237
116,846
116,845
+11,714
+11.1%
Discretionary 23,356
20,018
-14.3%
17,293
20,219
20,200
+182
+0.9%
Total 121,339
125,149
+3.1%
125,530
137,065
137,046
+11,896
+9.5%
Adjustments to make comparison to 302(b) and across years for jurisdiction
Other scorekeeping adjustments
-52
-87 +66.7%
-72
-72
-72
+15 -17.2%
Subtract disaster declaration
0
0
—
0
-376
-367
—
—
Adjusted total without CFTC in any column (Senate basis) a
Discretionary 23,135
19,931
-13.8%
17,051
19,771
19,556
-375
-1.9%
Total 121,118
125,062
+3.3%
125,288
136,617
136,401
+11,339
+9.1%
Adjusted total with CFTC in all columns (House basis) a
Discretionary 23,304
20,133
-13.6%
17,221
20,011
19,761
-372
-1.8%
Total 121,287
125,265
+3.3%
125,458
136,857
136,607
+11,342
+9.1%
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 112-55, S. 1573, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and unpublished CBO tables.
Notes: Regular appropriations only; does not include supplemental appropriations of $549 million in FY2010.
a. CFTC is shown in different ways because of subcommittee jurisdiction differences between the House and
Senate to make totals comparable.

Congressional Research Service
8

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
from
FY2012
FY2011 to FY2012
FY2010
P.L. 110-
P.L. 111-
P.L. 112-
to
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L. 112-
Agency or Major Program
161
80
10
FY2011
Request
passed
passed
55
$ %
Title I: Agricultural Programs

Offices of Sec., Tribal Rel., Chief Econ.
15.5
19.3
17.6
-9.1%
22.1
15.3
16.7
16.2
-1.4
-7.9%
Healthy Food Financing Initiative
—
—
—
—
35.0
—
—
—
—
—
Chief Information Officer
16.2
61.6
39.9
-35.2%
63.6
33.7
36.0
44.0
+4.1
+10.3%
Office of Inspector General
79.5
88.7
88.5
-0.2%
90.8
79.4
84.1
85.6
-2.9
-3.3%
Buildings, facilities, and rental payments
194.9
293.1
246.5
-15.9%
255.2
199.8
230.4
230.4
-16.1
-6.5%
Other Departmental administration offices a
131.0 164.1 145.6
-11.3% 169.9 114.1 129.4 131.3 -14.3
-9.8%
Under Secretaries (four offices in Title I) b
2.5 3.5 3.5
-0.2% 3.6 2.9 3.3 3.3 -0.2
-5.0%
Research, Education and Economics

Agricultural Research Service
1,167.8
1,250.5
1,133.2
-9.4%
1,137.7
987.6
1,094.6
1,094.6
-38.6
-3.4%
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
1,183.8
1,343.2
1,214.8
-9.6%
1,204.8
1,012.0
1,214.0
1,202.3
-12.5
-1.0%
Economic Research Service
77.4
82.5
81.8
-0.8%
86.0
69.5
77.7
77.7
-4.1
-5.0%
National Agricultural Statistics Service
162.2
161.8
156.4
-3.3%
165.4
148.3
152.6
158.6
+2.2
+1.4%
Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
867.6
909.7
866.8
-4.7%
837.4
787.0
823.3
819.7
-47.1
-5.4%
Agric. Marketing Service
114.7
92.5
87.9
-5.0%
97.4
78.5
83.4
83.4
-4.5
-5.1%
Section 32 (permanent+transfers)
1,169.0
1,320.1
1,065.0
-19.3%
1,080.0
1,080.0
1,080.0
1,080.0
+15.0
+1.4%
Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards
38.5
42.0
40.3
-4.1%
44.2
36.7
38.2
37.8
-2.5
-6.2%
Food Safety

Food Safety & Inspection Service
930.1
1,018.5
1,006.5
-1.2%
1,011.4
964.4
1,006.5
1,004.4
-2.1
-0.2%
Farm and Commodity Programs

Farm Service Agency: Salaries and Exp. c
1,435.2 1,574.9 1,521.2 -3.4% 1,718.2 1,433.9 1,479.0 1,496.6 -24.6 -1.6%
CRS-9

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Change
Change from

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
from
FY2012
FY2011 to FY2012
FY2010
P.L. 110-
P.L. 111-
P.L. 112-
to
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L. 112-
Agency or Major Program
161
80
10
FY2011
Request
passed
passed
55
$ %
Adjustments to make comparison to 302(b) and across years for jurisdiction
Other scorekeeping adjustments i
-42.6 -52.2 -87.0
+66.7% -69.0 -72.0 -72.0 -72.0 +15.0
-17.2%
Subtract disaster declaration
-1,022.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
0.0
-375.9
-367.0
—
—
Adjusted total without CFTC in any column (Senate basis) h
Discretionary
17,981.6
23,135.0
19,930.8
-13.8%
21,972.4
17,050.6
19,771.0
19,556.0
-374.8
-1.9%
Total
90,651.8 121,118.4 125,062.3 +3.3% 132,209.8 125,287.8 136,617.4 136,401.4 +11,339.1 +9.1%
Adjusted total with CFTC in all columns (House basis) h
Discretionary 18,092.9
23,303.8
20,133.1
-13.6%
22,280.4
17,221.2
20,011.0
19,761.3
-371.8
-1.8%
Total
90,763.1 121,287.2 125,264.5 +3.3% 132,517.8 125,458.4 136,857.4 136,606.7 +11,342.1 +9.1%
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 112-55, S. 1573, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, P.L. 110-161, and unpublished CBO 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 aid, $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 nutrition, $150 million for foreign aid, $31 million for farm loans, $18 million for forestry, 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; it 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. Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service in this report are before the rescission from the Cushion of Credit account. This approach allows the total
appropriation for RBS to remain positive, unlike in Appropriations committee tables. The rescission is included in the General Provisions section.
h. CFTC is shown in different ways because of jurisdiction differences to make totals comparable.
i.
“Other scorekeeping adjustments” are not appropriated items (e.g., negative subsidies in loan program accounts) and are not shown in Appropriations committee
tables, but are part of the official score of the bill. Adjustments for disaster designation allow regular appropriations to be compared and also may affect subcommittee
allocations.
CRS-13

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Conference Agreement
The conference agreement for the three-bill minibus was published on November 14, 2011,
(H.Rept. 112-284 to accompany H.R. 2112) and both chambers passed the bill on November 17,
2011, with more than two-thirds majorities. The President signed the bill the next day, and the
minibus appropriation was enacted as P.L. 112-55.
On October 19, 2011, the White House had issued what amounts to a Statement of Administration
Policy (SAP) for all of the appropriations bills.9 Regarding the Agriculture bill, the statement
mentions the importance of adequate funding for food safety, WIC, and global food security. It
also referred to certain program termination proposals.
The enacted appropriation closely follows the amounts specified in the Senate-passed bill. It
reduces regular discretionary Agriculture appropriations by $372 million to $19.8 billion, a cut of
-1.8% below FY2011 levels after adjusting for disaster designations of certain provisions and
jurisdiction over CFTC (Table 2, Table 3). The bill also included $367 million of conservation-
related disaster assistance that was not subject to the same budgetary caps; with this spending, the
appropriation is $20.2 billion, a slight increase over FY2011 levels.
The FY2012 Agriculture appropriation spreads its reductions in discretionary spending by
trimming most agency’s budgets in the range of 3%-6%, although some programs have greater
reductions. The act makes cuts to rural development programs (-$233 million, -8.8%),
discretionary agriculture programs (-$209 million, -3%), discretionary nutrition assistance (-$127
million, -1.8%), foreign assistance programs (-$56 million, -2.9%), and conservation programs (-
$45 million, -5.1%). The Food and Drug Administration and Commodity Futures Trading
Commission each receive small increases in budget authority of about 1.5% to 2%. The
appropriation increases the amount of limitations on mandatory farm bill programs by 27% to
$1.2 billion, though rescissions from prior year appropriations were smaller by about half, at $445
million.
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%).

9 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/letters/letter-regarding-fy2012-appropriations-sent-
to-senator-inouye-congressman-rogers—congressman-dicks-and-senator-cochran.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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%).
The Senate Appropriations committee subsequently adopted higher 302(b) suballocations for
Agriculture, but solely due to disaster designations of provisions. On September 20, the
committee adopted a revised subcommittee allocation of $20.046 billion (S.Rept. 112-81). On
October 20, 2011. the committee adopted a further revised allocation for Agriculture of $20.156
billion (S.Rept. 112-89). These revised allocations were $266 million greater and $376 million
greater, respectively, than the initial allocation, exactly reflecting the amount of disaster
designations in the Senate markup and in a floor amendment, as allowed under the Budget
Control Act. The Senate’s revised allocations were greater than FY2011, but because of the
disaster amounts rather than the underlying bill.10
On November 17, 2011, the Senate Appropriations committee adopted a final Agriculture
subcommittee allocation for passage of the conference agreement. The allocation was $20.24
billion (S.Rept. 112-95), which incorporates $367 million of disaster designation allowed under
the BCA. The non-disaster amount for the “regular” appropriation is about $19.8 billion. Of the
$20.24 billion allocation for Agriculture in S.Rept. 112-95, $1.75 billion is designated as security
spending under the BCA.11
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 enacted FY2012 appropriation in P.L. 112-55 is the
basis for comparison throughout most of this section.
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 (Table 4). Over the past 10 years (since FY2002), total discretionary funding in the
Agriculture appropriations bill has grown at an average annualized rate of +2.0% per year (Table
5). The nutrition portion of this discretionary total shows a +3.7% average annual increase over
10 years, while the rest of the bill has an average annual 10-year increase +1.1%.

10 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.
11 Security spending in the Agriculture appropriations bill includes Food for Peace (formerly known as P.L. 480 Title II
grants) and McGovern-Dole Food for Education.
Congressional Research Service
15

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Figure 2. Discretionary Agriculture Appropriations, FY1996-FY2012
$ bil ion
Total discretionary
25
Domestic nutrition
Rest of bill
20
15
10
5
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Source: CRS.
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.12 Mandatory appropriations have a 10-year average annual growth of +7.5%, while
discretionary appropriations show the +2.0% rate discussed above. The total (mandatory plus
discretionary) reflects a +6.4% average annual increase over 10 years.
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
FY2012. Since FY2002, total nutrition spending has increased at an average rate of about +10.8%
per year, compared to a -1.3% 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 even
faster in the more recent 5- and 10-year periods, and the decline in the rest of the bill is sharper,
too, in more recent 5- and 10-year periods.
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 line from Figure 4 (total domestic nutrition programs) and divides it
into mandatory and discretionary accounts. Over the past 10 years, mandatory nutrition spending
rose at about +11.5% per year, while the discretionary portion increased at about +3.7% per year.

12 A version of Figure 3 was used on the House floor by Rep. Kingston on June 16, 2011, http://www.c-spanvideo.org/
program/HouseSession5217/start/4815/stop/4883.
Congressional Research Service
16

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Figure 3. Agriculture Appropriations:
Figure 4. Agriculture Appropriations:
Mandatory vs. Discretionary
Domestic Nutrition vs. Rest of Bill
$ billion
Total bill
$ billion
Total bill
140
Mandatory
140
Domestic nutrition
Rest of bill
120
Discretionary
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.
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
Total domestic nutrition
$ billion
Total non-nutrition (rest of bill)
140
Mandatory
140
Mandatory
Discretionary
Discretionary
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.
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.

Congressional Research Service
17

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 4. Trends in Nominal Agriculture Appropriations: FY1995-FY2012
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
FY1995-2003
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Discretionary
total
13.29 13.31 13.04 13.75 13.69 13.95 14.97 16.28 17.91
Domestic nutrition a
3.93 4.22 4.22 4.31 4.31 4.42 4.46 4.89 5.00
Rest of bill b
9.36 9.09 8.82 9.44 9.39 9.53 10.51 11.39 12.91
Mandatory
total
54.61 49.78 40.08 35.80 41.00 61.95 59.77 56.91 56.70
Domestic
nutrition

36.30 35.54 36.27 32.91 30.51 30.63 29.66 33.06 36.89
Rest
of
bill
18.31 14.23 3.81 2.89 10.48 31.33 30.12 23.86 19.82
Total
bill
67.90 63.09 53.12 49.55 54.69 75.90 74.74 73.19 74.61
Domestic
nutrition
40.23 39.76 40.49 37.22 34.82 35.04 34.12 37.95 41.89
Rest
of
bill
27.67 23.33 12.63 12.33 19.87 40.85 40.63 35.24 32.72
Percentages of Total

1.
Mandatory
80% 79% 75% 72% 75% 82% 80% 78% 76%
2.
Discretionary
20% 21% 25% 28% 25% 18% 20% 22% 24%
1.
Domestic
nutrition 59% 63% 76% 75% 64% 46% 46% 52% 56%
2.
Rest
of
bill
41% 37% 24% 25% 36% 54% 54% 48% 44%
FY2004-2012
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Discretionary
total
16.84 16.83 16.78 17.81 18.09 20.60 23.30 20.13 19.76
Domestic
nutrition
4.90 5.55 5.53 5.52 6.37 7.23 7.65 7.13 7.00
Rest
of
bill
11.94 11.28 11.25 12.29 11.72 13.37 15.65 13.00 12.76
Mandatory
total
69.75 68.29 83.07 79.80 72.67 87.80 97.98 105.13 116.85
Domestic
nutrition
42.36 46.94 53.37 51.51 53.68 68.92 75.13 82.53 98.55
Rest
of
bill
27.38 21.36 29.70 28.29 18.99 18.88 22.86 22.60 18.29
Total
bill
86.59 85.13 99.85 97.61 90.76 108.40 121.29 125.26 136.61
Domestic
nutrition
47.26 52.49 58.89 57.03 60.06 76.16 82.78 89.66 105.55
Rest
of
bill
39.32 32.64 40.95 40.58 30.71 32.25 38.50 35.61 31.05
Percentages of Total

1.
Mandatory
81% 80% 83% 82% 80% 81% 81% 84% 86%
2.
Discretionary
19% 20% 17% 18% 20% 19% 19% 16% 14%
1.
Domestic
nutrition 55% 62% 59% 58% 66% 70% 68% 72% 77%
2.
Rest
of
bill
45% 38% 41% 42% 34% 30% 32% 28% 23%
Source: CRS. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
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.
Congressional Research Service
18

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 5. Agriculture Appropriations: Percentage Changes over Time

Average annual change from the past to FY2012

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.)
Discretionary total
-1.8%
+2.1%
+2.0%
+2.8%
-3.2%
+0.7%
-0.2%
+0.8%
Domestic nutrition a -1.8%
+4.9% +3.7%
+3.4% -3.1% +3.4% +1.5%
+1.4%
Rest of bill b -1.9%
+0.8%
+1.1%
+2.5%
-3.2%
-0.7%
-1.0%
+0.5%
Mandatory total
+11.1%
+7.9%
+7.5%
+7.4%
+9.6%
+6.4%
+5.2%
+5.3%
Domestic nutrition
+19.4%
+13.9%
+11.5%
+6.9%
+17.8%
+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
+9.1%
+7.0%
+6.4%
+6.5%
+7.6%
+5.5%
+4.2%
+4.4%
Domestic nutrition
+17.7%
+13.1%
+10.8%
+6.6%
+16.1%
+11.5%
+8.4%
+4.5%
Rest of bill
-12.8%
-5.2%
-1.3%
+6.2%
-14.0%
-6.5%
-3.3%
+4.1%
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.
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 green-colored line in Figure 4 into mandatory and discretionary accounts.
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 reflects an average annual increase of +1.1% over the past 10
years. Over the five-year period since FY2007, the rest of bill increase is more nearly flat, at
+0.8% per year.
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 6)
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 has increased at an average annual real rate of +4.2%
over the past 10 years. Within that total, nutrition programs have increased at a higher average
annual real rate of +8.4%. The non-nutrition “rest of the bill” shows a -3.3% average annual real
change over 10 years, and a -6.5% average annual real change over 5 years (Figure 7).
Congressional Research Service
19

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Figure 7. Agriculture Appropriations in
Figure 8. Agriculture Appropriations as a
Inflation-Adjusted 2011 Dollars
Percentage of Total Federal Budget
$ billion
Total bil
% Fed. Bud.
Total bill
140
Total mandatory
Domestic nutrition
Domestic nutrition
Rest of bill
120
4.0%
Rest of bill
Total discretionary
100
3.0%
80
60
2.0%
40
1.0%
20
0
0.0%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.
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.
Figure 9. Agriculture Appropriations as a
Figure 10. Agriculture Appropriations
Percentage of GDP
per Capita of U.S. Population
% of GDP
Total bil
2011 $/capita
Total bill
1.00%
Domestic nutrition
Domestic nutrition
Rest of bill
400
Rest of bil
0.75%
300
0.50%
200
0.25%
100
0.00%
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Source: CRS.
Source: CRS.
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.
Relative to the entire federal budget, the Agriculture bill’s share declined from 4.4% of the federal
budget in FY1995 to 2.7% in FY2009, before rising again to 3.7% in FY2012 (Figure 8). The
share for nutrition programs had declined from 2.6% in FY1995 to 1.8% in FY2008, but the
recent recession has caused that share to rise to 2.9% in FY2012. The share for the rest of the bill
has declined from 1.8% in FY1995 and 2.1% in FY2001 to 0.8% in FY2012 (Table 7).
As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), 13 Agriculture appropriations have been fairly
steady at under 0.75% of GDP from FY2000-FY2009, but have risen to about 0.86% of GDP in
FY2012 (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), while non-
nutrition agricultural programs have been declining (0.42% in FY2000 to 0.20% in FY2012).

