66–631 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–101 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012 

JUNE 3, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. KINGSTON, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2112] 

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in 

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 

Related Agencies for fiscal year 2012. 

INTRODUCTION 

OVERVIEW 

Our country has reached a critical crossroads in terms of federal spending. On May 16th, spending soared past the $14.1 trillion 

statutory debt ceiling. For every dollar that the Federal Government spends, 42 cents must be borrowed. Unbelievably, it has operated on deficit spending for 31 consecutive months. The discretionary spending in this bill totals $17,250,000,000, which is a decrease of $2,669,000,000 below the amount included 

in the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution and a decrease of 

$5,039,000,000 below the budget request. Overall, the bill results 

in a 13.4 percent reduction in spending from fiscal year 2011. With 

this reduction, spending will be reduced below fiscal year 2008 levels. 

In 2008, the nation’s debt was $9 trillion, which seemed unmanageable at the time. Today, the debt is more than $5 trillion highVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jun 03, 2011 Jkt 066631 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

er. Clearly, America is on an unsustainable spending path. With 

this bill, the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee is doing its 

part to reverse this destructive spending pattern and restore the 

fiscal health of our nation. 

While the bill reduces funding for the agencies and programs 

under its jurisdiction, it provides sufficient funding for them to 

focus on their core missions. USDA, FDA, and CFTC will be able 

to continue their critical missions of ensuring food and drug safety, 

supporting American agriculture and rural communities across the 

Nation, ensuring that agricultural research is science-based and focused on keeping American agriculture competitive, helping the 

most needy in our domestic feeding programs, working with private 

land owners to implement critical conservation practices, and 

maintaining the international food programs that have shown results. 

The proposed cuts contained in the bill are not a reflection of 

those civil servants at USDA, FDA, and CFTC who are dedicated 

to carrying out their work on behalf of the American people. This 

bill allows them to continue their statutory responsibilities, while 

keeping spending on a sustainable and stable path. 

The Committee is concerned about a number of unfunded mandates, overly burdensome rulemakings and various initiatives that 

USDA, FDA, and CFTC are leading or participating in, including 

unfunded mandates in the child nutrition programs that could cost 

states nearly $7 billion; Know Your Farmer-Know Your Food; cultural transformation; rulemaking on television advertising; rulemaking related to the Packers and Stockyards Act; and the lack of 

cost-benefit analysis on various CFTC proposed rules, among others. 

The bill and report include provisions related to these mandates, 

which harm small businesses, rural communities, and stifle economic growth. The Committee urges USDA, FDA, and CFTC, in 

this tough budget environment, to keep their priorities in line with 

their core responsibilities and jurisdictions. 

While the fiscal challenges are evident, this bill demonstrates a 

fair balance between tough spending decisions and support for core 

Federal responsibilities. 

OVERSIGHT AND HEARINGS

Consistent with the Committee on Appropriations Oversight 

Plan, as approved and transmitted to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform and the Committee on House Administration on February 8, 2011, the Subcommittee began the fiscal year 

2012 process by keeping the Committee’s strong commitment to 

strident and comprehensive oversight of Federal discretionary 

spending under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. In order to thoroughly review the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2012 

and examine how funds appropriated in previous years had been 

spent and managed, the Subcommittee held 11 hearings for the 

mission areas, agencies and programs of USDA, FDA, and CFTC. 

The hearings included: 

Secretary of Agriculture—March 1, 2011 

USDA Inspector General—March 2, 2011 

USDA Marketing and Regulatory Programs—March 10, 2011 

Food and Drug Administration—March 11, 2011 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

USDA Food Safety—March 15, 2011 

USDA Research, Education, and Economics—March 16, 2011 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission—March 17, 2011 

USDA Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services—March 30, 2011 

USDA Rural Development—March 31, 2011 

USDA Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services—April 1, 2011 

USDA Natural Resources and Environment—April 5, 2011 

Several significant topics were covered at the hearings. The Subcommittee engaged the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, in a 

discussion on the future of farming and ranching in America and 

how to address the unique needs of Americans who live in rural 

areas. The Subcommittee reviewed USDA’s management of the $98 

billion in annual funding for its domestic feeding programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the School 

Lunch Program and other emergency food programs, and expressed 

particular interest in error rates and whether sufficient controls 

exist to minimize fraud. The Subcommittee fully explored the 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration’s proposed rule regarding the marketing of livestock and was disappointed to learn that the agency had decided not to release 

USDA’s economic analysis of the rule for public comment. The Subcommittee discussed the Federal food safety inspection system, particularly coordination between USDA and FDA, and implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010. The Subcommittee reviewed Federal agricultural research agencies and programs. 

It discussed how investment in research programs today yields results in 10 to 15 years and considered how to balance competitively 

awarded research grants with support for the land-grant and other 

agricultural colleges and universities through formula funds. The 

Subcommittee received testimony on implementation of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and its effect on commodity markets. It considered the information technology needs of the Farm Service Agency and other USDA agencies. It challenged the administration’s plans to eliminate funding 

for certain rural housing programs and considered the successes 

and challenges for conservation on private farm and ranch lands. 

The Subcommittee will continuously monitor the issues identified 

and discussed at the hearings, as well as others relevant to the 

management of USDA, FDA, and CFTC, and will maintain its 

oversight efforts throughout the 112th Congress to ensure taxpayer 

dollars are being invested wisely and prudently on behalf of the 

American people. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(4) 

TITLE I 

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $5,051,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,883,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 4,293,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥758,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,590,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Secretary, the Committee provides an appropriation of $4,293,000. 

Spending Plans.—Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 

both Houses of Congress, on the allocation of the funds provided 

herein by account, and within each account by program, project 

and activity. 

Design-Build.—The Committee encourages the Department to 

use the design-build method of project delivery when appropriate. 

CCC Report.—The Committee directs the Secretary to provide a 

report on November 15, 2011, and May 15, 2012, on planned uses 

of funding under the authorities of Section 4 and Section 11 of the 

Commodity Credit Corporation Act. 

GPS Interference.—The Committee recognizes that the use of the 

Global Positioning System (GPS) is critical to USDA’s mission, including natural resource monitoring, forest firefighting, law enforcement, and research. In addition, precision agriculture would 

not be possible without GPS. It is estimated that U.S. farmers and 

ranchers have invested more than $3 billion in GPS technologies. 

The Committee is aware of a decision by the Federal Communications Commission that may disrupt the use of GPS, causing significant problems for USDA and our Nation’s farmers and ranchers. 

The Committee directs USDA to ensure the FCC is aware of these 

concerns and to work with other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation, to address them. 

Report on Critical USDA Activities.—The Committee has funded 

critical research projects, conservation activities and pest and disease functions in the past. Some examples include water use reduction research, fresh produce food safety research, dairy education 

and extension, conservation fuels management and restoration, and 

Asian long-horned beetle control. The Committee directs the Department to report on how it is addressing the needs identified by 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 

these and other similar activities. The report should be submitted 

to the Committee by December 1, 2011. 

Know Your Farmer.—The Committee directs the Department to 

provide an electronic notification to the Committee at least 72 

hours prior to any travel in support of the ‘‘Know YourFarmerKnow Your Food’’ initiative, and such notification shall include the 

agenda for the entire trip along with the cost to U.S. taxpayers. 

Additionally, the Committee directs the Department to post Media 

Advisories of all such trips on its website, and that such advisories 

include the same information. 

Cultural Transformation.—USDA is carrying out initiatives such 

as cultural transformation without a budget request or a specific 

appropriation for this activity. One of the concerns is the way in 

which this initiative is spending scarce Federal resources. According to USDA documents, the Department spent $50,000 to train 

900 senior leaders on cultural transformation. This appears to be 

a legitimate expense; however, USDA spent nearly $500,000 on 

personnel and travel to send 43 employees to one of the most expensive business schools on the East Coast for a week of training. 

This does not appear to be a wise expenditure of Federal dollars. 

Furthermore, the Committee does not believe that holding cultural 

transformation activities on the National Mall is a wise expenditure of funds either. Lastly, the Department has not defined what 

cultural transformation is, what requirement is attempting to be 

met, what the goals are, and what measurements are being used 

in order to determine its effectiveness. 

Explanatory Notes.—The Committee appreciates the detailed information provided in the Explanatory Notes and relies on this information when considering budget proposals. For fiscal year 2013 

and future years, the Department is directed to present them in a 

format consistent with the presentation used for the fiscal year 

2012 budget with two exceptions. The Committee directs the Department to compare any proposed increase or decrease to the 

funding provided in fiscal years 2008 and 2012 for the related program or activity. The Committee further directs the Department to 

include an errata sheet in the Explanatory Notes of any proposed 

budget authority levels that do not conform to the budget appendix. 

The Explanatory Notes should be assembled with the accounts in 

the same order as the accounts in the bill. Any additional deviations from that format must be approved in advance by the Committee. 

Late Reports.—Reports requested by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are an important part of the exercise of 

the Committees’ oversight responsibilities. The Committee is concerned about the Department’s delinquency in completing these reports. The Committee is also concerned that the delay is due to excessively long reviews, especially in the Office of the Secretary. The 

reports are due on the dates specified in either the House, Senate 

or conference report. Each agency of the Department is directed to 

comply with the deadlines and to cooperate fully with the Office of 

Budget and Program Analysis in providing these reports. The Committee reserves the right to call before it any agency that does not 

submit its report or reports on time. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

State Office Collocation.—The Committee continues to direct that 

any reallocation of resources related to the collocation of state offices scheduled for 2011 and subsequent years is subject to the 

Committee’s reprogramming procedures. 

Administrative Provision.—The Committee directs the Secretary 

to advise the Committees on Appropriations, through the Office of 

Budget and Program Analysis, of the status of all reports requested 

of the Department in this bill at the time of submission of the fiscal 

year 2013 budget and monthly thereafter. 

The Committee further directs that the dates established for the 

receipt of reports requested by the Committee in this report are 

firm, and that submission of reports is not to be delayed pending 

completion of the conference on this bill. 

The Committee reminds the Secretary that all correspondence related to the directives in this bill must be addressed to the Committee on Appropriations. 

Loan and Grant Programs.—The Committee directs the Department, through the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, to provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate on the status of obligations and funds availability for the loan and grant programs provided in this bill. 