13 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
20

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 6. Trends in Benchmarks and Real Agriculture Appropriations: FY1995-FY2012
(fiscal year budget authority in billions of dollars, except as noted)
FY1995-2003
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
GDP ($ billions)a
7,341 7,718 8,212 8,663 9,208 9,821 10,225 10,544 10,980
U.S. budget authorityb 1,540 1,581 1,643 1,692 1,777 1,825 1,959 2,090 2,266
Population (million)c
266.6 269.7 272.9 276.1 279.3 282.4 285.3 288.0 290.7
GDP price indexa
81.84 83.42 84.95 86.03 87.17 88.89 90.99 92.49 94.42
Inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars (real dollars)
Discretionary
total
18.31 17.99 17.31 18.02 17.71 17.69 18.55 19.84 21.38
Domestic
nutrition
5.41 5.70 5.60 5.65 5.57 5.60 5.53 5.96 5.97
Rest
of
bill
12.90 12.29 11.71 12.37 12.14 12.08 13.02 13.88 15.41
Mandatory
total
75.23 67.28 53.19 46.92 53.03 78.58 74.06 69.38 67.71
Domestic
nutrition
50.01 48.04 48.14 43.13 39.47 38.85 36.75 40.30 44.05
Rest
of
bill
25.22 19.24 5.05 3.79 13.56 39.74 37.32 29.08 23.66
Total
bill
93.55 85.27 70.50 64.94 70.74 96.27 92.62 89.22 89.10
Domestic
nutrition
55.42 53.74 53.74 48.78 45.03 44.45 42.28 46.26 50.02
Rest
of
bill
38.12 31.53 16.76 16.16 25.70 51.82 50.34 42.96 39.07
FY2004-2012
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GDP
($
billions)
11,686 12,446 13,225 13,896 14,439 14,237 14,508 15,080 15,813
U.S.
budget
authority 2,408 2,583 2,780 2,863 3,326 4,077 3,485 3,651 3,685
Population
(mil ion)
293.3 296.0 298.8 301.7 304.5 307.2 310.2 313.2 316.3
GDP
price
index
96.84 100.00 103.42 106.54 108.98 110.43 111.27 112.75 114.32
Inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars (real dollars)
Discretionary
total
19.61 18.98 18.29 18.85 18.72 21.03 23.61 20.13 19.49
Domestic
nutrition
5.70 6.26 6.02 5.85 6.59 7.39 7.76 7.13 6.90
Rest
of
bill
13.90 12.72 12.27 13.00 12.12 13.65 15.86 13.00 12.58
Mandatory
total
81.20 77.00 90.56 84.45 75.18 89.64 99.29 105.13 115.24
Domestic
nutrition
49.32 52.92 58.18 54.51 55.54 70.37 76.13 82.53 97.20
Rest
of
bill
31.88 24.08 32.38 29.94 19.64 19.27 23.16 22.60 18.04
Total
bill
100.81 95.98 108.86 103.30 93.90 110.68 122.90 125.26 134.73
Domestic
nutrition
55.03 59.18 64.21 60.35 62.13 77.76 83.88 89.66 104.10
Rest
of
bill
45.78 36.80 44.65 42.95 31.77 32.92 39.02 35.61 30.63
Source: CRS. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission. See
footnotes in Table 4 for definitions of “domestic nutrition” and “rest of bill.”
a. OMB, Budget of the United States Government, “Historical Tables,” Table 10.1, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.
b. OMB, Budget of the United States Government, “Historical Tables,” Table 5.1, total budget authority.
c. Census Bureau, U.S. Population Projections, at http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/
index.html, and Statistical Abstract of the United States.
Congressional Research Service
21

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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 $426 per capita in FY2012 (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 $329 per capita in FY2012. Non-nutrition “other” agricultural programs have been more
steady or declining, falling from $185 per capita in 2000 to $97 per capita in FY2012.
Table 7. Trends in Agriculture Appropriations Measured Against Benchmarks
(fiscal year)

FY1995-2003
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Agriculture appropriations as a % of total federal budget
Total
bill
4.4% 4.0% 3.2% 2.9% 3.1% 4.2% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3%
Domestic
nutrition 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8%
Rest
of
bill
1.8% 1.5% 0.8% 0.7% 1.1% 2.2% 2.1% 1.7% 1.4%
Agriculture appropriations as a % of GDP
Total
bill
0.92% 0.82% 0.65% 0.57% 0.59% 0.77% 0.73% 0.69% 0.68%
Domestic
nutrition 0.55% 0.52% 0.49% 0.43% 0.38% 0.36% 0.33% 0.36% 0.38%
Rest
of
bill
0.38% 0.30% 0.15% 0.14% 0.22% 0.42% 0.40% 0.33% 0.30%
Agriculture appropriations per capita (2011 dollars)
Total
bill
351 316 258 235 253 341 325 310 306
Domestic
nutrition 208 199 197 177 161 157 148 161 172
Rest of bill
143 117 61 59 92 184 176 149 134
FY2004-2012
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Agriculture appropriations as a % of total federal budget
Total
bill
3.6% 3.3% 3.6% 3.4% 2.7% 2.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.7%
Domestic
nutrition 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 2.0% 1.8% 1.9% 2.4% 2.5% 2.9%
Rest
of
bill
1.6% 1.3% 1.5% 1.4% 0.9% 0.8% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8%
Agriculture appropriations as a % of GDP
Total
bill
0.74% 0.68% 0.75% 0.70% 0.63% 0.76% 0.84% 0.83% 0.86%
Domestic
nutrition 0.40% 0.42% 0.45% 0.41% 0.42% 0.53% 0.57% 0.59% 0.67%
Rest
of
bill
0.34% 0.26% 0.31% 0.29% 0.21% 0.23% 0.27% 0.24% 0.20%
Agriculture appropriations per capita (2011 dollars)
Total
bill
344 324 364 342 308 360 396 400 426
Domestic
nutrition 188 200 215 200 204 253 270 286 329
Rest of bill
156 124 149 142 104 107 126 114 97
Source: CRS. Regular appropriations only; all years include Commodity Futures Trading Commission. See
footnotes in Table 4 for definitions of “domestic nutrition” and “rest of bill.”
Congressional Research Service
22

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Savings Achieved by Limits and Rescissions
The enacted FY2012 appropriation contains about $1.65 billion in rescissions and limitations on
mandatory farm bill programs (Title VII in Table 3). The FY2011 appropriation contained $1.87
billion of such rescissions and limitations, more than in past years. These actions are used to score
savings that help meet the discretionary budget allocations, and by association provide relatively
more to (or help avoid deeper cuts to) regular discretionary accounts than might otherwise be
possible. 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.
The FY2012 appropriation increases the amount of limitations placed on mandatory farm bill
programs by 27% to $1.2 billion, though rescissions from prior-year appropriations were smaller
by about half, at $445 million. These limitations and rescissions, though greater than most years,
were less in total than for FY2011. The net reduction in the amount of limitations and rescissions
from $1.87 billion in FY2011 to $1.65 billion in FY2012 effectively increased the amount of cuts
required to agency programs by about $220 million to achieve the FY2012 bill’s reduction in total
discretionary spending to $19.8 billion.
Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)
In recent years, appropriators have placed limitations on mandatory spending authorized in the
farm bill (Table 8). 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
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.
Congressional Research Service
23

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 8. Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS), FY2008-FY2012
(dollars in millions)

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Program in 2008 farm bill
110-161
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
passed
112-55
Conservation programs

Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program -270.0 -270.0 -350.0 -342.0 -350.0 -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 -200.0
Conservation Stewardship Program
—
—
-39.0
-2.0
-210.0
-35.0
-76.5
Farmland Protection Program
—
—
—
—
-50.0
-50.0
-50.0
Grasslands
Reserve

— — — -50.0 -30.0 -50.0 -30.0
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
—
—
—
-12.0
-35.0
-35.0
-35.0
Voluntary Public Access Program
—
—
—
—
-17.0
-17.0
-17.0
Agricultural
Management
Assistance

— — — -5.0 -5.0 -5.0 -5.0
Subtotal
conservation
-335.0 -435.0 -673.0 -585.0
-1,062.0 -907.0 -928.5
Other programs

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

— — — —
-51.0 — —
Biomass Crop Assistance Program
—
—
-134.0
—
-45.0
—
-28.0
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels
—
—
—
—
-50.0
-30.0
-40.0
Rural Energy for America Program
—
—
—
—
-70.0
-36.0
-48.0
Crop insurance good performance discount
—
—
-25.0
—
-25.0
-25.0
-25.0
Microenterpreneur
Assistance
Program
— — — — -3.0 — -3.0
Subtotal
other
0.0 -76.0 -276.0 -114.5 -377.0 -224.0 -277.0
Total reduction in farm bill programs
-335.0
-511.0
-949.0
-699.5
-1,439.0
-1,131.0
-1,205.5
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 112-55, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, 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.
Historically, decisions over expenditures are assumed to rest with appropriations committees.14
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

14 Summarized from Galen Fountain, Majority Clerk of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee,
“Funding Rural Development Programs: Past, Present, and Future,” p. 4, at the 2009 USDA Agricultural Outlook
Forum, February 22, 2009, at http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/2009_Speeches/Speeches/Fountain.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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 conference agreement contains $1.206 billion of reductions from 15 mandatory
programs, an increase of 27% from the FY2011 CHIMPS level. The House-passed bill contained
$1.439 billion of reductions from 16 mandatory programs, and the Senate-passed bill would have
removed $1.131 billion from 13 mandatory programs (Table 8). The reductions in FY2012 affect
about twice as many programs as in prior years. The level of CHIMPS in FY2012, especially as
proposed in the House bill, begin to approach the $1.5 billion level of CHIMPS last reached in
FY2006.15
CHIMPS in FY2012—the last year of the 2008 farm bill’s authorization—could have had
potentially noteworthy effects on the 10-year farm bill baseline budget available to the
Agriculture Committees to write the expected 2012 farm bill. But appropriators made changes to
the expiration dates of several CHIMP-ed programs, and thus avoided greater impacts on the
baseline. 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.
Rescissions in the FY2012 conference agreement total $445 million. This is less than half of the
rescission level in FY2011 (Table 9). 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 balances, the high level was difficult to repeat in FY2012.

15 For more background, see CRS Report R41245, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program Spending.
Congressional Research Service
25

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 9. Rescissions from Prior-Year Budget Authority
(dollars in millions)

FY2008
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Program
110-161
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
passed
112-55
Export
credit
— —
-331.0
— — -15.0 -20.2
ARS buildings and facilities
—
—
-229.6
-223.7 — — —
Cushion of Credit (rural development) a
-34.0 -44.5 -207.0 -241.8 -155.0 -155.0 -155.0
Section
32
-684.0 -52.5
—
— -150.0 -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
-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
-2.5
Rural community advancement
—
—
-1.0
—
—
—
—
Agricultural Marketing Service
—
—
-0.7
—
—
—
—
APHIS buildings and facilities
—
—
-0.6
—
—
—
—
Forestry
incentives
— — — — -5.5 -6.0 -6.0
Great Plains Conservation
—
—
—
—
-0.5
-1.0
-0.5
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers
—
—
—
—
-90.0
—
-90.0
USDA unobligated balances
—
—
—
—
-63.0
—
—
Ocean
freight
— — — — — -5.0 -3.2
Office of Advocacy and Outreach
—
—
—
—
—
-4.0
-4.0
P.L. 480 Title I
—
—
—
—
—
-3.0
-2.3
Foreign
currency
program
— — — — — -0.5 -0.3
CACFP
audit
-3.5 — — — — — —
Wildlife Habitat Incentives
—
—
—
-10.2
—
—
—
Water Bank Act
—
—
—
-0.7
—
—
—
Total
-732.0 -107.9 -925.0 -477.5 -475.0 -353.0 -445.1
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 112-55, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and P.L. 110-161.
a. Tables in House and Senate report language place this rescission in the Rural Business Cooperative Service
section in recent years, causing that agency’s net appropriation to be negative. This report puts the
rescission here for consistency with other rescissions.
Congressional Research Service
26

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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.16 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), USDA’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.
P.L. 112-55 provides $2.533 billion to the USDA REE mission area for FY2012, which is $53
million (-2%) less than FY2011. Within this total, ARS received a $38.6 million (-3.4%) cut, ERS
received a $4 million (-5%) cut, and NIFA levels were reduced by $12.5 million (-1%). NASS
actually received a $2.2 million (+1%) increase for FY2012 relative to FY2011. In contrast to the
final enacted levels for FY2012, the House-passed bill, H.R. 2112, would have provided the REE
mission area with $2.217 billion, while the Senate bill would have provided $2.538 billion (Table
10).
The changes in the FY2012 funding levels for REE activities comes after a 9% reduction in the
FY2011 levels relative to FY2010. All REE agencies received cuts in FY2011 relative to FY2010,
with ARS and NIFA experiencing the biggest cuts, almost 10% for each agency. Similar to
FY2011, the FY2012 enacted appropriation did not include any earmarks or congressionally
designated spending items for REE-related activities.
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,

16 See CRS Report R41896, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
27

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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
replaced two previously authorized competitive grants programs, and created several new
research initiatives related to specialty crops, organic agriculture, and bioenergy.17
Table 10. USDA REE Mission Area Appropriations, FY2008-FY2012
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Change from

FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2011
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Agency and Program
111-8
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
passed
112-55 $ %
Agric. Research Service
1,187.2
1,250.5
1,133.2
1,137.7
987.5
1,094.6 1,094.6
-38.6
-3.4%
Nat’l. Inst. of Food & Agric.
1,222.2
1,343.2
1,214.8
1,205.0 1,012.0
1,214.0 1,202.3
-12.5
+1.4%
Research and Education
691.0
788.2
698.7
708.0 591.7 709.8 705.6 +6.9 +1.0%
AFRI 201.5
262.5
264.5
262.5
227.7
266
264.5
+0.03
0.0%
Hatch-Act 207.1
215.0
236.3
215.0
206.4 236.3
236.3
-0.03
0.0%
Evans-Allen 45.5
48.5
50.9
48.5
47.6
50.9
50.9
0
0.0%
McIntire-Stennis 27.5
29.0
32.9
27.6 29.8 32.9 32.9 -0.03 0.0%
Extension
474.3
494.9
479.1
467.0
408.0
478.2
475.2
-3.9
-1.0%
Smith-Lever (b)&(c)
288.5
297.5
293.9
282.6 257.2 295.8 294.0 +0.1 0.0%
Integrated Activities
56.9
60.0
36.9
30.0 12.3 26.0 21.5 -15.4
-41.8%
Economic Research Service
79.5
82.5
81.8
86.0
69.5
77.7
77.7
-4.1
-5.0%
Nat’l. Agric. Statistics Svc.
151.6
161.8
156.4
165.4
148.3
152.6
158.6
+2.2
+1.4%
Total, REE Mission Area
2,640.4
2,838.0
2,586.3
2,594.1 2,217.4
2,538.9 2,533.2
-53.1
-2.1%
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 112-55, H.R. 2112, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and P.L. 111-8.
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).18 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.

17 For more information on USDA research, education, and extension programs, see CRS Report R40819, Agricultural
Research, Education, and Extension: Issues and Background.
18 Based on analysis of USDA data.
Congressional Research Service
28

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Figure 11. USDA Research Budget, FY1972-FY2012
Billion
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
Actual
2012 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 FY2012 appropriation provides $1.095 billion for USDA’s in-house science agency,
the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), which is $38.6 million (-3.4%) less than the regular
FY2011 level. Similar to FY2011, the FY2012 amount is allocated entirely to salaries and
expenses of the agency and does not include any resources for ARS Buildings and Facilities.
For FY2012, the Administration requested $1.137 billion. The House-passed agricultural
appropriations bill, H.R. 2112, would have provided $987.5 million for ARS, while the Senate-
passed bill provided the conference agreement’s amount of $1.095 billion. The conference report
concurred with the USDA’s proposal to close 10 ARS research facilities in the following
locations: Fairbanks, AK; Shafter, CA; Brooksville, FL; Watkinsville, GA; New Orleans, LA;
Coshocton, OH; Lane, OK; Clemson, SC; Weslaco, TX; and Beaver, WV.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
The enacted FY2012 appropriation provided NIFA with 1.202 billion, $12.5 million (-1.0%) less
than the regular FY2011 level. The enacted FY2012 appropriation provided $182.3 million more
than the House-passed bill, but $11.6 million less than the Senate-passed bill.
Though slightly less than the Administration’s request, Research and Education activities received
$705.6 million, an almost $7 million increase relative to FY2011. The budget was relatively
Congressional Research Service
29

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

flatlined for USDA’s flagship competitive grants program, Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI), and several of the primary formula fund programs such as the Hatch Act, the
Evans-Allen Act, and the McIntire-Stennis forestry programs.19 Extension Activities were
appropriated $475.2 million, almost $4 million less than FY2011 (-1%). In contrast, Integrated
Activities, which already took a 39% cut in FY2011 relative to FY2010, were appropriated $21.5
million for FY2012, which was another $15.4 million (-42%) less than in FY2011.
For FY2012, the Administration requested $1.205 billion for NIFA. The House-passed H.R. 2112
would have provided $1.012 billion, while the Senate-passed bill would have provided $1.214
billion. The House-passed bill would have 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 were also reduced considerably in the House-passed
bill, by 15% and 67%, respectively. The Senate-passed bill, on the other hand, would have
maintained FY2012 NIFA funding close to FY2011 levels, with a less than 1% cut. Funding for
research and education activities were actually slightly higher in the Senate-passed bill compared
with FY2011, by 1.6%. Extension funding would have been maintained at almost FY2011 levels,
though the Smith-Lever extension formula funds would have received a slight increase in
funding. Integrated Activities were cut by almost 30%, though the Senate committee report noted
that programs previously funded through the Integrated Activities account would have been
eligible for funding under AFRI.
Economic Research Service
P.L. 112-55 provides $77.7 million for the Economic Research Service (ERS), which is $4.1
million (-5%) less than the enacted FY2011 appropriation. The Administration requested $86.0
million for ERS for FY2012. The House-passed H.R. 2112 included $69.5 million for ERS, while
the Senate-passed bill provided the amount that was adopted in the conference agreement.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Under the enacted FY2012 appropriation, NASS received $158.6 million, which was $2.2 million
more than (+1.4%) the enacted FY2011 appropriation. Up to $41.6 million is made available until
expended for the Census of Agriculture. The Administration requested $165.4 million for NASS
for FY2012. H.R. 2112 included $148.3 million for NASS, while the Senate-passed bill provided
$152.6 million.
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).

19 Some of these programs received slight increases, while others received slight decreases of less than 1% of FY2011
funding levels; see Table 10 for details.
Congressional Research Service
30

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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 enacted FY2012 appropriation provides $816.5 million for APHIS salaries and expenses for
FY2012, which is $47 million less than FY2011 (-5%).20 This amount is less than that in the
Senate-passed bill of $823.3 million, but greater than that in the House-passed bill of $783.8
million for APHIS (reflecting the 0.78% rescission). It is also lower than the Administration’s
requested amount ($832.7 million). As reflected in both the House and Senate bill, the enacted
bill authorizes APHIS to collect fees to cover the total costs of providing technical assistance,
goods, or services in certain cases. The conference bill also provides $3.2 million for buildings
and facilities (compared to a proposed $4.7 million in the Administration’s request).
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. In prior years, individual budget line items were 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
facilitate “the Agency’s ability to adjust rapidly or efficiently to new or emerging situations.”21
Both the House and Senate bills appeared to support this restructuring. The House report stated
“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 reiterated
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.”22
Within APHIS, the enacted bill provides the following appropriations across each of the proposed
budget categories: animal health ($290.6 million); plant health ($312.1 million); wildlife services
($90.5 million); regulatory services ($34.4 million); safeguarding and emergency preparedness
($18.0 million); safe trade and international technical assistance ($34.5 million); animal welfare
($27.8 million); and agency management ($9.7 million).
Within these budget categories, nearly 19% of the appropriated amount, $154.0 million, is
directed to Specialty Crop Pests, “to remain available until expended.” In addition, the joint
explanatory report states that “the conferees expect that funding for Specialty Crop Pests will be
supplemented with contingency or Commodity Credit Corporation funds for the emergency

20 The final CR for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) provided $863.3 million.
21 USDA, “2012 Budget and Explanatory Notes, APHIS,” pp. 18-47 through 18-50, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
18aphis2012notes.pdf.
22 H.Rept. 112-101.
Congressional Research Service
31

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

purpose of eradicating the European Grape Vine Moth.” Among the other budget categories, the
conference bill highlights that the following funding levels will be available until expended:
$32.5 million for Animal Health Technical Services (which shall provide for funding for the
animal disease traceability system within this category);23 $52.0 million for Avian Health; $4.3
million for APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure; $9.1 million for Field Crop and
Rangeland Ecosystems Pests; $55.7 million for Tree and Wood Pests; and $2.8 million for the
National Veterinary Stockpile. Other highlighted programs and/or funding levels include $17.8
million for cotton pests; $0.7 million for activities under the 1970 Horse Protection Act; $1.5
million for the scrapie program for indemnities; $1.0 million for wildlife services methods
development; and $1.5 million for wildlife damage management program for aviation safety.
Also, up to 25% of the screwworm program shall remain available until expended.
In addition, the conference agreement requires that matching state funds be at least 40% for
formulating and administering a brucellosis eradication program, and sets 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, the enacted FY2012 appropriation highlights 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.24 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. The enacted agreement provides
that $1 million 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.
Other language that had been contained in the House and Senate committee reports and was not
specifically addressed in the conference agreement was implicitly approved.25 For example, the
House committee report included language addressing funding for the Pale Cyst Nematode
eradication, sudden oak death, and the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, as well as House
committee requirements that APHIS submit reports on equine diseases the status of USDA’s
animal disease traceability (ID) system. The Senate committee report included language
regarding funding for agricultural quarantine inspection, sudden oak death, and certain APHIS
wildlife services education and training programs, as well as Senate committee concerns

23 See CRS Report R40832, Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues.
24 This provision is in accordance with the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316, §§10411 and
10417) and the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7751 and 7772, §§431 and 442).
25 The joint explanatory statement of the conference committee states: “ The statement of the managers remains silent
on provisions that were in both the House Report (H.Rept. 112-101) and Senate Report (S.Rept. 112-73) that remain
unchanged by this conference agreement, except as noted in this statement of the managers.” Also: “The House and
Senate report language that is not changed by the conference is approved by the committee of conference. The
statement of the managers, while repeating some report language for emphasis, does not intend to negate the language
referred to above unless expressly provided herein.”
Congressional Research Service
32

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

regarding declining bee populations and invasive honey bee pests, issues surrounding equine
transport and increasing loses of livestock to predation, and proposals to develop livestock
warranty programs.
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.
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.26 For FY2012, P.L. 112-55 provides $82.2 million to AMS, which is $4.3 million (-5%)
below FY2011 levels. The House-passed bill would have provided $78.5 million, while the
Senate-passed bill would have provided $83.4 million to AMS.
As mentioned above, in addition to direct appropriations, 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.27 The 2008 farm bill also requires additional
purchases of Section 32 funds to be to purchase fruit, vegetables, and nuts for domestic food
assistance programs.
The FY2012 appropriation provides $1.08 billion of Section 32 funds for AMS, which is the same
as the House- and Senate-passed bills, and 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 FY2012 contained, under Title VII (General Provisions), a rescission of
$150 million from unobligated balances carried over from FY2011. The FY2011 enacted
appropriation did not rescind any Section 32 funds. In addition, P.L. 112-55 includes a provision

26 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.
27 Under §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.
Congressional Research Service
33

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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 (P.L. 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”.28
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 enacted FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-55) provides $37.75 million for
GIPSA salary and expenses, which is $2.5 million (-6.2%) less than enacted for FY2011, and $6.4
million (-14.6%) less than the Administration’s budget request. The Senate-passed bill provided
$38.2 million and the House-passed bill provided $36.7 million. The enacted appropriation
authorizes GIPSA to collect up $49 million in user fees for inspection and weighing services.
Section 721 of the conference agreement includes conditions that restrict how USDA can finalize
its proposed rule on livestock and poultry marketing practices issued June 22, 2010, to implement
requirements under Title XI of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246).
The proposed rule addresses how competitive injury is treated under the Packers and Stockyards
Act (7 U.S.C. §181 et seq.; P&S Act); sets criteria for determining unfair, unjustly discriminatory
and deceptive practices, and undue or unreasonable preference or advantages; and includes
arbitration provisions that give contract growers opportunities to participate in meaningful
arbitration. The proposed rule was contentious, with proponents arguing that it would bring
fairness to marketing transactions, while opponents argued it would disrupt markets and lead to
increased litigation.
Under Section 721, appropriated funds may be used to publish a final or interim final rule only if
the annual cost to the economy is less than $100 million. The section prohibits USDA from using
any funds to implement eight specific sections of the proposed rule, regardless of the annual cost
to the economy of the final or interim final rule. Last, USDA is required to publish any rules in
the Federal Register by December 9, 2011, and no funding may be used to implement the
published rules until 60 days after publication.
Subsequent to the enactment of P.L. 112-55, USDA published its final rule on livestock and
poultry marketing on December 9, 2011.29 Only four provisions of the originally proposed 13 are

28 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).
29 “Implementation of Regulations Required Under Title XI of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008;
Suspension of Delivery of Birds, Additional Capital Investment Criteria, Breach of Contract, and Arbitration,” Federal
Register, vol. 76, no. 237, December 9, 2011, pp. 76874-76890, at http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/Federal%20Register/
fr11/12-9-11.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
34

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

included in the final rule, and the economic impact was estimated at less than $100 million. The
final rule includes criteria that the Secretary of Agriculture may consider to determine if the P&S
Act has been violated when poultry companies suspend the delivery of birds to contract poultry
growers, and require poultry growers or swine producers to make additional capital investments.
The final rule also sets criteria to determine if poultry growers and swine producers are given a
reasonable amount of time to remedy a breach of contract before cancellation. Last, grower and
producer contracts that include arbitration provisions must include an option that allows growers
and producers to decline arbitration. The Secretary of Agriculture may determine whether or not
growers and producers have the opportunity to participate in meaningful arbitration.
The action during the appropriations cycle was initiated in the House version of H.R. 2112. The
Senate version did not include any related restrictions on GIPSA. The House version of H.R.
2112 prohibited USDA from spending funds to “write, prepare, develop, or publish” a final rule
or an interim final rule. The House Committee report (H.Rept. 112-101, pp. 23-24) expressed
concern that the GIPSA proposed rule misinterpreted the intent of Congress concerning the
regulation of livestock marketing practices and underestimated the cost of the proposed rule. The
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, the committee report stated that 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.
For more information, see CRS Report R41673, USDA’s Proposed Rule on Livestock and Poultry
Marketing Practices.
Food Safety
Numerous federal, state, and local agencies share responsibilities for regulating the safety of the
U.S. food supply.30 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.31 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.32 By contrast, FDA’s

30 For more information, see CRS Report RS22600, The Federal Food Safety System: A Primer.
31 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/.
32 USDA, 2012 Explanatory Notes, Food Safety and Inspection Service, February 12, 2011, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
35

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2011 budget for foods was $835.7 million, virtually all of it appropriated with limited
authorized user fees.33 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.34 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).35 This cost estimate covers activities at FDA and other federal
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.36 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).37 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 FY2014.38
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

(...continued)
21fsis2012notes.pdf.
33 FDA “Operating Plan for FY 2011 and Comparisons to FY 2010,” http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/
2011operatingplan_fda.pdf.
34 P.L. 111-353 amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA; 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.).
35 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
(budget authority).
36 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).
37 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).
38 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).
Congressional Research Service
36

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

budgetary climate.39 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 11).40
As part of the House Appropriations Committee Oversight Plan, the Agriculture subcommittee
held two budget hearings on USDA and FDA food safety in March 2011.41 The Subcommittee
also discussed the federal food safety inspection system, including coordination between USDA
and FDA, and also FSMA implementation.
Not including funding from user fees, the enacted appropriation provides an increase in agency
funding for FY2012 food safety efforts for FDA (3.5%) and a slight reduction in such funding for
USDA (-0.2%), compared with the FY2011 appropriations. The enacted amounts for food safety
within these agencies are similar to those proposed in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2112.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
FDA’s foods program accounts for about one-third of its budget authority for all its programs.42
The enacted FY2012 appropriation provides $866.1 million for FDA’s Foods Program, which is
$30.4 million above FY2011 levels (+3.5%), not including funding from expected user fees
(Table 11).43 The enacted amount is slightly less than that proposed in the Senate-passed bill and
nearly $120 million more than that proposed in the House-passed bill (after the 0.78% rescission
and not including funding from expected user fees). Neither bill provides breakouts by the
various activities within FDA’s foods program or other FDA program areas. The enacted bill also
assumes that FDA will collect additional revenue of more than $79 million in new user fees under
its foods program. 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 enacted amount is almost $90 million less than the Administration’s request (Table 11). This
has raised questions about how FDA will be able to implement food safety reforms authorized in
the 111th Congress, and about how FDA and USDA will be able to invest in preventive efforts to
address existing and emerging food safety threats. The request projected a total need of $1.035
billion for FDA’s food program for FY2012, not including expected fees.44 FDA justified the
increase based on various elements of the newly enacted food safety law (FSMA).45

39 See “Food Safety Bill Advocates Expect Funding Fight,” Food Safety News, January 4, 2011.
40 See “Obama’s Budget Plan Would Boost FDA, Cut FSIS,” Food Safety News, February 15, 2011.
41 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.
42 P.L. 112-55 provides a total budget authority, not including revenue from fees, for FDA of $2,497.0 million.
43 The final CR for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) provided $863.3 million.
44 Includes $955.3 million in budget authority plus $79.8 million in expected user fees. HHS, FY2012 FDA,
“Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” February 14, 2011, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/
AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/UCM243370.pdf.
45 Preventive controls on farms (FSMA §105); preventive controls for food and feed processing (FSMA §101, 103,
104, 110, 204, 405); safe food transport (FSMA §111); retail food safety (FSMA §209); import oversight (FSMA
§201, 211, 301-308); and integrated Food Safety System (FSMA §201, 205, 209, 210).
Congressional Research Service
37

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 11. Appropriations for Food Safety, FY2010-FY2012
(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
H.R. 2112, Enacted
NA
866.1
945.2
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 Enacted bill to:
FY2011 Appropriation
NA
30.4 (+3.5%)
109.5 (+11.6%)
FY2012 Administration Budget
NA
-89.2 (-10.3%)
-89.9 (-9.5%)
FY2012 House bill (after 0.78% rescission)
NA
119.8 (+13.8%)
151.2 (+16.0%)
FY2012 Senate bill
NA
-1.0 (-0.1%)
-1.0 (-0.1%)
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
FY2010 Appropriation
9,401
1,018.5
NA
FY2011 Appropriation
9,587
1,006.5
NA
H.R. 2112, Enacted
NA
1,004.4
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 Enacted bill to:
FY2011 Appropriation
NA
-2.1 (-0.2%)
NA
FY2012 Administration Budget
NA
-7.0 (-0.7%)
NA
FY2012 House bill (after 0.78% rescission)
NA
40.0 (+4.0%)
NA
FY2012 Senate bill
NA
-2.1 (-0.2%)
NA
Source: CRS, from H.Rept. 112-284, H.Rept. 112-101, and S.Rept. 112-73; FTEs and FDA “Foods” are from
USDA and FDA data. FY2010 and FY2011 amounts are updated based on S.Rept. 112-73.
Notes: Percentages in parentheses reflect the difference between P.L. 112-55 and FY2011 or other proposals.
a. Staffing in full time equivalents. HHS, “Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,” FY2012
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
38