The Committee further directs that if an estimate of loan activity 

for any program funded in Titles I and III of this bill indicates that 

a limitation on authority to make commitments for a fiscal year 

will be reached before the end of that fiscal year, or in any event 

whenever 75 per centum of the authority to make commitments 

has been utilized, the Secretary shall promptly notify the Committees in writing, through the Office of Budget and Program Analysis. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to work with producers 

who could not file the necessary paperwork within the designated 

time period for the Crop Insurance program due to flooding and 

other natural disasters in Presidentially declared disaster areas. 

OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $498,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1,015,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 423,000 

Comparison: 

2010 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥75,000 

2011 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥592,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Tribal Relations, the Committee provides an ap- propriation of $423,000. 

HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. 0 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... $35,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 0 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... 0 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥35,000,000 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee does not provide an appropriation for the 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative. 

EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $12,008,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 15,196,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 10,707,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,301,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥4,489,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Economist, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $10,707,000. 

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $14,225,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 15,254,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 12,091,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,134,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,163,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Appeals Division, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $12,091,000. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,417,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,436,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,004,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,413,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,432,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $8,004,000. 

OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,496,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,272,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,272,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥224,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Homeland Security, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $1,272,000. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
8 

OFFICE OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,422,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 7,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,209,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥213,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥5,791,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $1,209,000. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $39,920,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 63,579,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 35,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥4,920,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥28,579,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $35,000,000. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,247,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,566,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 5,310,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥937,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,256,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,310,000. 

The Committee directs the Department to submit a report concurrent with the Department’s annual budget submission for the 

following fiscal year, updating the Committee on its contracting out 

policies, including agency budgets for contracting out, for fiscal 

years 2010 and 2011. The Committee is continuing bill language 

requiring the submission of the report on contracting out policies 

and agency budgets, prior to use of any funds appropriated to the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer for FAIR Act or Circular A– 

76 activities. 

Assessments.—The assessments that the Department charges its 

agencies for other government- and department-wide activities continue to escalate. Since these assessments are borne by the agencies, and Congress did not specifically provide increases to the 

agencies for these costs, most of the funding for the increase has 

come at the expense of programs. The Committee continues to direct the Office of the Chief Financial Officer to scrutinize the need 

for each activity, to consider its benefit to the mission of each agency, and to limit spending wherever possible. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
9 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 895,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 760,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥133,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥135,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $760,000. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $22,692,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 24,922,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 19,288,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥3,404,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥5,634,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Civil Rights, the Committee provides an appropriation of $19,288,000. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $804,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 820,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 683,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥121,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥137,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $683,000. 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $246,476,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 255,191,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 209,505,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥36,971,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥45,686,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $209,505,000. 

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for this account: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
10 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

[In thousands of dollars] 

2011 enacted 2012 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Rental Payments ..................................... $178,113 $164,470 $151,396 

Department of Homeland Security 

Building Security ................................ 13,473 13,800 11,452 

Building Operations ................................ 54,890 76,921 46,657 

Total .............................................. 246,476 255,191 209,505 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,992,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 5,125,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,393,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥599,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,732,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Hazardous Materials Management, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $3,393,000. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $29,647,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 35,787,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 23,900,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥5,747,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥11,887,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Departmental Administration, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $23,900,000. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,869,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,041,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,289,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥580,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥752,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,289,000. 

Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

shall notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency, along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution of the funds. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
11 

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,480,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 9,722,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,058,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥1,422,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,664,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Communications, the Committee provides an appropriation of $8,058,000. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $88,548,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 90,755,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 80,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥8,548,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥10,755,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of Inspector General, the Committee provides an appropriation of $80,000,000. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $41,416,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 46,058,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 35,204,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥6,212,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥10,854,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the General Counsel, the Committee provides an appropriation of $35,204,000. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND

ECONOMICS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 911,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 760,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥133,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥151,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education 

and Economics, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$760,000. 

Foundational Research.—The Committee recognizes the broad responsibilities in agricultural research, education, extension, and economics that Congress has given to the Department. However, it 

is very concerned with the number and amount of grant awards 

going to support local and regional food systems, which do not advance knowledge and understanding of the agricultural sciences 

and appear to have little scientific merit. Given the current budget 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
12 

restraints, the Committee expects the Department to conduct and 

support only the highest quality, peer-reviewed foundational research. 

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug.—The Committee appreciates the 

work of ARS and NIFA regarding the brown marmorated stink 

bug. This pest is causing significant damage to agricultural products, particularly tree fruit in the mid-Atlantic States. The Committee encourages ARS and NIFA to work collaboratively with 

APHIS and state partners to identify and implement appropriate 

controls. 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $81,814,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 85,971,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 70,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥11,814,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥15,971,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Economic Research Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $70,000,000. 

ERS Reports.—The Committee concurs with the agency’s proposed reductions and provides no funding for any work related to 

the Community Access to Local Food proposal. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $156,447,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 165,421,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 149,500,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥6,947,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥15,921,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Committee 

provides an appropriation of $149,500,000. 

Included in this amount is $40,000,000 for the Census of Agriculture. 

NASS Reports.—The Committee concurs with the agency’s proposed reductions and realignments. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2011 appropriation ........................................................................... $1,133,230,000 

2012 budget estimate ....................................................................... 1,137,690,000 

Provided in the bill ........................................................................... 993,345,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .................................................................... ¥139,885,000 

2012 budget estimate ................................................................ ¥144,345,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Agricultural Research Service, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $993,345,000. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
13 

Priority Research.—The Committee directs the agency to focus its 

resources on only the highest priority research and building and facility repair and maintenance needs. The Committee remains concerned about the need to control the spread of Ug99 and provides 

$1,250,000 for Ug99 research as requested. 

Research Facilities.—The Committee concurs with the Department’s proposal to close 10 research facilities in the following locations: Fairbanks, Alaska; Shafter, California; Brooksville, Florida; 

Watkinsville, Georgia; New Orleans, Louisiana; Coshocton, Ohio; 

Lane, Oklahoma; Clemson, South Carolina; Weslaco, Texas; and 

Beaver, West Virginia. The Committee provides the Secretary the 

authority to transfer a closed facility to an 1862, 1890, 1994 or Hispanic-serving agricultural college or university provided the institution agrees to maintain the facility for agricultural and natural 

resources research for a minimum of 25 years. The Committee directs the agency to provide a report on the disposition of these facilities by December 15, 2011. 

Research Facility Plan.—The Committee directs ARS to establish 

a long-term, multi-year plan to guide capital asset construction decisions for new agricultural research buildings and facilities consistent with program missions, goals and requirements. The plan 

should establish a process for setting and ranking capital asset construction priorities, reflecting the agency’s research priorities, and 

complement the agency’s management plans for its planned and existing facilities. The plan should include estimated funding requirements. As the agency develops the plan, it should provide interested parties an opportunity to provide input. The agency should 

address whether various leasing options, including build-to-lease 

and building retrofits, are appropriate and under what condition 

they should be utilized. The Committee encourages the agency to 

consider planning processes utilized by other Federal agencies, 

such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of 

Defense, and to incorporate the best strategies from them into the 

agency’s plan. The agency is directed to develop the plan and report to Congress within 90 days after enactment of this Act. 

National Arboretum.—The Committee directs the National Arboretum to maintain its National Boxwood Collection and the Glenn 

Dale Hillside portion of the Azalea Collection. The Committee encourages the National Arboretum to work collaboratively with supporters of the National Arboretum to raise additional funds to ensure the long-term viability of these and other important collections. 

Aerial Application Research.—The Committee recognizes the importance of ARS’s Aerial Application Technology Program. The program conducts innovative research making aerial applications more 

efficient, effective and precise. Research for aerial application 

serves the public good as a vital tool for the future, as agriculture 

strives to meet the food, fiber and bio-energy demands of a growing 

population. 

Domestic and Bighorn Sheep.—The Committee recognizes the 

challenges caused by infectious disease problems arising from wildlife-domestic animal agriculture interactions, particularly between 

domestic sheep and wild bighorn sheep. Research has recently produced an experimental vaccine to protect bighorn populations from 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
14 

disease, but much work still needs to be done in this area. The 

Committee encourages ARS to work to determine the role of domestic sheep in causing die-offs of bighorn sheep from respiratory disease and develop methods to reduce transmission and enhance immunity in domestic and bighorn sheep. 

Chemical Threat Agents.—The Committee supports the agency’s 

research efforts on emerging chemical threat agents and biological 

threats. However, it is unsure of the funding needs and requirements for these activities in fiscal year 2012, and as such is not 

able to recommend a specific appropriation. The Committee looks 

forward to working with the Department to ensure it can continue 

this important research. 

Verticillium wilt research.—The Committee commends the agency’s research that seeks to minimize the effects the Verticillium 

wilt fungus can have on crops, such as lettuce, potatoes, tomatoes, 

and cotton, and encourages the agency to continue to work with industry, university, and other partners to develop effective control 

mechanisms. 

Floriculture and Nursery Research.—The Committee recognizes 

the important research the agency has undertaken regarding floral 

and horticultural crops and encourages it to continue to work with 

industry, university, and other partners to address the unique challenges floral and horticultural crop growers face. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $698,740,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 708,107,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 600,800,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥97,940,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥107,307,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Research and Education Activities, the Committee provides 

an appropriation of $600,800,000. 

Program Management.—The Committee concurs with the proposal to support activities under the Graduate Fellowship Grants 

and Institution Challenge Grants through the Agriculture and Food 

Research Initiative. The Committee also concurs with the proposal 

to consolidate pest control activities under the Integrated Pest 

Management and Biological Control Program. 

Research Priorities.—The Committee regrets it cannot provide an 

increase for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative for fiscal 

year 2012. While the Committee appreciates the work of the dedicated staff of NIFA, especially for their efforts to reorganize the 

agency and raise the profile of agricultural research as directed by 

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, it is concerned 

about some of the research being funded by the agency. For example, the agency recently awarded more than $23 million in grants 

to improve regional and local food systems. Over the past few 

years, numerous reports from Federal agencies and private philanthropic and scientific organizations have highlighted the need for 

the United States to invest in agricultural research, particularly to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
15 

ensure productivity growth and to develop and refine sound natural 

resources management practices for U.S. farmers and ranchers and 

others around the world. In light of this advice and the nation’s serious budget deficit and debt problems, the agency should be focusing its research efforts on only the highest priority, scientifically 

merited research. While there are many interesting research topics 

and a multitude of issues that could be researched, the Committee 

expects the agency to focus on its core mission of agricultural research by setting a very high standard for research funded by the 

agency and requiring a rigorous peer review. 