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The House committee acknowledged 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 stated 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 deemed “unsustainable.”46 The Obama Administration has criticized the House-passed
reduction in funding for FDA’s foods program.47 During the House floor debate, Representatives
Dingell and DeLauro both introduced amendments to restore funding for FDA’s food safety
programs. These amendments were not adopted.48
The Senate committee also recognized that current budget constraints would not allow the full
funding requested for FSMA implementation. The Senate directed 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.”49 FDA was directed to report within
30 days of enactment on how FDA intends to allocate these funds. The Senate bill specifically
provided a $40 million increase for FDA to begin implementing FSMA.
The enacted appropriation maintains the Senate-proposed requirement that FDA report to the
conferees within 30 days of the bill’s enactment on how it intends to allocate these increases. The
enacted appropriation also maintains the set-aside for FDA to begin implementing FSMA, but at a
somewhat lower amount of $39 million.
The enacted appropriation also contains a series of recommendations for FDA. The conference
report notes data showing that about 20% of foodborne illnesses are from known pathogens,
while the remaining 80% of illnesses are caused by unknown sources. Accordingly, the conferees
encourage FDA to “work with the public and private sectors to gain a better understanding of the
causes of illness,” and to broaden the agency’s “understanding of unknown sources [which]
should contribute towards the development of new strategies, policies, and foodborne illness
prevention methods.”50 At the same time, the conferees direct FDA to “do a better job of
identifying more effective food safety activities that will reduce illnesses, hospitalizations, and
deaths” associated with the 20% of foodborne illness from known pathogens. FDA is also
directed to “develop a clear strategy to prioritize intervention methods along the farm to fork
continuum to reduce illness ... and to tie the funding levels for food safety to ... both the known
and the unknown sources of illness,” and to communicate that information in the FY2013 budget
justifications.
The conferees also direct FDA to develop a comprehensive program for imported seafood, given
concerns that FDA currently inspects less than 2% of imported seafood, even though these

46 H.Rept. 112-101.
47 See, for example, Helena Bottemiller, “Obama Blasts GOP for Food Safety Budget Cuts,” Food Safety News, June
30, 2011.
48 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. See, for example, Congressional Record, June 14-15, 2011, pp. H4164-H4165, H4253-H4256, and
H4179-H4181.
49 S.Rept. 112-73.
50 H.Rept. 112-284 (Congressional Record, November 14, 2011, pp. H7433-7576).
Congressional Research Service
39

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

imports may contain substances that are banned in the United States. The Senate committee bill
included recommendations regarding seafood safety, especially for imported products.
Other recommendations in the House and Senate committee reports were not specifically
addressed in the conference agreement.51 These include House report language regarding FDA’s
2011 proposed rule on nutrition labeling of standard menu items; FDA’s rule to define and permit
the use of the term “gluten-free” on food labels; and FDA’s seafood advisory regarding seafood
consumption during pregnancy. The House-passed bill also directed FDA to initiate formal
reconsideration of the 2004 advisory in consideration of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Elsewhere
in the enacted bill are a number of provisions regarding the 2010 Dietary Guidelines52 (see
section on “P.L. 112-55 and USDA’s Proposed Rule on Nutrition Standards”). The Senate
committee report also contained a series of recommendations for FDA, including the need for
food safety information-sharing between HHS and USDA agencies, as well as recommendations
regarding concerns about antimicrobial resistance and FDA’s publication of its draft industry
guidance.
Other provisions in both the House and Senate committee reports53 include recommendations 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.”54 Both committees also directed FDA to enhance its trade facilitation and interagency
cooperation efforts toward the most serious compliance infractions, and recommended that FDA
establish a pilot project to expedite imports for “highly compliant importers,” modeled after the
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and
Importer Self-Assessment programs, thereby facilitating trade and interagency cooperation.
Not included in the enacted bill was a provision of the House-passed bill specifying that no funds
were to be used for USDA’s Microbiological Data Program. This program, administered by the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), tests samples of domestic and imported fresh fruits and
vegetables to monitor for microbial contamination and foodborne pathogens frequently associated
with foodborne illness. The House committee report stated 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.”55 During House floor debate, Representative Clarke
introduced an amendment to restore $1 million for the Microbiological Data Program that was not
adopted in the House. This restriction on AMS use of funds was not included in the final enacted
appropriations bill.

51 The joint explanatory statement of the conference committee states: “The House and Senate report language that is
not changed by the conference is approved by the committee of conference. The statement of the managers, while
repeating some report language for emphasis, does not intend to negate the language referred to above unless expressly
provided herein.”
52 H.R. 2112, committee-reported version, §743 and §746.
53 The joint explanatory statement of the conference committee states: “The statement of the managers remains silent
on provisions that were in both the House Report (H.Rept. 112-101) and Senate Report (S.Rept. 112-73) that remain
unchanged by this conference agreement, except as noted in this statement of the managers.”
54 H.Rept. 112-101 and S.Rept. 112-73.
55 H.Rept. 112-101.
Congressional Research Service
40

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Finally, 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 “the weight
of toxicological evidence, epidemiological evidence, and risk assessments clearly justifies such
action.”56 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,57 among other FDA actions including its consumer safety and tobacco
regulation efforts.58 The provision was later removed under a point of order.
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
For USDA’s FSIS, the enacted FY2012 appropriation provides $1.004 billion for FY2012, which
is $2.1 million less than FY2011 (-0.2%). This is $40 million more than in the House-passed bill
(including the rescission), but less than in the Senate-passed bill (-$2 million) and the
Administration’s FY2012 request (-$7 million, Table 11).
These congressional appropriations are expected to be augmented by existing (currently
authorized) user fees, which FSIS had earlier estimated would total approximately $150 million,59
as well as another $1 million credited to FSIS from fees collected for the cost of laboratory
accreditation.60 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.61
FSIS’s appropriations are to be allocated as follows: federal $887.5 million; state $62.7 million;
international $15.8 million; Codex Alimentarius $3.8 million; and Public Health Data
Communications Infrastructure System $34.6 million. The conference agreement further provides
that $1 million may be credited from fees collected for the cost of the national laboratory
accreditation programs,62 and requires that funding for the Public Health Data Communication
Infrastructure system remain available until expended. It also requires FSIS to continue its
implementation of a grading and inspection program for catfish as required under the 2008 farm
bill,63 requires FSIS to maintain no fewer than 148 FTEs to inspect and enforce the Humane

56 H.R. 2112, Committee reported version, §740.
57 “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.
58 “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.
59 USDA, 2012 Explanatory Notes, Food Safety and Inspection Service, February 12, 2011, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
21fsis2012notes.pdf.
60 Authorized by section 1327 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f).
61 USDA 2012 Explanatory Notes, Food Safety and Inspection Service, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
21fsis2012notes.pdf.
62 7 U.S.C. 138f.
63 P.L. 110-246, section 11016.
Congressional Research Service
41

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) during FY2012, and limits the cost of altering any one
building during the fiscal year to 10% of the current replacement value of the building.
Other recommendations adopted in the House and Senate committee reports64 require that FSIS
continue its efforts under an ongoing pilot inspection program for poultry slaughter inspection
and to improve enforcement of the HMSA; urge FSIS to take the necessary steps to protect the
public health from E. coli serotypes other than E. coli 0157:H7; and encourage FSIS to expand its
pilot inspection program for poultry slaughter inspection (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point Based Inspection Model Project), among other activities. The Senate committee report also
expressed concerns regarding the implementation of USDA’s Public Health Information System.
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 enacted FY2012 appropriation provides $1.497 billion for FSA salaries and expenses, $25
million less than FY2011 (-1.6%). Both the House and Senate bills would have provided less
($1.434 billion in the House bill and $1.479 billion in the Senate bill). USDA’s budget
justification for FY2012 proposed $1.718 billion, nearly a $200 million increase above FY2011
Despite requesting 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 FY2011.65 The Administration’s request, therefore, prioritizes funding for information
technology modernization plans.

64 The joint explanatory statement of the conference committee states: “The House and Senate report language that is
not changed by the conference is approved by the committee of conference. The statement of the managers, while
repeating some report language for emphasis, does not intend to negate the language referred to above unless expressly
provided herein.”
65 USDA, FY2012 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, p. 22-9 and 22-16, at http://
www.obpa.usda.gov/22fsa2012notes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
42

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The joint explanatory statement emphasizes FSA’s information technology investment by saying
that at least $66.7 million of the appropriation shall be for the MIDAS computer upgrade
(Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems) and $13 million for the Common
Computing Environment, and that “conferees strongly support the implementation of MIDAS,
and encourage the agency to ensure that MIDAS’s initial operating capability will be released by
October 2012.”66 The Administration’s request included $96 million for MIDAS and $26 million
for the Common Computing Environment.67
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 FY2012 appropriation provides $108 million of loan subsidy to support $4.787 billion of
direct and guaranteed loans. This is consistent with the House, Senate, and Administration
amounts, which were all fairly close (Table 12). The loan subsidy is about $40 million less than
FY2011 (-27%), while the loan authority is about $136 million more than FY2011 (+3%).
Compared to FY2011, the enacted FY2012 appropriation is the same for farm ownership loans
and guaranteed operating loans. The appropriation eliminates 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. The appropriation
increases direct farm operating loan authority by $100 million, and restores $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.68 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 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 remained fairly high in
FY2011 and some programs in some states at times exhausted their loan availability.69

66 More information about the FSA’s implementation of MIDAS is available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/midas?
area=about&subject=landing&topic=landing.
67 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes, p. 22-18, at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/22fsa2012notes.pdf.
68 For more background, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
69 Updates on unused FSA loan availability are available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&
subject=fmlp&topic=fun.
Congressional Research Service
43

.

Table 12. USDA Farm Loans: Budget and Loan Authority, FY2010-FY2012
(dollars in millions)

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Change
Change
from
FY2010,
Total, w/
Change from FY2011
incl.

P.L. 111-80
Supp.
P.L. 112-10
P.L. 112-55
to FY2012
supp.
Type of authority
Budget
Loan
Loan
Budget Loan Budget Loan Budget Loan Loan
Farm
ownership
loans

Direct
27 650 650 33 475 23 475 -10.0 0 -175
Guaranteed
6 1,500 1,800
6 1,500
0 1,500
-5.7
0 -300
Farm operating loans

Direct 47
1,000
1,350
57
950
59
1,050
+1.7
+100
-300
Guaranteed
(unsubsidized)
35 1,500 1,750
35 1,500
26 1,500
-8.8
0 -250
Guaranteed (interest assistance)
24
170
220
17
122
0
0
-16.9
-122
-220
Conservation loans

Direct
1.1 75 75 0 0 0 0 0.0 0
-75
Guaranteed
0.3 75 75 0 0 0
150 0.0
+150 75
Indian tribe land acquisition
0
4
4
0
4
0
2
+0.2
-2
-2
Indian highly fractured land loans
0.8
10
10
0
0
0
10
0.0
+10
0
Boll weevil eradication loans
0
100
100
0
100
0
100
0.0
0
0
Subtotal, FSA Farm Loan Program
141
5,084
6,034
148
4,651
108
4,787
-39.5
136
-1,247
Salaries and expenses
313
—
—
305
—
290
—
-15.2
—
—
Administrative
expenses
8 — — 8 — 8 — 0.0 — —
Total, FSA Farm Loan Program
462
5,084
9,618
461
4,651
406
4,787
-54.7
136
-1,247
Source: CRS, compiled from P.L. 112-55, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and P.L. 111-212.
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-44

.
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. Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses (a discretionary
appropriation) pays 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).70
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.71
To replenish CCC’s borrowing authority with the Treasury, the enacted FY2012 Agriculture
appropriation concurs with the Administration request and House and Senate bills for an
indefinite appropriation (“such sums as necessary”) for CCC. The amount is estimated in all cases
to be $14.1 billion for FY2012, up 1% from FY2011. Such amounts in prior years ranged from
$13.0 billion in FY2008, to $15.1 billion in FY2010.
Several amendments were raised during the appropriations process that affected CCC programs.
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Limits
The enacted appropriation includes a new $1 million Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limit for the
direct payment farm commodity program (§745). This is a tighter AGI limit and is in addition to
the separate limits in the 2008 farm bill: the $750,000 limit on farm-related AGI and the $500,000

70 For more information on the provisions of the farm bill, see CRS Report RL34696, The 2008 Farm Bill: Major
Provisions and Legislative Action.
71 For an accounting of CCC’s line of credit, appropriations and expenditures, see USDA, Commodity Estimates Book:
FY2012 President’s Budget, “Output 07-CCC Financing Status,” at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/
pb12_table_07.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
45

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

limit on non-farm AGI (for an implied total of $1.25 million AGI). The new $1 million AGI limit
apples to only FY2012 and does not change the underlying statute. It was a floor amendment by
Senator Coburn, adopted by a vote of 84-15 (S.Amdt. 791).
Because the provision states, “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used” to
provide payments to persons with AGI exceeding $1 million, rather than the stronger terminology
“made available by this Act or any other Act,” it does not have an effect on the score of the bill
under CBO scoring conventions.
The effect of the provision remains to be determined. USDA has not yet issued any notices that it
is implementing the provision; however, a precedent with a similar mohair restriction (discussed
below) suggests that USDA might implement such a provision despite the fact that the absence of
a CBO score implies the provision has little or no monetary effect in the appropriations bill.
Regardless of the scoring effect or implementation question, the successful Senate vote on the
Coburn amendment is an important indicator of congressional support for payment limits in
advance of the next farm bill. In the House, tighter limits on AGI were unsuccessful. The House
committee-reported version contained an amendment (§744) by Representative Flake with a
$250,000 AGI limit. The amendment was left unprotected in the rule for floor consideration.
Because the amendment contained the stronger language “or any other Act,” Chairman Lucas
from the Agriculture Committee successfully challenged the provision by a point of order (against
legislating in an appropriations bill) and the provision was removed from the bill. Representative
Flake offered a floor amendment to the same effect, but without the stronger language, and it was
rejected by a vote of 186-228 (H.Amdt. 478). Representative Blumenauer also offered a different
payment limits amendment—to prevent payments in excess of $125,000 per year to any
individual (not an AGI limit); it was rejected by a vote of 154-262 (H.Amdt. 460).
In terms of the next farm bill and support for payment limits, the Coburn amendment is a
relatively small reduction in the limit compared to larger reductions that were proposed and failed
in the House, or that have been proposed by the Administration.72 It is unknown whether the
success of the Coburn amendment and the failure of the Flake and Blumenauer amendments
reflect differences in attitudes between the House and Senate, or a tolerance for the magnitude of
the reductions in payment limits.73
Mohair Marketing Assistance Loans
The enacted appropriation limits the ability of USDA to provide marketing assistance loans for
mohair that were authorized in the 2008 farm bill (§742). The provision is identical to a provision
in the FY2011 appropriation (§1291 of P.L. 112-10). Like the AGI provision, it lacks the stronger
“or any other Act” language, and thus did not affect the CBO score of the bill. Despite the lack of
CBO scoring and any implication that the provision might have lacked strength because of the

72 The Bush and Obama Administrations also have proposed tighter payment limits, most recently in the FY2012
budget. The Administration’s proposal was a $250,000 reduction in both the $750,000 farm AGI limit and the
$500,000 nonfarm AGI limit, for an estimated 10-year savings of $979 million; plus a reduction in the maximum direct
payment from $40,000 to $30,000, for an estimated 10-year savings of $1.5 billion. See pp. 112-113 of the FY2012
Budget Appendix, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/agr.pdf.
73 For more on payment limits and votes since 2002 on various amendments, see CRS Report RL34594, Farm
Commodity Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Congressional Research Service
46

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

language, the Department did in fact suspend the MAL and LDP program for mohair shortly
following enactment of the FY2011 appropriation.74
Brazil Cotton Institute
The enacted appropriation does not contain any provisions related to the cotton program, or to a
payment to the Brazil Cotton Institute as part of an agreement under a WTO settlement, stemming
from a case that Brazil won against the U.S. farm subsidy program.75 The Brazil Cotton Institute
payment was an issue adopted during House committee and floor consideration, but did not
survive conference negotiations.
CCC funding for a payment to the Brazil Cotton Institute was used as a budgetary offset in a
committee-adopted amendment to 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 (§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.76
A Brazil Cotton Institute amendment did survive in the House-passed bill, however. A floor
amendment (H.Amdt. 454) by Representative Kind to prohibit payment to the Brazil Cotton
Institute was adopted by a vote of 223-197 (§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 because it lacked the language “or any other Act.” Thus, while the House-passed
provision appeared to prevent the payment to the Brazil Cotton Institute, CBO’s budget scoring
did not suggest that it had the same effect as the original DeLauro language. Nonetheless, the
provision did not appear in the conference agreement.

74 USDA Farm Service Agency, Notice LP-2157, “Suspension of MAL’s and LDP’s for Mohair,” April 15, 2011, at
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Notice/lp_2157.pdf.
75 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 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.
76 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 §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 §743 of the House-passed bill) that was scored to save $147 million.
Congressional Research Service
47

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

A related, and possibly conflicting, committee-adopted amendment (§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.
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.77
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 enacted FY2012 appropriation provides
$75 million, down $4 million (or 5%) from FY2011. For FY2012, the Administration requested a
4% increase from FY2011 to cover additional information technology costs.
The enacted FY2012 appropriation also provides $3.1 billion for the Federal Crop Insurance
Fund, or $4.5 billion less than estimated for FY2011.78 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 in the FY2012 appropriation mostly reflects an accounting change, rather
than a reduction in program benefits to farmers.
As in FY2011, the enacted appropriation for FY2012 prohibits use of funds under the Federal
Crop Insurance Act for performance-based premium discounts to farmers (§726(12)). By stopping
the discount program, the provision is scored as saving $25 million in each of FY2011 and
FY2011 (Table 8). 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

77 For more information on crop insurance, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background and Issues.
78 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
48

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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.
Disaster Assistance
Most agricultural-related disaster assistance is funded on an ad hoc basis and is not typically
provided through annual appropriations. The enacted FY2012 appropriation, however, provides
$367 million for three watershed and conservation recovery programs, which is $9 million less
than the Senate-passed bill. The House bill did not contain such funding. 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-October the program carried a backlog of unfunded requests
totaling more than $127 million. USDA anticipates a need of $155.7 million in FY2012
(including FY2011 and FY2012 requests plus anticipated need in FY2012). The enacted FY2012
appropriation provides $122.7 million to remain available until expended. The Senate-passed bill
would have increased funding by $126.7 million and the House-passed bill did not include
funding for ECP.
The enacted FY2012 appropriations also funds the Emergency Forest Restoration Program
(EFRP) at $28.4 million, which is $20.6 million less than the Senate-passed bill. EFRP, also
administered by FSA, provides assistance to nonindustrial private forestland owners to restore
forestland following a natural disaster. The House-passed bill did not include funding for EFRP.
Funding for the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program is also provided in the enacted
FY2012 appropriation. 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
$200 million. The enacted FY2012 appropriation provides $215.9 million to remain available
until expended and repurposed $31 million of previously authorized funding. The Senate-passed
bill included $199.2 million and the House-passed bill did not include funding for EWP.
Under the three recovery programs a national or state emergency does not have to be declared in
order to receive assistance. The enacted FY2012 appropriation, however, would require that only
areas with a disaster designation79 be eligible for funding. This could potentially limit the
distribution of recovery assistance.

79 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
49

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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
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.80
The enacted FY2012 appropriation accepts, and in some programs exceeds, many of the
Administration’s proposed reductions to both mandatory and discretionary conservation programs
for FY2012. The enacted appropriation reduces discretionary NRCS funding by $45 million
(from $889 million in FY2011 to $843 in FY2012). The Senate-passed bill would have reduced
discretionary NRCS funding by $52 million, the House-passed bill would have reduced funding
by $106 million, and the Administration’s proposal would have increased discretionary funding
by $10 million.
Mandatory programs under the 2008 farm bill are authorized to automatically increase by an
estimated $880 million in FY2012. The enacted appropriation reduces certain mandatory
conservation programs by $929 million in FY2012. This is more of a reduction than the Senate-
passed bill but less than the House-passed bill. The Administration request would have made
smaller total reductions 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 reverts 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 enacted FY2012 appropriation provides $828 million for FY2012, the same level proposed in
the Senate-passed bill, $64 million more than proposed in the House-passed bill (after rescission),
$42 million less than FY2011, and $70 million less than the Administration’s request. The
conference report (H.Rept. 112-284) 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 $12.5
million for the Common Computing Environment. Further division of CO was provided in the
conference report, with $9.3 million provided for the Snow Survey, $9.4 million for Plant
Material Centers, $80 million for the Soil Survey, and $729.5 million for Conservation Technical
Assistance. Other Administrative initiatives proposed in the budget were rejected in the
conference report, including a $15 million requested increase for the Strategic Watershed Action

80 For a brief description of the individual USDA agricultural conservation programs, see CRS Report R40763,
Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs.
Congressional Research Service
50

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Teams and the Administration’s proposal to charge a fee for comprehensive conservation
planning, a core activity currently provided to producers for free.
The Administration proposed terminating several discretionary conservation programs, including
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO). The WFPO was included in the House-
passed bill as an amendment introduced and passed on the floor, but no funding was provided for
the program in the enacted FY2012 appropriations or the Senate-passed bill. The Watershed
Rehabilitation program was also proposed to be terminated by the Administration. The program
rehabilitates aging dams previously built by USDA. The enacted FY2012 appropriations includes
the House-passed level of $15 million for the program. Funding was not provided for the
Watershed Rehabilitation program in the original Senate-reported bill; however, an amendment
was introduced and passed on the Senate floor to include $8 million for the program.
The FY2011 long-term continuing resolution terminated funding for the Resource Conservation
and Development (RC&D) program. The termination of funding continues in the enacted FY2012
appropriations, as requested by the Administration. 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.81
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.82
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.83 It is unclear how many buyout offers have been accepted at NRCS and whether
buyout packages will provide enough budgetary relief from the FY2011 and FY2012 funding
reductions.
The enacted FY2012 appropriation also provides $7.5 million to a long-dormant program known
as the Water Bank Program (WBP). The WBP was authorized in 197084 and operated until
funding was eliminated in the FY1995 Agriculture Appropriations Act.85 According to FY1995
House and Senate appropriations report language, the program was duplicative of the Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP, a current farm bill program) and less effective because of shorter
contract lengths.86 Under the WBP, USDA entered into agreements with landowners and

81 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.
82 “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/.
83 “USDA: Buyouts offered to 400 conservation-service employees,” Greenwire, June 3, 2011.
84 Water Bank Act (P.L. 91-559), as amended.
85 P.L. 103-330.
86 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.
Congressional Research Service
51

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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 conference report does not specify location, the Devils Lake and Stump Lake basins
in North Dakota have been cited as the potential beneficiaries of the WBP funding.87 This is
further supported by language in the conference report that waives the limitation (15%) on the
share of funding that any single state may receive in order “to ensure efficient administration of
the program.”88 Additionally, the WBP was originally intended to protect wetlands; however, the
conference report allows “flooded agricultural lands” to be enrolled in the program. This could
allow additional land into the program that may not have been allowed otherwise, such as land
flooded by rising lake levels.89 Incidentally, the Administration requested that an unobligated
balance of $745,000 in the WBP be rescinded and permanently cancelled because the last WBP
agreement expired on December 31, 2010, effectively concluding the program. The enacted bill
does not rescind the funding.
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 enacted FY2012 appropriation
accepts many of the Administration’s proposed $585 million of reductions to mandatory
conservation programs and makes further cuts below authorized levels. The enacted
appropriations reduces these programs by $929 million, which is $234 million more than the
FY2011 reduction, $22 million more than the Senate-passed reduction, but not as much as the
over $1 billion proposed reduction in the House bill (Table 13; see also the discussion in
“Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS)” and Table 8).
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. The enacted FY2012
appropriation adopts the House- and Senate-passed limits to EQIP, NRCS’s largest working lands
program, of $1.4 billion for FY2012—a reduction of $350 million from the authorized level of
$1.75 billion in the 2008 farm bill. The enacted reductions for other conservation programs are
more extensive than the Senate-passed bill and USDA’s proposal, but not as extensive as in the
House bill (Table 13). The primary differences between the enacted, House, and Senate bills are
in the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP, $76.5 million reduction in the enacted
appropriations compared to a $35 million reduction in the Senate bill and $210 million reduction
in the House bill) and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP, estimated reduction of $30 million
in the enacted appropriations and House bill compared to $50 million reduction in the Senate
bill).

87 Kevin Bonham, “Fed ‘water bank’ program would offer annual payments for Devils Lake basin wetlands
protection,” Grand Forks Herald, November 14, 2011.
88 H.Rept. 112-284, §748.
89 “The Water Bank Program will provide aid to our state’s (North Dakota’s) farmers, especially those in the Devils
Lake Basin, with flooded farmlands. The shorter agreements available under this program provide greater flexibility for
our farms to enroll their flooded farmlands in a conservation program, while working to ultimately return these
valuable acres to production.” North Dakota Ag Connection, “(Senator John) Hoeven: Water Bank Program to Aid
Devils Lake Farmers,” press release, November 15, 2011, http://www.northdakotaagconnection.com/story-state.php?
Id=1040&yr=2011.
Congressional Research Service
52

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 13. Mandatory Conservation Program Reductions, FY2011-FY2012
(dollars in millions)

FY2011
FY2012
Differences
Allowed
Authorized
Allowed
Between
Between
Levels
Level Under
Levels
FY2012
FY2012
Under P.L.
the 2008
Admin.
House-
Senate-
Under P.L.
and
and
Program
112-10
Farm Bill
Request
passed
passed
112-55
FY2011
Authorized
EQIP 1,238
1,750
1,408
1,400
1,400
1,400
+162
-350
CSP 649
844a 842a 634 809
768 +118
-77
WRP 425a 617a 608a 417a 417a 417a -8 -200
Dam
0 165
0
0
0 0
0
-165
Rehab
FPP 175
200
200
150
150
150
-25
-50
WHIP 85
85
73
50
50
50
-35
-35
GRP 120a 92a 42a 62a 42a 62a -58
-30
VPAHIP 21b 17
17
0
0
0
-21
-17
AMA 15
15
10
10
10
10
-5
-5
Total 2,162
2,232
1,708
2,244
2,878
-1,062
+128
-929
Sources: P.L. 112-10, House- and Senate-passed H.R. 2112, P.L. 112-55, and CBO August 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 enrol 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.
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 2008 farm bill, reductions have primarily
affected EQIP and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. The reductions in FY2012 are the
largest reductions 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.90 House appropriators

90 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/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
53

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

acknowledged these concerns with the following statement in the House report: “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.”91
Figure 12. Mandatory Conservation Program Reductions, FY2003-FY2012
1000
900
VPAHIP
GRP
800
AMA
GSWC
FPP
700
WHIP
CSP
600
ed
WRP
c
u
Dam Rehab
ed
500
n r
EQIP
io
ll
$ mi
400
300
200
100
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Fiscal Year

Source: CRS. See also CRS Report R41245, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program Spending.
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 was placed on reductions proposed in FY2012. Most farm bill program
authorities 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.

(...continued)
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.
91 H.Rept. 112-101, p. 105.
Congressional Research Service
54

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

To address this concern, the enacted FY2012 appropriation extends select farm bill expiration
dates to 2014. Authorities for these programs—AMA, EQIP, WHIP, CSP, and FPP—would expire
in FY2012. 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 enacted FY2012
appropriations. Thus the reductions could have less of an effect on the Agriculture Committee’s
overall farm bill baseline. Just as the savings from conservation reductions in the enacted 2012
appropriations are not always redirected toward other conservation activities, the reestablishment
of the farm bill baseline through expiring conservation programs does not guarantee that future
farm bills will extend the same level of support for conservation.92
Programs that are reduced in the FY2012 act but do not have a baseline beyond 2012—when
most farm bill program authority expires—are not extended. Programs such as WRP and GRP
lack a budget baseline beyond 2012 and therefore reductions in 2012 would not affect the overall
farm bill baseline. For this reason, some see these programs as 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 no baseline funding beyond 2012.93
Under enacted FY2012 appropriations, no funds are to be expended in FY2012, effectively
terminating the program before its authorized expiration. Extending these programs’ authority
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.94
For FY2012, P.L. 112-55 provides $2.41 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is $233
million below FY2011 (-8.8%). If a rescission to the Cushion of Credit account (-$155 million) is
incorporated, as in the table in H.Rept. 112-284, the net budget authority for rural development is
$2.25 billion.95 This level of budget authority supports a program level of $36.15 billion in USDA
rural development loans and grants (Table 14).
Salaries and expenses within Rural Development are funded from a direct appropriation and from
transfers from each of the agencies. The combined salaries and expenses total in P.L. 112-55 is
$653.9 million, $34.4 million less than FY2011 (-5%). This is the same as recommended by the
Senate-passed bill, and $64 million more than recommended in the House-passed bill (+10%).

92 For additional discussion about conservation in the next farm bill, see CRS Report R42093, Agricultural
Conservation and the Next Farm Bill, by Megan Stubbs.
93 For more information about programs without a baseline, see CRS Report R41433, Previewing the Next Farm Bill:
Unfunded and Early-Expiring Provisions.
94 For more about rural development programs generally, see CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural
Development Programs.
95 The rescission to the Cushion of Credit account causes the net appropriation for the Rural Business Cooperative
Service printed in H.Rept. 112-284 to be negative (-$41 million). Rescissions are generally accounted in the General
Provisions section of the appropriation, and this CRS report accounts for the rescission with General Provisions to keep
the Rural Business Cooperative Service appropriation positive. Therefore, a $155 million difference exists between the
amount reported for Title III Rural Development in this report and in H.Rept. 112-284, as shown in Table 14.
Congressional Research Service
55

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The conference report permits 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 (§725).96 It also permits the Secretary to charge a one-time fee of no more
than 3% of the loan principal for a Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan (§731), and prohibits
spending to carry out the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (§744, Table 8).
Table 14. Rural Development Appropriations, by Agency, FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Change from

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2011-12
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Program
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
passed
112-55
$ %
Salaries
and
expenses
(direct)
202.0 191.6 234.3 159.8 182.0 182.0 -9.6 -5.0%
Transfers from RHS, RBCS, RUS
513.5
496.7
456.7
430.1
471.9
471.9
-24.8
-5.0%
Subtotal,
salaries
and
expenses 715.5 688.3 691.0 589.9 653.9 653.9 -34.4 -5.0%
Rural
Housing
Service
1,424.2 1,224.0 1,034.3 1,037.3 1,090.2 1,090.3 -133.7 -10.9%
Rural Business-Cooperative Service a
184.8 127.8 180.5 93.6 119.1 109.3 -18.6 -14.5%
Rural Utilities Service
653.4 596.7 537.0 516.9 556.8 551.0 -45.8 -7.7%
Undersecretary
for
Rural
Development 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0
-5.0%
Total,
Rural
Development
2,978.8 2,637.8 2,443.6 2,238.5 2,420.8 2,405.2 -232.5 -8.8%
Alternate total (including rescission) a

Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-44.5
-207.0 -241.8 -155.0 -155.0 -155.0 +52.0 -25.1%

Net, Rural Development (H.Rept. 112-284) 2,934.3 2,430.8 2,201.8 2,083.5 2,265.8 2,250.2 -180.5 -7.4%
Source: CRS, complied from P.L. 112-55, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and unpublished appropriations tables.
a. Amounts for the Rural Business Cooperative Service 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
H.Rept. 112-284, S.Rept. 112-73 and H.Rept. 112-101, tables show 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 9).
Rural Housing Service (RHS)
P.L. 112-55 provides $1.52 billion in budget authority for RHS, $156 million less than in FY2011
(-9%). This is the same as recommended by the Senate bill, and $87 million (+6%) more than the
House bill (Table 15). After transferring $431 million of salaries and expenses (which are down
5% from FY2011), the enacted appropriation provides RHS a net $1.09 billion for loans and
grants, $134 million less than FY2011 (-11%). This level of budget authority will support $26.5
billion in housing loans in FY2012, $796 million (+3%) more than in FY2011.