Policy Research.—The Committee directs the Director of NIFA to 

consult with the Office of the Chief Economist in developing any 

requests for proposals for competitive grants, reviewing applications submitted to the Department, and awarding competitive 

grants for the activities authorized by 7 U.S.C. 3155. 

Unexpended Balances.—The Committee is concerned that the 

agency continues to have significant unexpended balances. The 

Committee directs the agency to provide a report on the balances, 

including an explanation for its past practices and the agency’s 

plans to improve the management of its appropriation and activities by September 1, 2011. 

Blueberry and Cranberry Research.—The Committee recognizes 

that the production of blueberries and cranberries is vital to many 

local economies and encourages the agency to work with partners 

to support the development of new cultivars to enhance economic 

stability and develop environmentally sound insect and disease 

management strategies and technologies. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

2011 enacted 2012 budget Committee 

provision 

Hatch Act, Formula Funds ...................................................................................... $236,334 $204,250 $208,000 

McIntire-Stennis, Cooperative Forestry, Formula Funds ......................................... 32,934 27,550 30,000 

Evans-Allen Program (1890 Colleges and Tuskegee University) ........................... 50,898 48,500 48,000 

Special Grants for Global Change/Ultraviolet Radiation ....................................... 1,405 1,408 1,250 

Other Special Grants .............................................................................................. 1,433 427 0 

Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control ............................................ 16,153 16,185 14,000 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative ............................................................... 264,470 324,655 229,500 

Animal Health and Disease Research .................................................................... 2,944 0 4,000 

Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment ..................................................................... 4,790 4,800 4,200 

Multicultural Scholars Program .............................................................................. 1,239 1,241 1,000 

Hispanic Education Partnership Grants ................................................................. 9,219 10,161 7,800 

Alaska Native and Hawaiian Native Education Grants ......................................... 3,194 3,200 2,700 

Secondary, 2 Year Post Secondary and Ag in the Classroom ............................... 981 3,483 900 

Aquaculture Grants ................................................................................................. 3,920 3,928 3,300 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education .................................................. 14,471 15,000 12,300 

Capacity Building Grants for1890 Institution ........................................................ 19,336 20,075 16,400 

Payments to 1994 Institutions ............................................................................... 3,335 3,676 2,800 

Resident Instruction Grants for Insular Areas ....................................................... 898 900 900 

Distance Education Grants for Insular Areas ........................................................ 749 750 750 

Competitive Grants for Policy Research ................................................................. 0 0 3,000 

Federal Administration ............................................................................................ 11,230 14,253 10,000 

Data Information System (REEIS) .................................................................. 2,699 2,704 2,500 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
16 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—Continued 

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

2011 enacted 2012 budget Committee 

provision 

Electronic Grants Administration System ...................................................... 2,132 5,136 2,000 

Total Research and Education Activities ............................................................... 698,740 708,107 600,800 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. ($11,880,000) 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... (11,880,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (11,880,000) 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund, the 

Committee provides $11,880,000. 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $479,132,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 466,788,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 411,200,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥67,932,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥55,588,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Extension Activities, the Committee provides an appropria- tion of $411,200,000. 

The following table reflects the amount provided by the Committee: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

2011 enacted 2012 budget Committee 

provision 

Smith-Lever Sections 3(b) and 3(c) ..................................................................... $293,911 $282,625 $259,200 

Extension Services at 1994 Institutions ................................................................. 4,312 5,321 3,600 

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program ................................................. 67,934 68,070 58,000 

Farm Safety ............................................................................................................. 4,853 0 0 

Pest Management Program .................................................................................... 9,918 9,938 8,400 

New Technologies for Ag Extension ........................................................................ 1,747 1,750 1,400 

Facility Improvement Grants for 1890 Institutions ................................................ 19,730 19,770 16,700 

Youth at Risk Program ........................................................................................... 8,395 8,412 7,100 

Youth Farm Safety Education and Extension ......................................................... 485 486 0 

Renewable Resources Extension Act ...................................................................... 4,060 4,068 3,400 

Tribal Extension Program ........................................................................................ 3,039 8,000 2,600 

Sustainable Agriculture Program ............................................................................ 4,696 4,968 4,000 

Rural Health and Safety Education ........................................................................ 1,735 1,738 1,500 

Cooperative Extension at 1890 Institutions ........................................................... 42,592 42,677 36,000 

Grants to Youth Organizations ............................................................................... 1,780 0 1,500 

Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database ............................................................ 998 0 1,000 

Women and Minorities in STEM Fields ................................................................... 399 400 0 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
17 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE—Continued 

EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

2011 enacted 2012 budget Committee 

provision 

Federal Administration ............................................................................................ 8,565 8,548 6,800 

Total Extension Activities ........................................................................................ 479,132 466,788 411,200 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

2011 Appropriation ................................................................. $36,926,000 

2012 budget estimate ............................................................. 29,874,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 8,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .......................................................... ¥28,926,000 

2012 budget estimate ...................................................... ¥21,874,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Integrated Activities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $8,000,000, of which $4,000,000 is provided for the regional 

pest management centers and activities and $4,000,000 for the organic transition program. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 911,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 760,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥133,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥151,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$760,000. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $863,270,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 832,706,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 790,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥73,270,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥42,706,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Salaries 

and Expenses, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$790,000,000. 

Budget Restructure.—The Committee supports the request in the 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget for APHIS to manage 29 budgetary line items instead of 45 line items. It is expected that this 

increased flexibility will allow APHIS to apply the greatest reVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jun 03, 2011 Jkt 066631 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
18 

sources to the greatest threats or risks within a line item and to 

prioritize funds accordingly. The Committee reiterates its previous 

statements on the need 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. 

The following table reflects the amounts provided by the Committee in accordance with the newly proposed budget restructure: 

Program Amount 

Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness/Response: 

Animal Health Technical Services ......................................................................................................... $32,500,000 

Aquatic Animal Health .......................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Avian Health .......................................................................................................................................... 54,000,000 

Cattle Health ......................................................................................................................................... 100,000,000 

Equine, Cervid, & Small Ruminant Health ........................................................................................... 22,000,000 

National Veterinary Stockpile ................................................................................................................ 2,300,000 

Swine Health ......................................................................................................................................... 23,000,000 

Veterinary Biologics ............................................................................................................................... 16,000,000 

Veterinary Diagnostics ........................................................................................................................... 29,000,000 

Zoonotic Disease Management ............................................................................................................. 9,000,000 

Subtotal, Animal Health ............................................................................................................... 290,800,000 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection ....................................................................................................... 25,500,000 

Cotton Pests .......................................................................................................................................... 16,000,000 

Field Crop & Rangeland Ecosystem Pests ............................................................................................ 9,000,000 

Pest Detection ....................................................................................................................................... 26,000,000 

Plant Protection Methods Development ................................................................................................ 20,000,000 

Specialty Crop Pests ............................................................................................................................. 147,000,000 

Tree & Wood Pests ................................................................................................................................ 52,000,000 

Subtotal, Plant Health .................................................................................................................. 295,500,000 

Wildlife Damage Management .............................................................................................................. 72,500,000 

Wildlife Services Methods Development ................................................................................................ 17,000,000 

Subtotal, Wildlife Services ........................................................................................................... 89,500,000 

Animal & Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement .................................................................................. 14,500,000 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services ........................................................................................................ 17,000,000 

Subtotal, Regulatory Services ...................................................................................................... 31,500,000 

Contingency Fund .................................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Emergency Preparedness & Response .................................................................................................. 17,000,000 

Subtotal, Safeguarding and Emergency Preparedness ................................................................ 19,000,000 

Safe Trade & International Technical Assistance: 

Animal Agriculture Import/Export .......................................................................................................... 12,000,000 

Overseas Technical and Trade Operations ........................................................................................... 20,000,000 

Subtotal, Safe Trade & International Technical Assistance ........................................................ 32,000,000 

Animal Welfare: 

Animal Welfare ...................................................................................................................................... 22,000,000 

Horse Protection .................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

Subtotal, Animal Welfare ............................................................................................................. 22,500,000 

Agency Management 

APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 4,200,000 

Physical/Operational Security ................................................................................................................ 5,000,000 

Subtotal, Agency Management ..................................................................................................... 9,200,000 

Total, Salaries & Expenses ................................................................................................. 790,000,000 

Animal Disease Traceability/National Animal Identification System.—The Committee directs APHIS to continue funding the new 

traceability system with funding in the base budget. Although 

APHIS states that a newly devised, mandatory traceability approach is ‘‘low cost’’, it must prove to the Committee and its stakeVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jun 03, 2011 Jkt 066631 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
19 

holders that the investment of public funds exceeding $150 million 

in this process since fiscal year 2004 has not gone to waste. Additionally, this mandatory system must not create an excessive regulatory or financial burden on the livestock industry. APHIS is directed to provide the Committee with a status report on the 

progress of the system as proposed in the September 28, 2010, 

Comprehensive Report & Implementation Plan (amended January 

28, 2011) by October 31, 2011; April 1, 2012; and by August 1, 

2012. The report should provide updates on the cost, schedule, and 

milestones. The report is to provide a summary of the reasons for 

changes in the cost, schedule and/or milestones and plans for corrective actions. 

Emerging Plant Pests.—The Committee expects the Secretary of 

Agriculture to continue to use the authority provided in this bill to 

transfer funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) for 

the arrest and eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases 

that threaten American agriculture. By providing funds in this account, the Committee is enhancing, not replacing, the use of CCC 

funding for emergency outbreaks. 

Designated Qualified Person (DQP) Program.—The Committee 

directs APHIS to apply its resources towards the enforcement of 

the Horse Protection Act for the most egregious violators and/or offenders of the Act. USDA should continue to use all options necessary to maintain industry self-regulation and an effective DQP 

program, including the use of more open and transparent communications with the Horse Industry Organizations (HIO). Even 

though APHIS did communicate with the HIOs at various points 

in the process leading up to the implementation of the mandatory 

penalty protocol, the Committee believes that APHIS would have 

been more effective in meeting the requirements of the Act and developed a more cooperative arrangement with the HIOs if the agency would have utilized the notice and comment rulemaking process. 

The Committee will mandate alternative action if it believes that 

APHIS has not exercised fairness and due process in the regulation 

of the industry. 

Animal Welfare.—The bill provides $22,000,000 for the Animal 

Welfare program, an amount above the level appropriated in fiscal 

year 2010, to ensure that minimum standards of care and treatment are provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, 

used in research, transported, commercially, or exhibited to the 

public. 