96 The eligible programs are Business and Industry 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.
Congressional Research Service
56

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 15. Rural Housing Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Change from

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2011-12
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Program
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
passed
112-55 $ %
Rural Housing Insurance Fund (RHIF) programs
Administrative
expenses
(transfer) 468.6 453.5 411.8 396.9 430.8 430.8 -22.7
-5.0%
Single family direct loans (sec. 502)
40.7
70.1
10.0
39.7
42.6
42.6
-27.5
-39.2%
Loan
authority
1,121.5
1,121.4 211.4 839.1 900.0 900.0
-221.4
-19.7%
Single family guaranteed loans a 172.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
na
Loan
authority
12,000.0 24,000.0 24,000.0 24,000.0 24,000.0 24,000.0
0.0 0.0%
Other RHIF programs b
45.1 51.6 51.7 32.2 39.4 37.6
-14.0
-27.2%
Loan authority b
281.8 171.0 122.5 76.3 242.9 240.3
+69.2
+40.5%
Subtotal,
RHIF
727.2 575.2 473.5 468.8 512.8 511.0 -64.2
-11.2%
Loan
authority
13,403.3 25,292.4 24,333.9 24,915.4 25,142.9 25,140.3 -152.2 -0.6%
Other housing programs
Rental assistance (sec. 521)
968.6
948.7
900.7
879.1
900.7
900.7
-48.1
-5.1%
Other rental assistance c
11.4 5.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
-1.0
-20.3%
Multifamily
housing
revitalization
43.2 29.9 16.0 10.9 13.0 13.0
-16.9
-56.6%
Mutual & self-help housing grants
41.9
36.9
0.0
21.8
30.0
30.0
-6.9
-18.8%
Rural housing assistance grants
45.5
40.3
11.5
31.8
34.3
33.1
-7.2
-17.8%
Rural Community Facilities Program
Community Facilities: Grants
20.4
15.0
30.0
9.9
12.7
11.4
-3.6
-24.1%
Community Facilities: Direct loans
3.9
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-3.9
-100%
Loan
authority
295.0 290.5 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,300.0 1,300.0 +1,009
+347%
Community
Facilities:
Guarantees 6.6 6.6 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0
-1.6
-24.4%
Loan
authority
206.4 167.7 0.0 104.9 0.0 105.7 -62.0
-37.0%
Rural community dev. Initiative
6.3
5.0
8.4
3.0
4.2
3.6
-1.4
-27.4%
Economic impact initiative grants
13.9
7.0
0.0
0.0
5.9
5.9
-1.0
-15.0%
Tribal
col ege
grants
4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4
-0.6
-15.0%
Subtotal, Rural Community Facility
55.0
41.4
38.4
17.9
26.3
29.3
-12.1
-29.2%
Loan
authority
501.4 458.3 1,000.0 1,104.9 1,300.0 1,405.7 +947.4
+207%
Total, Rural Housing Service
Budget
authority
1,892.8 1,677.5 1,446.0 1,434.2 1,521.0 1,521.1 -156.4 -9.3%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-468.6
-453.5
-411.8
-396.9
-430.8
-430.8
+22.7
-5.0%
Total, Rural Housing Service
1,424.2
1,224.0
1,034.3
1,037.3
1,090.2
1,090.3
-133.7 -10.9%
Loan
authority
13,904.7 25,750.7 25,333.9 26,020.3 26,442.9 26,546.0 +795.3 +3.1%
Source: CRS, complied from P.L. 112-55, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and unpublished appropriations tables.
Congressional Research Service
57

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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 (§102 of P.L. 111-212) and therefore no longer needs an appropriation.
b. Includes Section 504 housing repair, Section 515 rental housing, Section524 site loans, Section 538 multi-
family housing guarantees, single and multi-family housing credit sales, Section 523 self-help housing land
development, and farm labor housing,
c. Section 502(c)(5)(D) eligible households, Section 515 new construction, and farm labor housing new
construction.
The largest loan account, representing 95% of RHS’s total loan authority, is the single-family
housing loan program (Section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949). P.L. 112-55 provides $24.9
billion in loan authorization for Section 502 direct and guaranteed loans, $221 million less than
FY2011. The guaranteed loan program is far larger than the direct loan program, with $24 billion.
The appropriation permits the Secretary to charge up to 4% for the loan guarantee fee. Most of
the budget authority in this area is for salaries and expenses rather than loan subsidy or grants.
Section 504 Housing Repair loan programs receive $1.4 million to support $10 million in loans.
The Multi-Family Housing loan guarantee program grew by $100 million over FY2011 (+320%).
The House bill had recommended eliminating funding for the housing repair loans and multi-
family loan guarantees. The enacted appropriation provides $64.5 million in loan authority for the
Section 515 rental housing program, $5 million less than FY2011.
For the rental assistance program (Section 521), the conference agreement provides $904.6
million, a decrease of $48 million from FY2011 (-5%), the same as recommended by the Senate
and $22 million more than the House bill. This is by far the largest budget authority line item in
RHS. For mutual and self-help housing grants, the conference agreement provides $30 million,
-19% from FY2011; for rural housing assistance grants, $33.1 million, -18% from FY2011.
The enacted appropriation provides $29.3 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 $12.1 million less than enacted for FY2011 (-29%).
The Community Facilities budget includes $11.4 million in grants, $3.6 million less than FY2011
(-24%). The conference report also provides an appropriation for the Rural Community
Development Initiative ($3.6 million), the Economic Impact Initiative Grants ($5.9 million), and
grants to tribal colleges ($3.4 million). The House bill had proposed eliminating funding for the
Economic Impact Initiative grants and grants to tribal colleges. It also includes $1.3 billion in
direct loans, and $105.7 million for guaranteed loans.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
The conference agreement provides $113.9 million in FY2012 budget authority to the RBS before
the Cushion of Credit rescission (Table 16). After transferring salaries and expenses, a net $109.3
million of budget authority supports the loan and grant program (-$18.6 million, or -14%, from
FY2011). If the Cushion of Credit rescission is incorporated, the RBS net budget authority is $-
41.1 million.97 The enacted appropriation provides $880.2 million in loan authority for the
various RBS loan programs (7.6% less than FY2011).

97 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. Appropriations committee 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 9).
Congressional Research Service
58

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 16. Rural Business-Cooperative Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Change from

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2011-12
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Program
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
passed
112-55
$ %
Rural Business Program Account
Guar. Bus. & Ind. (B&I) Loans
52.9
44.9
52.5
39.7
45.3
45.3
+0.4
+1.0%
Loan
authority
993.0 889.1 822.9 622.1 822.9 822.9 -66.2 -7.4%
Rural bus. enterprise grants
38.7
34.9
29.9
19.8
29.3
24.3
-10.6
-30.4%
Rural bus. opportunity grants
2.5
2.5
7.5
2.2
2.1
2.3
-0.2
-9.2%
Delta regional authority grants
3.0
3.0
0.0
2.2
2.9
2.9
-0.1
-2.5%
Rural Development Loan Fund Program
Admin.
expenses
(transfer)
4.9 4.9 4.9 3.5 4.7 4.7 -0.2
-5.0%
Loan
subsidy
8.5 7.4 12.3 5.0 7.0 6.0 -1.4
-18.8%
Loan
authority
33.5 19.2 36.4 14.6 20.7 17.7 -1.5 -7.7%
Rural Econ. Dev.: Loan authority
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
33.1
0.0
0.0%
Rural coop. development grants
34.9
30.2
35.9
22.3
27.9
25.1
-5.1
-17.0%
Rural Microenterprise Inv.: Grants
2.5
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
na
Loan
subsidy
2.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na
Loan
authority
11.8 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na
Rural Energy for America: Grants
19.7
2.5
34.0
1.1
2.3
1.7
-0.8
-31.9%
Loan
subsidy
19.7 2.5 2.8 1.1 2.3 1.7 -0.8
-31.9%
Loan
authority
144.2 10.8 10.6 4.4 8.6 6.5 -4.3
-39.7%
Biorefinery Assist.: Loan subsidy
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
na
Loan
authority
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na
Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Budget authority a
189.7 132.8 185.5 97.0 123.8 113.9 -18.8 -14.2%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-4.9
-4.9
-4.9
-3.5
-4.7
-4.7
+0.2
-5.0%
Total, Rural Bus.-Coop. Svc. a 184.8 127.8 180.5 93.6 119.1 109.3 -18.6 -14.5%
Loan
authority
1,215.7 952.1 925.4 674.1 885.2 880.2 -72.0 -7.6%
Alternate total (incl. rescission)

Budget
authority
189.7 132.8 185.5 97.0 123.8 113.9 -18.8
-14.2%
Less rescission of Cushion of Credit
-44.5
-207.0 -241.8 -155.0 -155.0 -155.0 +52.0 -25.1%
Net, in H.Rept. tables
145.3
-74.2
-56.3 -58.0 -31.2 -41.1 +33.2 -44.7%
Source: CRS, complied from P.L. 112-55, 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. Amounts in this report are before the Cushion of Credit rescission. This allows the total RBS appropriation
to remain positive. The rescission is included in the General Provisions section (Table 9).
Congressional Research Service
59

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

For the Rural Business Program account, the conference agreement provides $74.8 million in
budget authority, $10.5 million less than FY2011 (-12.3%). The Rural Business Program account
includes the Business and Industry Loan Guarantee program ($45.3 in budget authority), the
Rural Business Enterprise Grant program ($24.3 million), the Rural Business Opportunity Grant
program ($2.2 million), and Delta Regional Authority grants ($2.9 million). With the exception of
the Rural Business Enterprise Grant program, which is $10.6 million less than FY2011 (-30.4%),
the other accounts are close to their FY2011 enacted levels.
The conference agreement provides $6 million in budget authority to support $17.7 million in
loans for the Intermediary Relending Program. This loan level is $1.4 million less (-7.6%) in loan
authority than FY2011 and $1.4 million less in budget authority. For Rural Cooperative Grants, a
total of $25.0 million ($5.1 million less than FY2011) is available, divided among Cooperative
Development Grants ($5.8 million), Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas ($2.2
million), Value-Added Product Grants ($14.0 million), and grants to assist minority producers
($3.0 million). No funds were appropriated for the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas in FY2011.
For the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), the conference report provides $3.4 million
of discretionary funds for loan subsidies and grants, $1.6 million less than FY2011 and $33.4
million less (90.7%) than the budget request. The recommended loan subsidies would support
$6.5 million in loans for FY2012, approximately $4.3 million less than in FY2011 (-39.8%). The
enacted appropriation blocks $3 million of mandatory spending for the Rural Microentrepreneur
Assistance Program (Table 8) and provides no discretionary appropriation for the program.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
The conference agreement provides $587 million in budget authority for the Rural Utilities
Service. After transferring salaries and expenses, the net appropriation for loans and grant
programs is $551.0 million, $46 million (-8%) less than FY2011 (Table 17).
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 93% of the
total). The conference agreement provides $513.0 million in budget authority, $15.0 million less
than FY2011 (-3%). This budget authority will support $793.6 million in direct and guaranteed
loans, $180 million less than FY2011 (-18%). The budget authority is divided among the
following programs: (1) Water/Waste Water direct loan subsidies ($70 million) and grants ($327
million); (2) Solid Waste Management grant program ($3.4 million); Individual Well Water grants
($993,000); and Water and Waste Water revolving fund ($497,000). The bill also recommends
$9.5 million for High Energy Cost grants ($12.0 million in FY2011).
The enacted appropriation authorizes $7.0 billion in electric loans, $75 million (-1%) less than
FY2011. Most of the recommended loan authority is for direct Federal Finance Bank electric
loans ($6.5 billion).
Congressional Research Service
60

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Table 17. Rural Utilities Service Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Change from

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2011-12
P.L.
P.L.
Admin.
House-
Senate
P.L.
Program
111-80
112-10
Request
passed
-passed 112-55
$ %
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program
Loan subsidy and grants
568.7
527.9
489.0
496.1
509.3
513.0
-14.9
-2.8%
Direct loan authority
1,022.2
898.3
770.2 725.0 730.7 730.7
-167.6
-18.7%
Guaranteed loan authority
75.0
75.0
12.0
0.0
75.0
62.9
-12.1
-16.1%
Rural Electric and Telecommunication Loans
Admin. expenses (transfer)
40.0
38.3
40.0
29.8
36.4
36.4
-1.9
-5.0%
Telecommunication loan authority
690.0
690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0
690.0 0.0 0.0%
Guar. Underwriting loan subsidy

0.7
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
-0.1
-15.0%
Electricity loan authority
7,100.0
7,100.0
6,100.0 6,600.0 7,024.3 7,024.3 -75.7 -1.1%
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, Broadband
Distance learning & telemedicine
37.8
32.4
30.0
14.9
28.6
21.0
-11.4
-35.3%
Broadband: Grants
18.0
13.4
18.0
0.0
10.4
10.4
-3.0
-22.5%
Broadband: Direct loan subsidy
29.0
22.3
0.0
6.0
8.0
6.0
-16.3
-73.1%
Direct loan authority
400.0
400.0
0.0
210.4
282.7
212.0
-188.0
-47.0%
Subtotal, Rural Utilities Service
Budget authority
693.4
635.0
576.9
546.7
593.2
587.3
-47.7
-7.5%
Less transfer salaries & exp.
-40.0
-38.3
-40.0
-29.8
-36.4
-36.4
+1.9
-5.0%
Total, Rural Utilities Service
653.4
596.7
537.0
516.9
556.8
551.0
-45.8
-7.7%
Loan authority
9,287.2
9,163.3
7,572.2
8,225.4
8,802.7 8,719.9
-443.4
-4.8%
Source: CRS, complied from P.L. 112-55, 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.
Under the Distance Learning/Telemedicine program, the conference agreement provides $21.0
million in grant support, $11.4 million less than FY2011 (-35.2%). For the rural broadband
program, the FY2012 appropriation is $6 million for direct loan subsidies and $10.4 million for
grants. Together, these three distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband accounts are $30.7
million below FY2011 (-45%). Loan subsidies would support $212.0 million in broadband loans,
$188.0 million below FY2011 (-47.0%). The House committee recommendation would have
eliminated funding for rural broadband, although a floor amendment restored $6 million of loan
subsidy, the amount adopted in the conference agreement.
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
Congressional Research Service
61

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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.
The enacted FY2012 appropriation provides a total of $105.6 billion for domestic food assistance
programs, approximately equal to that proposed in the Senate-passed bill, while the House-passed
bill would have provided a total of $96.3 billion.98 The appropriated amount is approximately $6
billion more than requested by the Administration in February ($99.8 billion); this relative
increase is primarily a result of more recently updated estimates to SNAP. Whereas the House bill
reduced funding to the WIC program and to TEFAP, P.L. 112-55 adopted the Senate bill’s
proposal to provide comparatively higher funding for WIC and TEFAP (Table 18).
SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act
Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp 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 enacted FY2012 appropriation provides a total of $80.4 billion for programs under the Food
and Nutrition Act, more than the House’s $71.1 billion99 and equal to the Senate’s amount.
Funding in the law represents a $9.8 billion increase (+14%) over the total amount available for
FY2011100 (primarily because of forecasted increases in SNAP participation and food costs) and
is more than the amount requested by the Administration or included in the House-passed bill,
due partially to updates in SNAP participation estimates. The law appropriated $3 billion for the
SNAP contingency reserve fund, as requested by both House and Senate bills, but less than the $5
billion requested by the Administration.101
P.L. 112-55 provides for Food and Nutrition Act appropriations:

98 See later section headed “Other Funding Support” for domestic food assistance funding from non-appropriations bill
sources.
99 This total takes into account that §730 of the House-passed bill would effect a $50 million reduction to TEFAP.
100 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. Committee reports provide conflicting information
as to the appropriations amounts for this account in FY2011. As a result, CRS calculations in the text and table of the
report refer to (1) USDA’s agency apportionment amounts in line with program levels, as well as (2) congressional
reference to a $3 billion contingency reserve fund.
101 From a Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate bill, dated October 17, 2011, “The Administration
encourages the Senate to fund the contingency fund for the [SNAP] at the President’s FY 2011 Budget level of $5
billion. The SNAP contingency fund typically holds in reserve about three to four weeks’ worth of benefits to cover
unforeseen events, such as disasters and fluctuations in food prices.” See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr2112s_20111017.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
62