Animal Welfare Act.—It has been brought to the Committee’s attention that APHIS is using vital animal welfare resources to regulate the pets of extras in filmed entertainment. While the Animal 

Welfare Act’s intent is to establish minimally acceptable standards 

in the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and 

by dealers, the law was not aimed at regulating companion animals 

used as extras in the background of movies and television productions. The Committee urges the agency to use the Secretary’s discretionary authority to seek alternative means of meeting its statutory mandate, including the option of issuing exemptions or master 

exhibitor licenses to these pet owners. 

Pale or potato Cyst Nematode eradication.—The Committee encourages APHIS to continue funding the Pale Cyst Nematode 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
20 

eradication program above the President’s budget request level in 

order to continue with successful efforts to eradicate this pest. If 

left untreated, this pest could spread, affecting crops other than potatoes. 

Equine disease control and eradication.—The Committee is 

aware of equine disease outbreaks that have occurred with increased frequency over the last several years. These outbreaks 

threaten the health and welfare of U.S. horses and the economic 

viability of the $102 billion horse industry. APHIS is encouraged 

to quickly respond to such threats through the use of its authorities. APHIS is directed to report to the Committee by July 1, 2011, 

on the estimated funds allocated for equine disease in fiscal years 

2011 and 2012, as well as the range and degree of equine diseases 

currently existing within the U.S. 

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug.—The Committee believes that 

there is increasing evidence of significant damage to U.S. agricultural products, including tree fruit, from an expanding infestation 

of the brown marmorated stink bug. The Committee directs APHIS 

to act expeditiously to assist ARS, NIFA, and state partners to implement a control program as soon as the appropriate agents are 

evaluated and approved for release. 

Cotton pest.—This bill provides $15 million for the cotton pest 

program. The Committee applauds the cooperative efforts between 

APHIS, the U.S. cotton industry, and the participating state departments of agriculture in their successful efforts towards eradicating the boll weevil and pink bollworm from U.S. cotton production by 2013. 

Cost sharing with states and other cooperators.—The Committee 

directs APHIS to maximize the use of cost sharing agreements or 

matching requirements with states, territories, producers, foreign 

governments, non-governmental organizations, or any other recipient of services in order to reduce the cost burden on the agency. 

Sudden Oak Death.—The Committee expects APHIS to use an 

appropriate portion of the funding provided for sudden oak death 

(Phytopthora ramorum) adequate to promote the development and 

testing of new systems of nursery pest and disease management, 

and for programs of inspection and regulation in partnership with 

the nursery industry. APHIS should also conduct a timely review 

of the current pre-notification program and cooperate with the U.S. 

Forest Service to ensure funds are available for Phytopthora 

ramorum suppression efforts. 

Wildlife Damage Management.—The Committee provides 

$72,500,000 for Wildlife Damage Control, approximately $4 million 

above the President’s request. While receiving support from cooperators to conduct wildlife management operations, special emphasis should be placed on those areas such as livestock protection, 

cormorant control in the northeast, oral rabies vaccination, predator control, and other threats to agricultural industries. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
21 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $3,529,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,712,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,200,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥329,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,512,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Buildings and 

Facilities, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,200,000. 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $86,538,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 94,755,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 77,500,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥9,038,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥17,255,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Marketing Services of the Agricultural Marketing Service, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $77,500,000. 

Microbiological Data Program.—The Committee does not include 

funding for the Microbiological Data Program. While food safety is 

a vitally important part of successfully marketing produce and 

other agricultural products, other Federal and state public health 

agencies are better equipped to perform this function. In order for 

the Federal government to collect the necessary data for microbiological pathogens in produce, FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and/or the state departments of health and agriculture should collect such data under their purview. These organizations also may consider entering into reimbursable agreements 

with USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to meet this need. 

Country Origin of Labeling.—The Committee accepts the reduction of $1.109 million for the Country of Origin Labeling Program 

as it relates to the completion of a data management system in 

2011. 

National Organic Program.—The Committee encourages AMS to 

continue funding for the National Organic Program at the fiscal 

year 2011 level or above. The Department is reminded that the fiscal year 2010 appropriation provided this program with an increase 

of 82 percent over the fiscal year 2009 level. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2011 limitation .................................................................................... ($60,947,000) 

2012 budget limitation ....................................................................... (62,101,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (61,000,000) 

Comparison: 

2011 limitation ............................................................................ +53,000 

2012 budget limitation ................................................................ ¥1,101,000 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
22 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a Limitation on Administrative Expenses of the Agricultural 

Marketing Service, the Committee provides $61,000,000. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

MARKETING AGREEMENT AND ORDERS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. ($20,056,000) 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... (20,056,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (20,056,000) 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ............................................................... – – – 

2012 budget estimate ........................................................... – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Marketing Agreements and Orders Program, the Committee provides a transfer from section 32 funds of $20,056,000. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32) 

MARKETING AGREEMENT AND ORDERS

The following table reflects the status of this fund for fiscal years 

2011 through 2012: 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD 

FISCAL YEARS 2011–2012 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

FY 2011 

estimate 

FY 2012 

estimate 

Appropriation (30% of Customs Receipts) ................................................................. $6,605,946 $7,947,046 

Less Transfers: 

Food and Nutrition Service ................................................................................. ¥5,277,574 ¥6,644,834 

Commerce Department ....................................................................................... ¥68,231 ¥71,212 

Total, Transfers .......................................................................................... ¥5,345,805 ¥6,716,046 

Budget Authority .......................................................................................................... 1,260,141 1,231,000 

Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year ............................................................ 122,127 167,268 

Unavailable for Obligations ......................................................................................... ¥167,268 ¥114,478 

Transfer of Prior Year Funds to FNS ........................................................................... ¥117,000 ¥167,268 

Available for Obligation ............................................................................................... 1,098,000 1,116,522 

Less Obligations: 

Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities) ....................................... 307,900 465,000 

12 Percent Commodity Floor Requirement ................................................ 0 120,000 

Cotton, Soybean, Rice and Sweet Potato Disaster Program .............................. 390,000 0 

State Option Contract ......................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

Removal of Defective Commodities .................................................................... 2,500 2,500 

Emergency Surplus Removal .............................................................................. 7,600 0 

Disaster Relief .................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases .......................................... 158,300 206,000 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ................................................................... 33,000 20,000 

Laboratory Testing of Ground Beef .................................................................... 1,452 0 

Accounting Adjustment ....................................................................................... 800 0 

Estimated Future Needs ..................................................................................... 139,282 196,713 

Total, Commodity Procurement .................................................................. 1,050,834 1,020,813 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
23 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD 

FISCAL YEARS 2011–2012—Continued 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

FY 2011 

estimate 

FY 2012 

estimate 

Administrative Funds: 

Commodity Purchase Support ............................................................................ 27,110 27,731 

Marketing Agreements and Orders ..................................................................... 20,056 20,056 

Total, Administrative Funds ...................................................................... 47,166 47,787 

Total Obligations ......................................................................................................... 1,098,000 1,068,000 

Unobligated Balance Not Available, End of Year ....................................................... 167,268 114,478 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $1,331,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 2,634,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,331,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... – – – 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥1,303,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Payments to States and Possessions, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,331,000. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $40,261,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 44,192,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 37,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥3,261,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥7,192,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, the Committee provides $37,000,000. 

GIPSA Marketing Rules.—The Committee is deeply concerned 

that GIPSA, while well intentioned, misinterpreted the intent of 

Congress when the agency proposed rules regulating livestock marketing practices as required by Section 11006 of Title XI of the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). Specifically, the Committee believes that the breadth of GIPSA’s proposed rule at 75 FR 35338 unnecessarily extends beyond requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill. In addition, the proposed rule underestimates the future costs of implementing this rule. The bill includes language limiting funding for further action on the proposed 

rule at 75 FR 35338 until Congress takes additional legislative action to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act in the next Farm 

Bill. 

The Committee also is concerned about the appropriateness of 

USDA’s actions in this matter with regard to the requirements of 

the Administrative Procedure Act. Although the Department evenVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jun 03, 2011 Jkt 066631 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
24 

tually complied with numerous requests for an extension of the 

comment period until November 22, 2010, it did so reluctantly and 

only after numerous members of the House of Representatives and 

the Senate submitted requests for an extension, noting the absence 

of a meaningful economic analysis. The Committee finds troubling 

the fact that the Department allowed the comment period to close 

before the last joint Department of Agriculture-Department of Justice Agriculture and Antitrust Workshop was held, possibly limiting public comment. Finally, the Committee is gravely concerned 

about the propriety of the Department publishing its ‘‘Farm Bill 

Regulations—Misconceptions and Explanations’’ document, which 

was posted on the GIPSA website more than a month after the proposed rule appeared in the Federal Register. This posting was an 

unprecedented action by USDA and was published in response to 

criticisms of the proposed regulations the Department received at 

a hearing. By all indications, the Department took a particular position and advocated in favor of the proposed regulations. If so, the 

Department may be discouraging interested persons from participating in the rule making process, and in that regard, the Committee questions whether such actions are compliant with the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The Committee directs the Department to provide by June 10, 

2011, all legal opinions and memos prepared by the Office of General Counsel to the Secretary or any other person or agency of the 

Department regarding this matter. 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

2011 limitation .................................................................................... ($47,500,000) 

2012 budget limitation ....................................................................... (50,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (47,500,000) 

Comparison: 

2011 limitation ............................................................................ – – – 

2012 budget limitation ................................................................ ¥2,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee includes a limitation on inspection and weighing 

services expenses of $47,500,000. The bill includes authority to exceed by 10 percent the limitation on inspection and weighing services with notification to the Committees on Appropriations. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $811,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 828,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 689,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥122,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥139,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, the Committee provides an appropriation of $689,000. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
25 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

2011 appropriation ........................................................................... $1,006,503,000 

2012 budget estimate ....................................................................... 1,011,393,000 

Provided in the bill ........................................................................... 972,028,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .................................................................... ¥34,475,000 

2012 budget estimate ................................................................ ¥39,365,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Committee provides an appropriation of $972,028,000. 

While the Committee recommendation is $34,475,000 below the 

fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution level, the Committee believes that adequate resources will be available to FSIS to carry 

out its statutory mandate of meat, poultry and egg products inspection and corresponding microbiological sampling activities. The recommendation includes nearly $20,000,000 in efficiencies and reductions as requested in the budget including the program authorized 

by Section 11016 of P.L. 110–246. The Committee understands that 

the funding level may force FSIS to make some choices about the 

staffing levels that are currently maintained at district and headquarters offices, but the funding level ensures that inspection and 

sampling activities will be carried out uninterrupted. 

HACCP Based Inspection Model Project.—FSIS has a pilot inspection program for poultry slaughter inspection called the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Based Inspection Model 

Project (HIMP) that is operating in 20 facilities. After 10 years of 

data collection and several formal science-based studies, FSIS informed the Committee the HIMP model is not only a more efficient 

means of ensuring the safe and humane slaughter of young chickens (broilers) than the current model, but that this model reduces 

incidence of salmonella when compared to non-HIMP broiler establishments. By transitioning to this more effective and more efficient 

poultry slaughter model, FSIS would improve food safety, reduce 

foodborne illness, and deliver consumer protections by implementing this system industry-wide. The Committee encourages 

USDA to eliminate any barriers to the expansion of this safer and 

science-based system. 

Humane Methods of Slaughter.—The Committee directs FSIS, to 

the maximum extent practicable, to ensure that the inspectors 

hired to improve enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter 

Act are dedicated to overseeing compliance with humane handling 

rules. 

E. coli serotypes.—The Committee is aware that the latest foodborne illness estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention indicate that more than 113,000 Americans become sick 

from E. coli serotypes other than E. coli 0157:H7. E. coli 0157:H7 

is already considered an adulterant by FSIS, and the Committee 

urges the Administration to take the necessary steps against these 

pathogens to protect the public health. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
26 

FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 911,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 760,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥133,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥151,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$760,000. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation Transfer from 

program accts. Total, FSA, S&E 

2011 appropriation ...... $1,208,290,000 ($308,137,000) ($1,516,427,000) 

2012 budget estimate 1 1,397,065,000 (316,340,000) (1,713,405,000) 

Provided in the bill ..... 1,176,500,000 (263,470,000) (1,439,970,000) 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ¥31,790,000 (¥44,667,000) (¥76,457,000) 

2012 budget estimate .................. ¥220,565,000 (¥52,870,000) (¥273,435,000) 1 Includes $40,000,000 legislative proposal. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,176,500,000 and 

transfers from other accounts of $263,470,000, for a total program 

level of $1,439,970,000. 

The Committee recommends that funds be allocated to implement the National Agriculture Imagery Program, with images collected nationally on an annual basis, in order to provide the maximum benefit for USDA programs and other users of these images. 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to utilize all appropriate 

imagery sources to meet programmatic requirements. The Committee notes that some private companies utilize the images that 

are collected through the National Agriculture Imagery Program. 

Given the current fiscal environment, FSA is encouraged to work 

with these companies to determine if a fee could be paid to FSA 

for the use of these images. 

FSA IT.—The Committee does not approve reprogramming the 

$23,600,000 from MIDAS. In providing the fiscal year 2011 funding 

level, the Committee expected that $49,500,000 would be spent on 

MIDAS in 2011. The Committee has acknowledged the tenuous stability of the system and directs the agency to provide a briefing to 

the Committee by June 10, 2011, on this issue. 

CCC Funds to FSA.—The Committee has learned that, through 

the Commodity Credit Corporation, an additional $20 million has 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
27 

been made available to the agency. The Committee directs the 

agency to report by July 1, 2011, on its plans for the use of those 

funds. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,177,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 4,369,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,550,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥627,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥819,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For State Mediation Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,550,000. 

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,241,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 0 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 3,605,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥636,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. +3,605,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $3,605,000. 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. 1 $876,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 1 100,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1 100,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥776,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Dairy Indemnity Program, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of such sums as may be necessary (estimated to be 

$100,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request). 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

ESTIMATED LOAN LEVELS

2011 loan level .................................................................................. $4,651,283,000 

2012 budget estimate ....................................................................... 4,747,090,000 

Provided in the bill ........................................................................... 4,787,090,000 

Comparison: 

2011 loan level ........................................................................... +135,807,000 

2012 budget estimate ................................................................ +40,000,000 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
28 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $4,787,090,000. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Agricultural 

Credit Insurance Fund program account: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2011 

level 

FY 2012 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm loan programs: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct .................................................................................................. $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 

Guaranteed ......................................................................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Farm operating: 

Direct .................................................................................................. 950,000 1,050,090 1,050,090 

Unsubsidized guaranteed .................................................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Subsidized guaranteed ...................................................................... 122,343 0 0 

Indian tribe land acquisition ...................................................................... 3,940 2,000 2,000 

Conservation: 

Guaranteed ......................................................................................... 0 150,000 150,000 

Indian highly fractionated land .................................................................. 0 10,000 10,000 

Boll weevil eradication ............................................................................... 100,000 60,000 100,000 

Total ............................................................................................... 4,651,283 4,747,090 4,787,090 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

Direct loan 

subsidy 

Guaranteed loan 

subsidy Grants/other Administrative expenses 

2011 appropriation .................. $90,229,000 $57,455,000 0 $312,881,000 

2012 budget estimate ................ 82,113,000 26,100,000 $2,693,000 321,093,000 

Provided in the 

bill ................... 82,113,000 26,100,000 193,000 268,634,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .... ¥8,309,000 ¥31,355,000 +193,000 ¥44,247,000 

2012 budget 

estimate ... – – – – – – ¥2,500,000 ¥52,459,000 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2011 

estimate 

FY 2012 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Farm loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct ...................................................................................... $32,804 $22,800 $22,800 

Guaranteed ............................................................................. 5,689 0 0 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 38,493 22,800 22,800 

Farm operating: 

Direct ...................................................................................... 57,425 59,120 59,120 

Guaranteed unsubsidized ...................................................... 34,880 26,100 26,100 

Guaranteed subsidized .......................................................... 16,886 0 0 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
29 

AGRICULTURE CREDIT PROGRAMS—SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2011 

estimate 

FY 2012 

estimate 

Committee 

provisions 

Subtotal ............................................................................. 109,191 85,220 85,220 

Indian highly fractionated land ...................................................... 0 193 193 

Total, Farm loan subsidies .................................................... 147,684 108,213 108,213 

Individual development accounts .............................................. 0 2,500 0 

Total ................................................................................... 147,684 110,713 108,213 

ACIF expenses: 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................... 304,977 313,173 260,730 

Administrative expenses ............................................................. 7,904 7,920 7,904 

Total, ACIF expenses .............................................................. 312,881 321,093 268,634 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $78,842,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 82,325,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 68,016,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥10,826,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥14,309,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Risk Management Agency, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $68,016,000. 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

2011 appropriation ................................................................. 1 $7,613,232,000 

2012 budget estimate ............................................................. 1 3,142,375,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 1 3,142,375,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .......................................................... ¥4,470,857,000 

2012 budget estimate ...................................................... – – – 

1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, the Committee provides an appropriation of such sums as may be necessary 

(estimated to be $3,142,375,000 in the President’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request). 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
30 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS) 1

2011 appropriation ................................................................. $13,925,575,000 

2012 budget estimate ............................................................. 14,071,000,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 14,071,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .......................................................... +145,425,000 

2012 budget estimate ...................................................... – – – 

1 Current indefinite appropriation. 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses to the Commodity 

Credit Corporation, the Committee provides such sums as may be 

necessary to reimburse for net realized losses sustained, but not 

previously reimbursed (estimated to be $14,071,000,000 in the 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request). 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

(LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)

2011 limitation ........................................................................ ($5,000,000) 

2012 budget estimate ............................................................. (5,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. (5,000,000) 

Comparison: 

2011 limitation ................................................................ – – – 

2012 budget estimate ...................................................... – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For CCC Hazardous Waste Management, the Committee pro- vides a limitation of $5,000,000. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(31) 

TITLE II 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 911,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 760,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥133,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥151,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 

Environment, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$760,000. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $870,503,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 898,647,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 770,956,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥99,547 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥127,691 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Conservation Operations, the Committee provides an appropriation of $770,956,000. 

The Committee provides $9,300,000 for the Snow Survey and 

Water Forecasting program; $9,400,000 for the Plant Materials 

Centers; and $80,000,000 for the Soil Surveys program. The Committee provides $672,256,000 for conservation technical assistance. 

The Committee provides an increase of $5,000,000 for the Conservation Effects Assessment Project and an increase of $5,000,000 

for the Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative. The Committee does not concur with the proposed increase in funding for 

the Strategic Watershed Action Teams. The Committee concurs 

with the agency that a set aside is not necessary for the Grazing 

Lands Conservation Initiative as grazing land conservation needs 

are adequately addressed through the Conservation Operations account. 

National Marine Sanctuaries.—The Committee urges the agency 

to continue the collaborative agreement with the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries to address agricultural sources of runoff, such 

as sediments, nitrates and pesticides. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
32 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $17,964,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 15,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥2,964,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. +15,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $15,000,000. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(33) 

TITLE III 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $893,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 911,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 760,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥133,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥151,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development, the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $760,000. 

Regional Innovation Initiative.—The fiscal year 2012 budget request reproposed a Regional Innovation Initiative. Secretary 

Vilsack has said the purpose of the initiative is to take a different 

direction in rural development based on five pillars: rural 

broadband, biofuels and biobased products, linking local production 

with local consumption of farm products, ecosystem markets to pay 

farmers for storing carbon, and forest restoration and private land 

conservation. The Committee is unable to provide any funding or 

authorization for the initiative as requests for additional information on the specific purpose, need, and plans for the initiative have 

gone unanswered. However, the Committee does provide funding 

for the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) under the 

Community Facility Program Account. The Committee directs the 

Department not to spend any RCDI funding on the initiative until 

it receives approval from the Committee. 