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 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),
• $5 million each for Community Food Projects and SNAP program access grants,
and
• $103 million for FDPIR (Table 18).
The total House-passed appropriation for TEFAP commodities had been $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 achieved
this reduction by including a cap in Section 730 of the bill (included in Table 8).
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, 2013.102 A proposed Senate amendment to terminate the ARRA benefit upon enactment of an
FY2012 appropriation was ruled non-germane and fell by point of order (S.Amdt. 764).
The enacted FY2012 appropriation, as well as the House- and Senate- passed bills, also include
savings through a “change in mandatory spending.” The law rescinds SNAP employment and
training funds that would have been carried over from FY2011 into FY2012; CBO has scored a
savings of $11 million for this change (Table 8).
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 enacted appropriation for FY2012 provides a total of $18.2 billion for child nutrition
programs, 5% above the amount provided in FY2011 and $40 million below the Administration’s
request. Increases from FY2011 are primarily the result of added funding for school meal
programs (based on estimates of increased participation). The enacted law does not provide the

102 See CRS Report R41374, Reducing SNAP (Food Stamp) Benefits Provided by the ARRA: P.L. 111-226 and P.L.
111-296.
Congressional Research Service
63

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Administration-requested funding for “Hunger-Free Community” grants (-$25 million) or State
Childhood Hunger Challenge grants (-$10 million). P.L. 112-55 and the Senate-passed bill
appropriate $620 million less than the House-reported bill would have.
Report language in H.Rept. 112-284 breaks out the enacted FY2012 funding as follows
(significant House differences are noted where applicable):
• $10.2 billion for the School Lunch program,
• $3.3 billion for the School Breakfast program,
• $2.8 billion for the CACFP,
• $1.1 billion for procurement of commodities for child nutrition programs,103
• $400 million for the Summer Food Service program, and
• $279 million for SAE (Table 18).
P.L. 112-55 and USDA’s Proposed Rule on Nutrition Standards
In P.L. 112-55, several provisions respond to USDA’s proposed rule on nutrition standards in the
school lunch and breakfast program. The enacted law makes FY2012 funding contingent on the
content of USDA’s interim final or final rule. Specifically, P.L. 112-55 seeks to use appropriations
language to influence USDA’s rulemaking with regard to the crediting of tomato paste, sodium
reduction, whole grain requirements, and starchy vegetables.104
The requirement that USDA propose a rule updating the nutrition guidelines for the school lunch
and school breakfast programs, and the timeline for doing so, was included in the most recent
child nutrition reauthorization, P.L. 111-296, or the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.105
This rule was to be based upon recommendations of the National Research Council, of which the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) is a part.106 On January 13, 2011, USDA published in the Federal
Register the proposed rule and an explanatory preamble.107 The rule, which largely follows the
Institute of Medicine’s recommendations, includes a number of changes to the meal pattern, such
as more fresh fruits and vegetables and more whole grains, in addition to reductions in fat,
calories, and sodium.
Among the other requirements, the proposed rule also included a change to the way tomato paste
would be counted or “credited” in the school lunch and breakfast programs. Under the
implementation of the current regulation, tomato paste and puree are credited as a calculated

103 This represents approximately half of the expected value of commodities to be provided to child nutrition programs.
Commodities will also be procured using Section 32 funds described elsewhere in this report.
104 For a media discussion of these provisions, please see Nirvi Shah, “Rewrite of School Lunch Rules Falls Short of
Goals,” Education Week, November 30, 2011, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/11/30/13lunch.h31.html.
105 For a summary of P.L. 111-296, see also CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: Issues and
Legislation in the 111th Congress.
106 The Institute on Medicine is an entity of the National Research Council.
107 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs;
Proposed Rule,” 76 Federal Register 2494-2570, January 13, 2011, at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/
regulations/2011-01-13.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
64

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

volume based on the number of tomatoes involved in their processing.108 The proposed rule
specifies that all fruits, with the exception of dried fruits, and all vegetables, with the exception of
leafy greens are, to be credited based on their volume served.109 In Section 743 of P.L. 112-55, the
law states, “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to implement an interim
final or final rule ... that (1) requires crediting of tomato paste and puree based on volume.” Much
of the media discussion of the tomato paste issue has been phrased in terms of pizza.110 Neither
USDA policy nor P.L. 112-55 explicitly make a change to pizza; rather the tomato paste change
would have an impact on the nutritional crediting of cheese pizza without added vegetables.
Under current USDA policy, the amount of sauce on an individual serving of pizza could be
credited as one serving of vegetables in the meals program, whereas volume-for-volume (USDA’s
proposed change) the sauce alone on a typical individual cheese pizza could not be credited as a
serving of vegetables.
Section 743 also contains language to influence the sodium reduction and whole grain aspects of
the proposed rule. The proposed rule had created a tiered timeline that would phase in reductions
in sodium as well as a number of requirements related to whole grains. Section 743 includes
language on those aspects of the rule, conditioning FY2012 appropriations on the Secretary’s
certification “that the Department has reviewed and evaluated relevant scientific studies and data
relevant to the relationship of sodium reductions to human health” before moving beyond Target I
reductions and also conditioning them on a definition of “whole grain.”
The proposed rule also includes a limit of 1 cup per week of starchy vegetables—white potatoes,
corn, lima beans, and green peas—at lunch and no starchy vegetables at breakfast. USDA and
IOM cite interest in promoting vegetables in the other subgroups over the familiar starchy ones.111
Senator Susan Collins introduced an amendment, S.Amdt. 757, and later an amended version,
S.Amdt. 804, which passed by unanimous consent on October 18, 2011. Per floor statement, the
passed language was negotiated with USDA.112 This language was in the Senate-passed bill, and
then was also included in the conference agreement, Section 746. Based on floor statements and
media appearances, while the language would implicate all of the starchy vegetables, the white
potato has been a particular focus.113
While Sections 743 and 746 appear to withhold FY2012 funds for implementation of certain
regulatory content, it is uncertain to what extent the appropriation will affect the substance and
timing of USDA’s next version of the rule.

108 7 C.F.R. §§210.10; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Food Buying Guide for Child
Nutrition Programs, pp. 2-3, http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/resources/FBG_Section_2-VegFruits.pdf (“Vegetable and fruit
concentrates are allowed to be credited on an ‘as if single-strength reconstituted basis’ rather than on the actual volume
as served”).
109 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs;
Proposed Rule,” 76 Federal Register 2554, January 13, 2011, at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/regulations/
2011-01-13.pdf.
110 See Bill Tomson, “Lawmakers Step Into Food Fight Over Pizza,” The Wall Street Journal, November 18, 2011, p.
A5., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204517204577044533506200916.html.
111 IOM (Institute on Medicine), School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children, Washington , DC, 2010.
112 Sen. Susan Collins, “Agriculture, Rural Development, Food And Drug Administration, And Related Agencies
Appropriations Act Of 2012,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, October 18, 2011, pp. S6635-36.
113 Robert Pear, “Senate Saves the Potato on School Lunch Menus,” The New York Times, October 18, 2011, pp.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/us/politics/potatoes-get-senate-protection-on-school-lunch-menus.html.
Congressional Research Service
65

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Food Donation Program
Section 734 of P.L. 112-55, unlike the House- and Senate-passed bills, includes authorizing
language that specifies that schools and local education agencies that participate in the National
School Lunch Program may donate their unused food to food banks and other charities and would
be exempt from liability as specified under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act
(P.L. 104-210).
The WIC Program
The enacted FY2012 appropriation provides $6.619 billion for WIC in FY2012, approximately
$35 million more than proposed in the Senate-passed bill (+0.5%). This is about $582 million
more than the House-passed bill would have provided (+9.7%), $150 million below the FY2011
appropriation (-2%) , and roughly $800 million less than the $7.390 billion requested by the
Administration in February (-10.8%). The House-passed WIC appropriation also would have
allocated 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 proposed $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
were questions as to whether the rising cost of food is accounted for in the Senate WIC amount;
although Administration forecasts have incorporated a 2% rise in food inflation, critics contend
that this does not adequately capture the current growth of costs in the program.114 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 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.115 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

114 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.
115 The payment to the Brazil Cotton Institute is discussed in the “
Commodity Credit Corporation” section of this report.
Congressional Research Service
66

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Agriculture authorizing committee (§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 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). The amendment 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.116 Some of the issues discussed
include adjunctive eligibility,117 administrative costs,118 and carryover funds.119
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 enacted FY2012 appropriation provides $242 million for the Commodity Assistance Program
account. This total is $4 million less than was included in FY2011 appropriations for this account
and $54 million less than the Administration’s request (Table 18).

116 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.
117 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. 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.
118 Because of how cost data are 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. 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.
119 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 that funded, among other provisions, the Pigford settlement and an extension to the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. For more information on the Pigford settlement, see CRS Report
RS20430, The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers.
Congressional Research Service
67

.

Table 18. Domestic Food Assistance (USDA-FNS) Appropriations
(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Change from

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2011 to FY2012
P.L. 111-
P.L. 112-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L. 112-
Program
80
10
Requesta
passed
passed
55 $ %
Child Nutrition Programs
Account Totalb (including transfers of funds)
16,855.8
17,319.9
18,810.6
18,770.4
18,151.2
18,151.2
+831.3
+5%
National School Lunch Program
9,967.1
9,981.1
10,884.0 10,884.0 10,169.6 10,169.6 +188.5 +2%
School Breakfast Program
2,920.4
3,094.0
3,337.7 3,337.7 3,313.8 3,313.8 +219.8 +7%
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
2,640.9
2,686.3
2,818.4 2,818.4 2,831.5 2,831.5 +145.2 +5%
Special Milk Program
12.7
12.5
13.1 13.1 13.2 13.2 +0.7
+6%
Summer Food Service Program
387.3
392.7
400.5 400.5 402.0 402.0 +9.3
+2%
State Administrative Expenses
193.3
206.9
279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 +72.1
+35%
Commodity Procurement for Child Nutrition
685.9
907.9
972.7 972.7 1,075.7 1,075.7 +167.8
+18%
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Account
Total
7,252.0 6,734.0 7,390.1 6,001.1 6,582.5 6,618.5 -115.5 -2%
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Account Totalb 58,278.2
70,613.4c 73,183.8 71,173.3 80,402.7 80,401.7 +12,788.3 +14%
SNAP benefits
49,623.9
61,001.0
61,816.7
61,816.7 70,524.6 70,524.6 +9,523.6 +16%
Contingency Reserve Fund
3,000.0
3,000.0c 5,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 3,000.0
+0.0 +0%
State Administrative Costs
3,043.0
3,618.0 3,332.0 3,332.0 3,742.0 3,742.0 +124.0 +3%
Employment and Training
380.9
387.9
396.0
396.0
397.1
397.1
+9.2
+2%
TEFAP Commodities
248.0
247.5
248.8
200.0d 260.3 260.3 +12.8
+5%
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
112.8
97.0
102.7
102.7
102.7
102.7
+5.7
+6%
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 13.1 13.1 +1.0
+8%
Puerto Rico and American Samoa
1,753.4
1,751.6 1,758.6 1,758.6 1,842.8 1,842.8 +91.2 +5%
CRS-68

.

Change from

FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2011 to FY2012
P.L. 111-
P.L. 112-
Admin.
House-
Senate-
P.L. 112-
Program
80
10
Requesta
passed
passed
55 $ %
Commodity Assistance Program
Account Totalb
248.0 246.6 249.6 196.0 242.3 242.3 -4.3
-2%
Commodity Supplemental Food Program
171.4
175.7
176.8
142.0
176.8
176.8
+1.1
+1%
WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program
20.0
20.0
20.0
15.0
16.5
16.5
-3.5
-18%
TEFAP Administrative Costs
49.5
49.4
50.0
38.0
48.0
48.0
-1.4
-3%
Nutrition Program Administration
Account
Total
147.8 147.5 170.5 124.0 140.1 138.5 -9.0
-6%
Source: CRS, complied from P.L. 112-55, P.L. 112-10, P.L. 111-80, and unpublished appropriations and Administration tables.
a. The Administration request reflected in this column is from the USDA-FNS budget request submitted to Congress in February 2011. An updated estimate reflecting
changes to some program levels was submitted in the time between House and Senate passage.
b. “Account Total” does not equal the sum of the programs listed below. Programs listed below are a selection of the funding that makes up the account total.
c. Committee and conference reports show conflicting information for FY2011’s SNAP (or Food and Nutrition Act) Account Total. The FY2011 continuing resolution
(P.L. 112-10) gave USDA-FNS indefinite authority for Food and Nutrition Act programs, al owing for “amounts necessary to maintain current program levels under
current law.” The amounts for SNAP in S.Rept. 112-73 match the funds apportioned by OMB to USDA-FNS, and this column reflects those numbers rather than the
amount in the original request or the conference agreement table. However, all committee reports indicate that a contingency reserve fund of $3 billion was
appropriated whereas the agency did not interpret a contingency reserve fund. For these reasons, this total does not match Table 2 or Table 3, which utilized the
FY2011 numbers contained in the H.Rept. 112-284 conference agreement.
d. TEFAP appropriations in the Food and Nutrition Act account in the House-passed bill reflect a general provision that capped spending at $200 million.

CRS-69

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Of the total, approximately $176.8 million will be appropriated for the CSFP, which adopts the
Senate-passed level and equals the Administration’s request. The FY2012 appropriation is less
than 1% above the FY2011’s level and 25% above the House-passed bill’s $142 million.
The enacted FY2012 appropriation 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 proposed $10 million less.
The enacted FY2012 appropriation provides approximately $17 million for the FY2012 WIC
Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.120 The Administration had requested $20 million for this
program. The House-passed bill would have provided $15 million.
The enacted law provides a total of $1 million 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 enacted FY2012 appropriation provides $139 million, compared to $147.5 million in FY2011
(-6%).
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 32.121 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, and $133 million in July 2012. However,
as was done for FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011, Section 718 of H.R. 2112 delays

120 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.
121 For more information on Section 32, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32
Program.
Congressional Research Service
70

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

the availability of much of the $133 million scheduled for July 2012 until
October 2012. As a result, H.R. 2112, as with the Agriculture appropriations acts
which preceded it, effectively would allocate the total annual spending for the
Fresh 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
8).
• The Food Service Management Institute (technical assistance to child nutrition
providers) is funded through a permanent annual appropriation of $4 million/yr.
• The Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program receives $21 million of
mandatory funding per year (FY2008-FY2012) outside the regular appropriations
process under the terms of its underlying authorizing 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).122
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.
P.L. 112-55 provides $1.836 billion for FY2012, which is $55.7 million (-3%) less than FY2011
levels for foreign assistance and related programs. For FY2012, the Administration requested
$2.13 billion for foreign agriculture-related activities. In addition, the FY2012 request allocated

122 For additional information on USDA’s international activities, see CRS Report R41072, International Food Aid
Programs: Background and Issues.
Congressional Research Service
71

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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. The enacted FY2012
appropriation was $473 million more than the House-passed bill, H.R. 2112, which would have
provided $1.39 billion for foreign agriculture-related activities, and $94 million less than the
Senate-passed bill, which would have provided $1.93 billion.
Foreign Agricultural Service
P.L. 112-55 includes $176.3 million for the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS), which is $9.3
million (-5%) less than appropriated in FY2011. The Administration’s FY2012 budget request for
FAS was $230 million, and included $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.123 The FAS budget also included $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. The House-passed bill for FY2012 would have
provided $171 million for FAS salaries and expenses, while the Senate bill would have provided
$176.4 million.
Food for Peace Program (P.L. 480)
For FY2012, Food for Peace (P.L. 480) Title II humanitarian food aid, which is by far the largest
component of international agriculture expenditures, was appropriated $1.466 billion, $31 million
(-3%) less than FY2011. The enacted FY2012 funding levels are $224 million (-13.3%) lower
than the Administration’s FY2012 request of $1.69 billion, which was also similar to FY2010
levels for Title II food aid. The House-passed bill, H.R. 2112, would have provided $1.03 billion
for Title II, while the Senate-passed bill would have provided $ 1.56 billion. No funding for new
Title I or Title III activities has been requested since 2002.
Three provisions affecting the Food for Peace program were included in the General Provisions
of P.L. 112-55. Section 715 states that the minimum funding requirements for nonemergency food
aid “may be waived for any amounts higher than those specified under this authority for fiscal
year 2010,” which is any amount over $400 million. As has been done in previous appropriation
bills, Section 718 includes a provision that would limit, up to $20 million, the amount of Food for
Peace funds available for reimbursement of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the release of
commodities from under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1). The third
provision, provided in Section 741, states that Title II funds “may only be used to provide
assistance to recipient nations if adequate monitoring and controls, as determined by the
Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, are in place to ensure that
emergency food aid is received by the intended beneficiaries in areas affected by food shortages
and not diverted for unauthorized or inappropriate purpose.”
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

123 See CRS Report R41929, Boosting U.S. Exports: Selected Issues for Congress.
Congressional Research Service
72

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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
address food insecurity in emergency situations.124 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
P.L. 112-55 provides $184.0 million for the McGovern-Dole Program, $15.1 million (-7.6%) less
than FY2011 levels. The President’s request for FY2012 included $200.5 million for the
McGovern-Dole Program. The House-passed bill would have provided $179 million, while the
Senate-passed bill would have provided $188 million.
Commodity Credit Corporation—Export Credit Guarantee Programs
The enacted FY2012 appropriation 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. This amount is similar to the level requested
by the Administration for these activities. The House-passed bill would have provided a little bit
less than $6.8 million, while the Senate bill would have provided $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.