Threat to Broadband Infrastructure.—In April 2011, the Committee was made aware of national security concerns regarding the 

introduction of potentially harmful technology into the U.S. 

broadband infrastructure through the Department’s broadband program. The Committee directs the Department to fully investigate 

these concerns, work with Federal partners to determine the most 

appropriate response, and report to the Committee regarding this 

issue by September 1, 2011. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

FY 2011 estimate FY 2012 estimate Committee provisions 

Appropriations .................... $191,603,000 $234,301,000 $161,011,000 

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program 

Account ..................... 453,474,000 411,779,000 400,000,000 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
34 

FY 2011 estimate FY 2012 estimate Committee provisions 

Rural Development 

Loan Fund Program 

Account ..................... 4,931,000 4,941,000 3,500,000 

Rural Electrification 

and Telecommunications Loan Program Account ........... 38,297,000 39,959,000 30,000,000 

Total, RD Salaries 

and Expenses ........ 688,305,000 690,980,000 594,511,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Salaries and Expenses of the Rural Development mission 

area, the Committee provides an appropriation of $161,011,000. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative 

expenses 

2011 appropriation ................................................................... $25,292,428,000 $111,855,000 $453,474,000 

2012 budget estimate .............................................................. 24,333,940,000 51,814,000 411,779,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................... 24,922,585,000 66,250,000 400,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .......................................................... ¥369,843,000 ¥45,605,000 ¥53,474,000 

2012 budget estimate ..................................................... +588,645,000 +14,436,000 ¥11,779,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, the 

Committee provides a loan level of $24,922,585,000. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Housing 

Insurance Fund program account: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2011 level FY 2012 estimate Committee provisions 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loans 

Single family housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ....................................................................... $1,121,406 $211,416 $845,666 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 24,000,000 24,000,000 24,000,000 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 23,360 0 0 

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 69,512 95,236 58,617 

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ............................... 30,960 0 0 

Housing site development (sec. 524) .............................. 5,052 0 0 

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 11,448 0 0 

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... 4,966 0 0 

Farm labor housing ......................................................... 25,724 27,288 18,302 

Total, Loan authorization ............................................ 25,292,428 24,333,940 24,922,585 

The following table reflects the costs of loan programs under 

credit reform: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
35 

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2011 level FY 2012 estimate Committee provisions 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account (loan subsidies and grants): 

Single family housing (sec. 502): 

Direct ....................................................................... $70,060 $10,000 $40,000 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................... 0 0 0 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ................................................ 4,413 0 0 

Rental housing (sec. 515) ............................................... 23,399 32,495 20,000 

Multi-family guaranteed (sec. 538) ................................ 2,994 0 0 

Site development loans (sec. 524) .................................. 293 0 0 

Credit sales of acquired property .................................... 555 0 0 

Self-help housing land development fund ...................... 288 0 0 

Farm labor housing ......................................................... 9,853 9,319 6,250 

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................. 102,002 51,814 66,250 

Farm labor housing grants .............................................. 9,854 9,873 6,250 

RHIF expenses: 

Administrative expenses .................................................. 453,474 411,779 400,000 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $953,724,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 906,653,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 890,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥63,724,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥16,653,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rental Assistance Program, the Committee provides a 

program level of $890,000,000. 

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM ACCOUNT

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $29,940,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 16,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 11,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥18,940,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥5,000,000 

For the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account, 

the Committee provides an appropriation of $11,000,000, which is 

for the rural housing voucher program. 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $36,926,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... – – – 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 22,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥14,926,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. +22,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants, the Committee pro- vides an appropriation of $22,000,000. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
36 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $40,319,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 11,520,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 32,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥8,319,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. +20,480,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Housing Assistance Grants program, the Com- mittee provides an appropriation of $32,000,000. 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $41,379,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 38,400,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 18,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥23,379,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥20,400,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Community Facilities Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $18,000,000. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2011 

level 

FY 2012 

estimated 

Committee 

provisions 

Loan levels: 

Community facility direct loans ...................................... ($290,526) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) 

Community facility guaranteed loans ............................. (167,747) (0) (105,708) 

Subsidy and grants: 

Community facility direct loans ...................................... 3,856 0 0 

Community facility guaranteed loans ............................. 6,613 0 5,000 

Community facility grants ............................................... 14,970 30,000 10,000 

Rural Community Development Initiative ........................ 4,990 8,400 3,000 

Economic Impact Initiative .............................................. 6,986 0 0 

Tribal college grants ........................................................ 3,964 0 0 

Total, Rural Community Facilities Program subsidy and grants ............................................. 41,379 38,400 18,000 

The following programs are included in bill language for the 

Rural Community Facilities Program: $3,000,000 is for the Rural 

Community Development Initiative. 

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $85,280,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 89,857,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 64,500,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥20,780,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥25,357,000 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
37 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Business Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $64,500,000. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

FY 2011 

level 

FY 2012 

estimated 

Committee 

provisions 

Loan level: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans ....................... ($889,111) ($822,900) ($626,959) 

Subsidy and grants: 

Business and industry guaranteed loans ....................... 44,899 52,500 40,000 

Rural business enterprise grants .................................... 34,930 29,874 20,000 

Rural business opportunity grants .................................. 2,478 7,483 2,250 

Delta regional authority ................................................... 2,973 0 2,250 

Total, Rural Business Program subsidy and 

grants ............................................................. 85,280 89,857 64,500 

The following programs are included in bill language for the 

Rural Business Program account: $500,000 for rural transportation 

technical assistance; and $3,400,000 for Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, of which $250,000 is for transportation technical assistance. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative 

expenses 

2011 appropriation ..................................................................................... $19,181,000 $7,385,000 $4,931,000 

2012 budget estimate ................................................................................ 36,376,000 12,324,000 4,941,000 

Provided in the bill ..................................................................................... 14,758,000 5,000,000 3,500,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ............................................................................ ¥4,423,000 ¥2,385,000 ¥1,431,000 

2012 budget estimate ....................................................................... ¥21,618,000 ¥7,324,000 ¥1,441,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Development Loan Fund program account, the 

Committee provides for a loan level of $14,758,000. 

For the loan subsidy, the Committee provides an appropriation 

of $5,000,000. 

In addition, the Committee provides $3,500,000 for administrative expenses. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Loan level 

2011 appropriation ............................................................................................................................................... $33,077,000 

2012 budget estimate .......................................................................................................................................... 33,077,000 

Provided in the bill .............................................................................................................................................. 33,077,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................................................................................... – – – 

2012 budget estimate ................................................................................................................................. – – – 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
38 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account, 

the Committee provides for a loan level of $33,077,000. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $30,193,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 35,854,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 22,500,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥7,693,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥13,354,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the Committee provides an appropriation of $22,500,000. 

The Committee provides a total of $22,500,000 for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant program, of which: $2,000,000 is provided for a cooperative agreement for the Appropriate Technology 

Transfer for Rural Areas program; $3,000,000 is for cooperatives or 

associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers; and $12,500,000 is for the 

value-added agricultural product market development grant program. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $4,990,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 36,788,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 1,300,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥3,690,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥35,488,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Renewable Energy for America Program, the Committee 

provides $1,300,000 to make loans and grants as authorized by section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 

(7 U.S.C. 8107). 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $527,944,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 488,978,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 500,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥27,944,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. +11,022,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account, the Committee provides an appropriation of $500,000,000. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations 

as compared to the budget request: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
39 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY11 level FY12 level Committee 

provisions 

Loan levels: 

Water and waste direct loans ............................................... ($898,263) ($770,000) ($730,689) 

Water and waste guaranteed loans ...................................... (75,000) (12,000) 0 

Subsidy and Grants: 

Direct Subsidy ........................................................................ 76,917 73,788 70,000 

Guaranteed Subsidy ............................................................... 0 190 0 

Water and Waste Revolving Fund ......................................... 497 497 497 

Water Well System Grants ..................................................... 993 993 993 

Grants for the Colonias and AK/HI ........................................ 68,600 65,000 65,000 

Water and Waste Technical Assistance Grants .................... 19,110 19,000 19,000 

Circuit Rider Program ............................................................ 14,700 14,000 14,000 

Solid Waste Management Grants .......................................... 3,434 4,000 3,400 

High Energy Cost Grants ....................................................... 11,976 0 0 

Water and Waste Disposal Grants ........................................ 331,717 311,510 327,110 

Total Subsidies and Grants .......................................... 527,944 488,978 500,000 

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Loan level Subsidy level Administrative 

expenses 

2011 appropriation ...................... $7,790,000,000 $699,000 $38,297,000 

2012 budget estimate ................. 6,790,000,000 0 39,959,000 

Provided in the bill ..................... 7,290,000,000 0 30,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .............. ¥500,000,000 ¥699,000 ¥8,297,000 

2012 budget estimate .......... +500,000,000 – – – ¥9,959,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account, the Committee provides a loan level of 

$7,290,000,000. In addition, the Committee provides $30,000,000 

for administrative expenses. 

The Committee does not concur with the proposal to limit the use 

of rural electrification loans and instead expects USDA to work 

with borrowers to finance the most reliable and cost-effective electricity source that meets their needs. 

Baseload Generation Report.—The Committee directs USDA to 

provide a report on baseload generation needs in rural America and 

to work with interested parties and the Office of Management and 

Budget to conduct a subsidy analysis that incorporates the most up 

to date data. The Committee directs the Department to provide the 

report to the Committee by December 31, 2011. 

The following table reflects the loan levels for the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program account: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2011 enacted FY 2012 estimate Committee 

provisions 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
40 

[Dollars in thousands] 

FY 2011 enacted FY 2012 estimate Committee 

provisions 

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 6,500,000 6,000,000 6,500,000 

Guaranteed underwriting .............................................. 500,000 0 0 

Subtotal ................................................................ 7,100,000 6,100,000 6,600,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5% ..................................................................... 145,000 145,000 145,000 

Direct, Treasury rate ..................................................... 250,000 250,000 250,000 

Direct, FFB .................................................................... 295,000 295,000 295,000 

Subtotal ................................................................ 690,000 690,000 690,000 

Total, Loan authorizations ................................... 7,790,000 6,790,000 7,290,000 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

Loan level Subsidy level Grants 

2011 appropriation ...................... $400,000,000 $22,276,000 $45,814,000 

2012 budget estimate ................. 0 0 47,976,000 

Provided in the bill ..................... 0 0 15,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .............. ¥400,000,000 ¥22,276,000 ¥30,814,000 

2012 budget estimate .......... – – – – – – ¥32,976,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program, the Committee provides an appropriation of $15,000,000 for 

distance learning and telemedicine grants. 

Broadband Program Report.—The Committee is very concerned 

that numerous broadband projects around the country which were 

approved by the Department for funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, particularly for rural communities 

not served or underserved by broadband, are not under contract 

yet. The Committee directs the Department to submit a report 

which details the status of all approved broadband projects, when 

work is expected to start and be completed, within 60 days of enacted of this Act. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(41) 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $811,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 828,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 689,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥122,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥139,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 

Consumer Services, the Committee provides an appropriation of 

$689,000. 

The Committee directs FNS to continue making all policy documents related to the WIC program (including, but not limited to, 

instructions, memoranda, guidance, and questions and answers) 

available to the public on the internet within one week of their release to state WIC administrators. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $17,319,950,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 18,810,571,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 18,770,571,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ............................................................... +1,450,638,000 

2012 budget estimate ........................................................... ¥40,000,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Child Nutrition Programs, the Committee provides 

$18,770,571,000. 

New Nutrition Requirements for the School Lunch and School 

Breakfast Programs.—The Committee notes that FNS has responded to the actions required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids 

Act of 2010, P.L. 111–296. The Committee urges restraint and 

practical timelines for implementing new national nutrition standards in the school breakfast and lunch programs. As many of the 

representatives in states and local school districts have cautioned, 

an overly aggressive implementation schedule and unrealistic demands on changes in nutrient content can lead to burdensome 

costs, estimated to be about $7 billion over 5 years. Therefore, the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
42 

Committee directs FNS to issue a new proposed rule that would 

not require an increase in the cost of providing school meals. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

the child nutrition programs: 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Child Nutrition Programs: 

School lunch program ..................................................................... $10,884,019 

School breakfast program .............................................................. 3,337,699 

Child and adult care food program ............................................... 2,818,405 

Summer food service program ....................................................... 400,505 

Special milk program ..................................................................... 13,069 

State administrative expenses ....................................................... 279,034 

Commodity procurement ................................................................ 972,651 

Healthier US Schools Challenge ................................................... 1,500 

Team nutrition ................................................................................ 15,016 

Food safety education ..................................................................... 2,510 

Coordinated review ......................................................................... 9,763 

Computer support and processing ................................................. 9,525 

CACFP training and technical assistance .................................... 3,537 

Studies and other activities ........................................................... 19,000 

Hunger free community grants ..................................................... 0 

Farm to school tactical team ......................................................... 2,000 

CN payment accuracy .................................................................... 2,338 

Child nutrition reauthorization ..................................................... 0 

Total ................................................................................................. 18,770,571 

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, 

AND CHILDREN (WIC)

2011 appropriation ........................................................................... $6,734,027,000 

2012 budget estimate ....................................................................... 7,390,100,000 

Provided in the bill ........................................................................... 6,048,250,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .................................................................... ¥685,777,000 

2012 budget estimate ................................................................ ¥1,341,850,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Committee provides an appropriation of $5,901,250,000. 

The Committee notes that since the budget request was submitted in February 2011, estimates for participation and food costs 

in the WIC program have declined from the original estimates for 

fiscal years 2011 and 2012. 

The Committee will continue to monitor WIC food costs, participation, and carry-over funds, and take additional action as necessary to ensure that funding provided in fiscal year 2012 is sufficient to serve all eligible applicants. 

Although the total allocation for this bill is 13.4 percent below 

the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, WIC is reduced by a lesser 

amount or 12.4 percent below the fiscal year 2011 level. While 

funding for this program represents a relatively significant reduction, the Secretary can utilize funding mechanisms at his discretion, including the use of fiscal year 2011 carryover funds, the contingency fund for this account in the amount of $125 million, as 

well as other funding options currently authorized in law. 

Transfer of WIC funds in FY 2011.— The Committee is troubled 

by the action that transferred $562 million from WIC for an unreVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jun 03, 2011 Jkt 066631 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
43 

lated activity in fiscal year 2011 and insists that USDA work towards ensuring that funds appropriated for this program, and solely intended for this program, benefit this program and WIC participants. 

WIC Services and Administrative Costs.—While the average participation in WIC has grown by 26 percent over the past 10 years, 

administrative costs for WIC have grown by 72 percent or $800 

million dollars between 2001 and 2010. Keeping in mind that some 

of WIC’s program offerings (i.e., nutrition and smoking cessation 

programs) have expanded over the past 10 years and state salary 

and benefit costs have grown with inflation, administrative and 

service delivery costs as a percentage of the overall cost of the program are excessively high. By the Committee’s estimation, administrative costs of operating WIC are well above 40 percent. In contrast to other social service organizations, the model guidelines by 

the Federal Government’s Combined Federal Campaign require a 

justification from any local charity that has administrative costs 

exceeding 25 percent and the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance charity standards set a rate not to exceed 35 percent 

to cover administrative costs. FNS needs to achieve increased savings through greater use of benchmarking across states or achieve 

economies of scale whereby the agency and its state partners can 

decrease the delivery or program costs per participant. These costs 

pose the greatest threat to fully supporting the vital nutritional 

needs of all WIC participants. The Committee directs FNS to submit a plan by July 29, 2011, to reduce administrative costs. 

Electronic Benefits Transfer.—The Committee recommendation 

includes language to allow funds to be used for WIC electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems and sets the level of infrastructure 

funding at $14,000,000, which includes funding to develop EBT 

systems. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, P.L. 111–296 

mandated that each state implement EBT for WIC no later than 

October 1, 2020. A few states are leading the way on WIC EBT implementation and should serve as models required by other states, 

including those state plans that take advantage of the states’ existing food stamp or SNAP EBT system. As a reminder, the SNAP 

program did not require states to fully develop Management Information Systems (MIS) or meet MIS standards before implementation of SNAP EBT, and the WIC program also should not make 

such a requirement. The Committee directs FNS to develop an implementation plan for a more accelerated schedule in order to take 

advantage of the benefits that WIC EBT would yield for both the 

Federal, state and private sector stakeholders. FNS should work 

with state WIC agencies to provide the Committee with the plan 

by December 31, 2011. 

Categorical eligibility.—WIC provides nutritional support to some 

of the most vulnerable individuals in the U.S. population. However, 

due to the Nation’s overall financial crisis and the rapidly expanding needs of other Federal nutrition programs administered by 

FNS, the Committee recommends that the agency focus first on the 

nutritional needs of those originally envisioned in the creation of 

this program. While the Committee understands the need to seek 

efficiencies through the use of Categorical Eligibility, the Committee is concerned that USDA is expanding eligibility well beyond 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
44 

the neediest or hardest hit during the economic downturn. In particular, USDA has confirmed that the WIC program is now serving 

significant numbers of individuals with incomes above 185 percent 

of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines, including seven states that 

use income eligibility limits above 250 percent of poverty. The recommended funding level includes $75,000,000 for continuation of the breastfeeding peer counselor program. The Committee 

also provides $7,500,000 for breastfeeding performance bonuses to 

WIC state agencies. The Committee provides $50,000,000 for investments in management information systems. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2011 appropriation ................................................................. $65,206,693,000 

2012 budget estimate ............................................................. 73,183,808,000 

Provided in the bill ................................................................. 71,173,308,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .......................................................... +5,966,615,000 

2012 budget estimate ...................................................... ¥2,010,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Com- mittee provides $71,173,308,000. The total amount includes 

$3,000,000,000 for a contingency reserve in fiscal year 2012. 

Fast food pilot programs in SNAP.—The Committee disapproves 

of the Department’s allowance of SNAP funds for fast food restaurants in certain state and territory programs. USDA’s own 

Amber Waves magazine (March 2010) contained an article entitled 

‘‘SNAP Benefits and Eating Out: Wise Choices Required’’ that stated the following: ‘Allowing SNAP participants to use their benefits 

to purchase food away from home is not likely to result in the 

healthy food choices found by the researchers’ model. Most U.S. 

households make poorer nutritional choices than those recommended by the Thrifty Food Plan and the Dietary Guidelines. Allowing for SNAP benefits to be spent on food away from home, 

which is generally nutritionally inferior to food at home, may help 

SNAP participants balance time constraints and other needs but 

could also make eating healthy even more challenging. USDA 

should be consistent in its policies and practices for all nutrition 

assistance programs by ending this practice. 

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.—While SNAP provides a vital food security safety net to nearly 45 million people in this Nation, the 

Committee is concerned about the amount of waste, fraud, and 

abuse in this immense Federal nutrition program. The Committee 

is deeply concerned about reports of fraud and overpayments in 

SNAP. During the testimony before this Committee, fraud alone 

was estimated at around $330 million in a single year. As this 

Committee noted last year, overpayments were expected to exceed 

$1.2 billion, while fiscal year 2009 actual overpayments totaled 

$1.78 billion and fiscal year 2010 overpayments are projected to approach $2.6 billion. Between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2011, 

USDA estimates overpayments at a staggering cost of $9.1 billion. 

This amount clearly constitutes waste that this Nation cannot afford. While the Committee is committed to ensuring that all eligible families receive the assistance to which they are entitled, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
45 

record budget deficits also require vigilance in defense of precious 

taxpayer funds. Therefore, the Committee directs USDA to submit 

a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by 

December 31, 2011, detailing plans to prevent future improper payments and to reduce future state administrative fees in amounts 

equal to the estimated overpayments by such states. 

The following table reflects the Committee recommendations for 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Account: Benefits ............................................................................................ $61,816,683,000 

Contingency Reserve ...................................................................... 3,000,000,000 

Administrative Costs: 

State Administrative Costs ............................................................ 3,332,000,000 

Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program .... 381,000,000 

Employment and Training ............................................................. 396,006,000 

Mandatory Other Program Costs .................................................. 114,358,000 

Discretionary Other Program Costs .............................................. 1,000,000 

Total Administrative Costs ............................................................ 4,224,364,000 

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico ............................................ 1,751,583,000 

American Samoa ............................................................................. 7,034,000 

Food Distribution Program for Indian Reservations ................... 102,746,000 

TEFAP Commodities ...................................................................... 248,750,000 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ....................... 12,148,000 

Community Food Project ................................................................ 5,000,000 

Program Access ............................................................................... 5,000,000 

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 2,333,496,000 

Total ................................................................................................. 71,173,308,000 

COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $246,126,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 249,619,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 192,500,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥53,626,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥57,119,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $192,500,000 for the 

Commodity Assistance Program. 

The recommended funding level for the Commodity Supple- mental Food Program (CSFP) is $138,500,000. The Committee has included $38,000,000 for administrative 

funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). In 

addition to the grant funds appropriated for commodity handling 

and distribution costs, the bill permits states to use up to 10 percent of the funds provided for purchasing TEFAP commodities to 

help with the costs of storing, transporting and distributing commodities. The Committee expects state agencies to consult with 

their emergency feeding organizations on the need for the conversion of such funds. 