124 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
73

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative
The FY2012 appropriations act does not specifically address the USDA-wide initiative “Know
Your Farmer, Know Your Food.” However, the joint explanatory statement (H.Rept. 112-284)
places a reporting requirement on USDA requiring that USDA post information on its website
prior to any travel primarily related to the ‘‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’’ initiative, as
well as submit a report to the appropriations committees on the impacts of this initiative over the
previous two years, and that USDA include justification for this initiative in the Administration’s
FY2013 budget request.
The House-passed version of H.R. 2112 contained a number of provisions that would have more
rigorously restricted funding for activities under “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food,” as well
as reduced funding for selected USDA research and rural development programs for local and
regional food production. The Senate-passed version did not put funding restrictions on the
“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative, and the Senate committee report (S.Rept. 112-
73) made 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.”125 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.”126 It is not a stand-alone program and does not have its own budget;127 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.128 Linking local production with local consumption of farm products
also is one of the primary goals of USDA’s Regional Innovation Initiative.129
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

125 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.
126 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.
127 Letter to Senators McCain, Roberts, and Chambliss from USDA Secretary Vilsack, April 30, 2010.
128 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.
129 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.
Congressional Research Service
74

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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.130 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 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.131
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.132
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.’”133
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.”134 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 FY2010.135

130 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.
131 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.
132 Letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack from Senators McCain, Roberts, and Chambliss, April 27, 2010.
133 Letter to Senators McCain, Roberts, and Chambliss from USDA Secretary Vilsack, April 30, 2010.
134 Ibid.
135 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.
Congressional Research Service
75

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

The FY2012 House-passed bill included 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.136 The Senate bill did not put restrictions on
the use of USDA funds to support USDA’s initiative.
The House bill said that no funds could support the “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food”
initiative. The House report (H.Rept. 112-101) further included 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.” It also directed the USDA to
“post media advisories of all such trips on its website, and that such advisories include the same
information.” In addition, the House report expressed concern that USDA has awarded “more
than $23 million in grants to improve regional and local food systems,” and directed 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.137
The enacted FY2012 appropriation bill does not specifically address USDA’s “Know Your
Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative, similar to the Senate-passed but unlike the House-passed
bill. However, the joint explanatory statement places a reporting requirement on USDA:138
The conference agreement does not include a provision (House Section 750) regarding the
‘‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’’ initiative. The conferees direct the Department to post
on its website prior to any travel primarily related to the ‘‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your
Food’’ initiative, information including the agenda and the cost of such travel. In addition, within
90 days of enactment of this Act the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House and Senate a report on the impacts of this initiative over the previous two years, and
to include justification for this initiative in the fiscal year 2013 budget explanatory notes.
Separately, both the House and Senate committees recommended no appropriation for USDA’s
Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI). 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 pointed 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. The joint explanatory statement of the conference report
reiterates that the enacted agreement does not include an appropriation for HFFI and further
points out that the initiative “has yet to prove that any expenditures made for this initiative have

136 H.R. 2112, House reported version, §750.
137 See, for example, Congressional Record, June 14-15, 2011, pp. H4164-H4165, H4253-H4256, and H4179-H4181.
138 H.Rept. 112-284, p. 190 (Congressional Record, November 14, 2011, pp. H7433-7576).
Congressional Research Service
76

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

been effective” in meeting the goal of ensuring that more people have access to nutritious foods,
and directs USDA to submit to Congress a system of metrics to measure the effectiveness and
expected results for this initiative.
Related Agencies
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of foods and cosmetics; the safety
and effectiveness of drugs, biologics (e.g., vaccines), and medical devices; and public health
aspects of tobacco products. A part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
FDA had been housed in the Department of Agriculture until 1940 and the Agriculture
appropriations subcommittees retain jurisdiction over the FDA budget. FDA’s program level, the
amount that FDA can spend, is composed of direct appropriations (also referred to as budget
authority) and user fees. The enacted FY2012 appropriation provides FDA a total program level
of $3.899 billion. That total is $209 million (5.7%) more than what the agency received in
FY2011 and 9.3% less139 than what the President requested for FY2012.
The FY2011 appropriation provided the agency with a total direct appropriation of $2.457
billion. The President’s request for FY2012 was $2.744 billion. The House-passed bill would
have provided $2.155 billion and the Senate-passed bill would have provided $2.506. The enacted
conference agreement provided $2.506 billion. This amount is 1.99% higher than the FY2011
appropriation and 8.68% lower than the President’s request.
For user fees, the enacted FY2012 appropriation includes $1.393 billion in user fees. The total
includes prescription drug (PDUFA), medical device (MDUFA), animal drug (ADUFA), animal
generic drug (AGDUFA), and tobacco product user fees; certification and Mammography Quality
Standards Act (MQSA) fees; and newly authorized food and feed recall, food reinspection, and
voluntary qualified importer program (VQIP) fees. Not included in that total is $59.6 million in
the President’s request for as yet unauthorized fees for generic drugs (GDUFA), medical products
reinspection, and international couriers. The FY2012 enacted total for fees is 12.96% more than
FY2011.
Adding to the suggestions and directives included in the House and Senate committee reports
(H.Rept. 112-101 and S.Rept. 112-73), the enacted conference agreement (H.Rept. 112-284)
specifically directs FDA to take five actions. These actions are:
1. report to Congress on plans to allocate the funding increases included in the
conference agreement: $39 million to begin implementation of the Food Safety
Modernization Act; $30 million for advancing medical countermeasures; and $13
million for mandatory rental payments;
2. report to Congress on specified lengths of time during the drug, biologic, and
device application processes (e.g., “average number of calendar days that elapsed

139 The FY2012 President’s request included $60 million in user fees that Congress has not yet authorized. The FY2012
enacted total is 10.57% less than the total request including those fees.
Congressional Research Service
77

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

from the date that drug applications ... were submitted to the agency ... until the
date that the drugs were approved”);
3. publish a proposed rule regarding the safety and efficacy of over-the-counter cold
and cough products for children;
4. develop a comprehensive program for imported seafood inspections and safety;
5. develop a clear strategy on prioritizing intervention methods to reduce foodborne
illness from known and unknown sources.
Consistent with the Administration and congressional committee formats, each program area in
Table 19 includes funding designated for the responsible FDA center (e.g., the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research or the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) and the portion of
effort budgeted for the agency-wide Office of Regulatory Affairs to commit to that area. also
apportions user fee revenue across the program areas as indicated in the Administration’s request
(e.g., 90% of the animal drug user fee revenue is designated for the animal drugs and feeds
program, with the rest going to Headquarters and Office of the Commissioner, GSA rent, and
other rent and rent-related activities categories).
Table 19 displays, by program area, the budget authority (direct appropriations), user fees, and
total program levels for FDA in FY2011 (as calculated for the agency’s June 2011 operating
plan), the President’s FY2012 request, H.R. 2112 as passed by the House, H.R. 2112 as passed by
the Senate, and the conference agreement P.L. 112-55, signed by the President on November 18,
2011. The final two columns show the percentage change from the President’s FY2012 request or
the June 2011 operating plan, respectively, to the FY2012 conference agreement.
Table 19. FDA Appropriations and User Fees by Program Area
(dollars in millions)

FY2011
FY2012
Change
FDA
FDA
From
From
Program
Operating President’s
House-
Senate-
Request to
FY2011 to
Area Funds
Plana
Request b
passed c
passed P.L.
112-55
P.L. 112-55 d
P.L. 112-55
Foods
BA
835.7 955.3 746.2 867.1 866.1
-9.34%
3.64%
Fees e
0.0 79.8 48.9 79.1 79.1 —
—f
Total 835.7
1,035.1
795.1
946.2
945.2 —
13.10%
Human drugs
BA
477.0 497.5 413.1 477.3 477.8
-3.96%
0.17%
Fees g 479.1 654.3 614.9 500.9 500.9 —
4.54%
Total 956.2
1,151.8
1,028.0
978.2
978.7 —
2.36%
Biologics
BA
212.0 224.9 183.4 212.0 212.2
-5.65%
0.10%
Fees h 113.2 143.3 142.8 116.9 116.9 —
3.27%
Total
325.2 368.3 326.2 328.9 329.1 —
1.20%
Animal drugs
BA
139.2 147.9 128.5 138.0 138.0
-6.68% -0.83%
and feeds
Fees i
22.3 28.6 28.4 28.4 28.4 —
27.63%
Total
161.5 176.5 156.9 166.4 166.4 —
3.09%
Devices
and
BA
322.4 329.1 279.1 322.4 322.7
-1.95%
0.09%
Congressional Research Service
78

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

FY2011
FY2012
Change
FDA
FDA
From
From
Program
Operating President’s
House-
Senate-
Request to
FY2011 to
Area
Funds
Plana
Request b
passed c
passed
P.L. 112-55
P.L. 112-55 d
P.L. 112-55
radiological
Fees j
55.8 65.8 59.0 53.3 53.3 —
-4.53%
health
Total
378.2 394.9 338.1 375.7 376.0 —
-0.59%
Tobacco
BA
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 —
—
products
Fees k 421.5 454.8 454.8 454.8 454.8 —
7.90%
Total
421.5 454.8 454.8 454.8 454.8 —
7.90%
Toxicological
BA
60.5 60.3 51.1 60.0 60.0 -0.42% -0.83%
research
Fees
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 —
—
(NCTR)
Total
60.5 60.3 51.1 60.0 60.0 —
-0.83%
Headquarters
BA
149.9 197.7 126.4 153.7 153.7 -22.25%
2.54%
& Office of
Fees l
62.7 91.0 81.6 72.8 72.8 —
16.12%
Commissioner
Total
212.6 288.6 208.1 226.5 226.5 —
6.54%
GSA rent
BA
150.8 167.8 134.8 160.5 160.5
-4.36%
6.46%
Fees m 32.0 46.5 41.3 48.9 48.9 —
52.85%
Total
182.7 214.3 176.1 209.4 209.4 —
14.58%
Other rent
BA 99.6
150.4
84.0
106.0
106.0
-29.51%
6.46%
and rent-
Fees n 36.5 42.0 39.7 27.9 27.9 —
-23.54%
related
activities
Total
136.0 192.3 123.6 133.9 133.9 —
-1.59%
Certification
BA
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 —
—
funds
Fees
10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 —
0.00%
Total
10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 —
0.00%
Subtotal:
BA
2,447.0 2,730.9 2,146.6 2,497.0 2,497.0
-8.56%
2.04%

Salaries &
Fees o 1,233.5 1,616.3 1,521.7 1,393.4 1,393.4
—
12.96%
Expenses
Total
3,680.5 4,347.2 3,668.3 3,890.4 3,890.4
—
5.70%
Subtotal:
BA 10.0
13.1
8.7
9.0
8.8
-32.68%
-11.94%
Buildings &
Fees
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 —
—
Facilities
Total 10.0
13.1 8.7
9.0
8.8
— -11.94%
FDA Total
Budget
BA
2,457.0 2,744.0 2,155.3 2,506.0 2,505.8
-8.68%
1.99%
Authority
Authorized
Fees p
1,233.5 1,556.7 1,521.7 1,393.4 1,393.4
-10.50%
12.96%
User Fees
Program
Total 3,690.5 4,300.7 3,677.0 3,899.4 3,899.2
-9.34%
5.65%
Level
Sources: CRS analysis of H.Rept. 112-284, H.Rept. 112-101, S.Rept. 112-73, and Department of Health and
Human Services, Fiscal Year 2012, Food and Drug Administration, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
79

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Committees, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/BudgetReports/
UCM243370.pdf.
Notes: BA=budget authority, also referred to as direct appropriations. Total (program level)=BA+user fees.
a. FY2011 appropriations as revised in June 2011 FDA operating plan.
b. In addition to continuing and newly authorized user fees, the President’s request also included $60 mil ion in
other user fees that Congress has not yet authorized. Those fees are included in the program-level (e.g.,
Foods, Human drugs, etc.) rows of this table. For comparison with House-, Senate-, and enacted versions of
the FY2012 appropriations bill, only the authorized user fees are included in the subtotal and total rows.
c. H.R. 2112 as passed by the House included a 0.78% rescission on al budget authority amounts specified in
the bill text; this table reflects the 0.78% lowered values.
d. This column shows percentage change only in budget authority (BA) from the President’s FY2012 request
to the FY2012 Conference Agreement. Percentage change is not shown for program-level user fees or
program-level totals because the President’s request included as-yet unauthorized fees. The Conference
Agreement included the authorized fees that the President requested.
e. Foods user fees include food export certification, VQIP, food reinspection, and food recall. The President’s
request also includes international courier fees.
f.
Percentage is undefined (change from $0 to $79.1 million).
g. Human drugs user fees include PDUFA. The President’s request also includes GDUFA, medical products
reinspection, and international courier fees.
h. Biologics user fees include PDUFA and MDUFA. The President’s request also includes medical products
reinspection fees.
i.
Animal drugs and feeds fees include ADUFA, AGDUFA, food export certification, food reinspection, and
food recall. The President’s request also includes medical products reinspection fees.
j.
Devices and radiological health fees include MDUFA and MQSA. The President’s request also includes
medical products reinspection and international courier fees.
k. Tobacco products fees are authorized by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
(FSPTCA).
l.
Headquarters and Office of the Commissioner fees include PDUFA, MDUFA, ADUFA, AGDUFA, tobacco,
MQSA, VQIP, food inspection, and food recall. The President’s request also includes GDUFA, medical
products reinspection, and international courier fees.
m. GSA rent fees from PDUFA, MDUFA, ADUFA, AGDUFA, tobacco, VQIP, food reinspection, and food
recall. The President’s request also includes GDUFA, medical products reinspection, and international
courier fees.
n. Other rent and rent-related activities fees from PDUFA, MDUFA, ADUFA, AGDUFA, tobacco, VQIP, food
reinspection, and food recall. The President’s request also includes GDUFA, medical products reinspection,
and international courier fees.
o. S&E subtotal fees include includes authorized fees. The President’s request also includes GDUFA, medical
products reinspection, and international courier fees.
p. This subtotal of fees includes only authorized fees. As noted in tablenote b, the President’s request also
includes $60 million in user fees that Congress has not yet authorized. These additional fees are reflected in
the program-level rows of the table but not in the subtotals or totals.
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.
Congressional Research Service
80

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

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, P.L. 112-55 provides $205.3 million for the CFTC, an increase of $3.3 million over
FY2011. This amount is $33.3 million more than the House recommended, but $34.7 million less
than the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation, and about $103 million (33%) below
the Administration’s request.
Congressional Research Service
81

.
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 Stand-alone P.L.
106-78 RL30201
2001 7/11/2000
7/20/2000
10/28/2000 Stand-alone P.L.
106-387 RL30501
2002 7/11/2001
10/25/2001
11/28/2001 Stand-alone 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 Stand-alone 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 Stand-alone P.L.
111-80 R40721
2011
—
—
4/15/2011
Year-long CR
P.L. 112-10
R41475
2012 6/16/2011
11/1/2011
11/18/2011 Minibus
P.L.
112-55 R41964
Source: CRS.
Figure A-1. Timeline of Enactment of Agriculture Appropriations, FY1999-FY2012
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
FY2012
11/18
Aug
Nov
Feb
May
Source: CRS.
Notes: An asterisk (*) denotes an omnibus appropriation. A double asterisk (**) denotes a year-long continuing
resolution.
Congressional Research Service
82

.
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

Congressional Research Service
83

.
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Jim Monke, Coordinator
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Social Policy
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
Megan Stubbs
Susan Thaul
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Specialist in Drug Safety and Effectiveness
Resources Policy
sthaul@crs.loc.gov, 7-0562
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
Tadlock Cowan
Mark Jickling
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Specialist in Financial Economics
Development
mjickling@crs.loc.gov, 7-7784
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600

Congressional Research Service
84