Increasing Efficiency within the Domestic Food Assistance Programs.—The Committee believes there are potential savings in the 

delivery of nutrition food assistance services designed to address 

food insecurity in the United States. The Government Accountability Office issued a report on April 15, 2010, entitled ‘‘Domestic 

Food Assistance: Complex System Benefits Millions, but Additional 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
46 

Efforts Could Address Potential Inefficiency and Overlap among 

Smaller Programs’’, that outlines some of the opportunities for 

more efficient delivery of services. The Committee directs the Secretary to prepare a report by December 1, 2011, that proposes 

methods for addressing inefficiencies and redundancies among all 

programs, particularly smaller programs, while ensuring access to 

the programs for those eligible. The Secretary should also assess 

the feasibility and consequences of transitioning those elderly participants in CSFP to SNAP, where possible, as well as options for 

combining the administrative functions of CSFP and TEFAP. Lastly, the report shall include options for creating greater savings 

within the state administrative expenses. 

For the Food Donations Programs, the Committee provides an appropriation of $1,000,000 for Pacific Island Assistance. The Committee recommendation includes $15,000,000 for the 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. 

Seniors Farmers’ Market Program.—Section 4406(c)(1) of the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 directs mandatory 

funding for this program from funds available to the Commodity 

Credit Corporation. The funding level is $20,600,000 in fiscal year 

2012. 

NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $147,505,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 170,471,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 125,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥22,505,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥45,471,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Nutrition Programs Administration, the Committee provides $125,000,000. 

Interagency Working Group on Food Marketing to Children.—The 

2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, P.L. 111–8, calling for the establishment of an Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed 

to Children, made up of members from FDA, CDC, USDA, and 

FTC. While Congress directed the Working Group to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations no later than July 15, 

2010, this Committee has not received a report to date. Almost two 

years after the initial meeting of the four agencies, FTC released 

a draft report entitled ‘‘Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children: Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to 

Guide Industry Self-Regulatory Efforts.’’ 

While the goal of improving children’s diets and addressing the 

high rates of childhood obesity is laudable, this Committee strongly 

believes that a number of other critical existing responsibilities 

now take precedence over the previously required tasks of this 

Working Group. If the Secretary certifies in writing to the Committee that resources are available after all other statutory mandates are met, the Committee will consider directing USDA to collaborate with other members of the Interagency Working Group to 

complete a study, based upon peer-reviewed evidence, which examines the extent to which food marketing directed to children (ages 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
47 

2 to 12) contributes to long-term changes in eating behavior and 

which identifies a range of strategies that will address long-term 

eating behavior in children, in order of their effectiveness. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(48) 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation Transfer from loan 

accounts Total, FAS 

2011 appropriation ...................... $185,628,000 ($6,452,000) ($192,080,000) 

2012 budget estimate ................. 229,730,000 (6,465,000) (236,195,000) 

Provided in the bill ..................... 175,000,000 (6,465,000) (181,465,000) 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .............. ¥10,628,000 +13,000,000 ¥10,615,000 

2012 budget estimate .......... ¥54,730,000 – – – ¥54,730,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the Committee provides an appropriation of $175,000,000 and transfers of $6,465,000. 

National Export Initiative.—The Committee does not provide any 

additional funds for the National Export Initiative, but it fully supports the Administration’s effort to expand overseas markets for 

U.S. agricultural exporters. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a newly improved process by which 

the Department’s professionals and experts, as well as private sector leaders such as those within the Agricultural Policy Advisory 

Committee and the six Agricultural Technical Advisory Committees, can provide more expeditious and coordinated support to FAS 

in their work with stakeholders. 

Foreign Aid and Long-term Sustainability in Developing Countries.—This bill includes funding for two international food programs: the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education, a program designed to help support education, child development, and 

food security for some of the world’s poorest children; and the Food 

for Peace, Public Law 480, Title II, which provides funding for donations of U.S. food agricultural commodities to meet emergency 

and nonemergency needs in other countries. The Committee directs 

FAS to submit a report within 60 days of enactment that provides 

options for shifting resources away from funds designated for emergency food aid and to programs that support FAS’ duties that help 

developing countries improve their agricultural systems and build 

their trade capacity. In constructing this report, USDA must work 

with U.S. AID to develop long-term efforts that help build marketdriven institutions and science-based regulatory frameworks that 

facilitate trade and create an environment conducive to agricultural growth. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
49 

FOOD FOR PEACE

TITLE I AND TITLE II 

PROGRAM AND GRANT ACCOUNTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The following table reflects the loan levels, subsidy levels, and 

administrative costs for all Public Law 480 programs: 

FY 2011 enacted FY 2012 estimate Committee 

provisions 

Public Law 480 Program Account: 

Title II—Commodities for disposition abroad: 

Program level ................................................................ ($1,499,806,000) ($1,692,812,000) ($1,042,583,000)

Appropriation ................................................................. 1,497,000,000 1,690,000,000 1,040,198,000 

Salaries and expenses: 

FSA ................................................................................ 2,806,000 2,812,000 2,385,000 

Total, P.L. 480–S&E ................................................. 2,806,000 2,812,000 2,385,000 

The Committee directs the Secretary, through the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, in consultation with the Administrator of 

the U.S. Agency for International Development, to submit quarterly reports to the Committee on the status of the Bill Emerson 

Humanitarian Trust, as well as immediately notify the Committee 

when the Trust has been drawn down. 

CCC EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $6,806,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 6,820,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 6,820,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... +14,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For administrative expenses of the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account, the Committee provides an 

appropriation of $6,820,000. 

MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $199,101,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 200,500,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 180,000,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥19,101,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥20,500,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 

Nutrition Program Grants, as authorized by Section 3107 of P.L. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
50 

107–171 (7 U.S.C. 1736o–1), the Committee provides an appropriation of $180,000,000. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(51) 

TITLE VI 

RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriation User fees Total, FDA, S&E 

2011 appropriation ................................................................... $2,447,021 $1,203,762 $3,650,783 

2012 budget estimate .............................................................. 2,730,910 1,490,697 4,221,607 

Provided in the bill ................................................................... 2,163,451 1,490,697 3,654,148 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation .......................................................... ¥283,570 +286,935 3,365 

2012 budget estimate ..................................................... ¥567,459 – – – ¥567,459 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

The Committee provides an appropriation of $2,163,451,000 in 

new budget authority. In addition, the Committee makes available 

$856,041,000 in prescription drug user fees; $67,118,000 in medical 

device user fees; $21,768,000 in animal drug user fees; $5,706,000 

in generic animal drug user fees; $14,700,000 in Reinspection user 

fees; $12,364,000 in Food and Feed Export Certification user fees; 

$36,000,000 in Voluntary Qualified Importer user fees; and 

$477,000,000 in tobacco product user fees, for total Salaries and 

Expenses of $3,654,148,000. 

Between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2011, net budget author- ity provided to FDA increased by $2,015,243,000, a 121 percent increase. Over this same time period, direct appropriations increased 

by $1,052,404,000 or 75 percent. Implementation of the Food Safety 

Modernization Act of 2010, P.L. 111–353, would require an additional $1.4 billion in new budget authority. If the President’s Budget request for 2012 were adopted, the result would be a 156 percent 

increase for FDA since 2004. This level of spending is unsustainable. While the recommended funding level for FDA in this bill is 

an 11.5 percent decrease below the amount provided in the fiscal 

year 2011 Continuing Resolution, the Subcommittee’s overall allocation was reduced by 13.4 percent. 

Spending Plans.—Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, 

the Commissioner shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 

both Houses of Congress, on the allocation of the funds provided 

herein by account, and within each account by program, project 

and activity. 

Food Safety Research.—The Committee urges FDA to 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. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
52 

Trade Facilitation & Interagency Cooperation.—The current fiscal environment requires that efforts to enhance safety must be directed towards the most serious compliance infractions. The Committee strongly encourages FDA to establish a pilot project to expedite imports for highly compliant importers. Such project could be 

modeled on the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) CustomsTrade Partnership Against Terrorism and Importer Self-Assessment programs. The goal would be new trade facilitation methods 

for low-risk, shippers and cargo that could be incorporated into the 

import inspection process, thereby enabling FDA to better target 

Federal resources. FDA is strongly encouraged to provide clear 

guidelines for those shippers who are low-risk and to collaborate 

with CBP and other relevant agencies on this work. FDA is directed to provide a report to the Committee on its efforts in this 

regard by December 1, 2011. 

Independent Post-Market Surveillance.—Concerns have been 

raised that those at FDA who approve drugs also have a large role 

in determining how they are regulated for safety in post-marketing 

surveillance. The Committee directs FDA to issue a report by 

March 31, 2012, that would outline the process necessary to create 

an independent office within the agency that is focused on postmarket evaluation with the controls and separation of duties necessary to make unbiased decisions on safety and advocacy. This 

process should also ensure that the post-market surveillance and 

pre-market functions can work collaboratively so that sciencebased, post-market assessments can formally feed back to officials 

involved with making pre-market drug approvals. 

Pediatric Devices.—The Committee supports FDA’s efforts in addressing the need for improved pediatric medical devices. Since the 

inception of Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device 

Availability, four consortia funded by the Office of Orphan Products 

Development have assisted in the development of more than 80 potential pediatric devices. While the Committee does not have additional resources to provide an increase, the Committee directs that 

FDA maintain level funding for this program. 

Influenza Vaccines.—The Committee is aware FDA has not yet 

exercised its authority under the Accelerated Approval of Biological 

Products regulation to approve licenses for adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines that have a proven safety record. While discussions about licensing such a vaccine have been ongoing at FDA, no 

pathway for approval has been established. The Committee believes FDA has the authority to approve these vaccines and encourages FDA to exercise that authority. The Committee is also aware 

that clinical studies are needed to further the development of new 

treatments for emerging public health requirements and for pandemic preparedness. The Committee urges FDA to work with interagency partners to ensure funding is available to conduct these 

needed clinical studies. 

Pediatric Cancer.—The Committee notes cancer remains the 

leading cause of disease-related death in children. The incidence of 

childhood cancer is increasing and more effective and less toxic 

treatments are needed. The Committee recognizes that only one 

drug has been approved for pediatric cancer in the last twenty 

years. The Committee encourages FDA to collaborate with industry 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
53 

and the pediatric cancer community to promote the development of 

new therapies. 

Sunscreen.—In August 2007, FDA published a proposed rule for 

over-the-counter sunscreens that would require UVB and UVA 

testing and labeling. Given the importance of this rule to protecting 

Americans against skin cancer, the Committee is concerned that 

FDA has not issued a final rule. The Committee instructs FDA to 

issue a final rule before December 31, 2011. 

Gluten-free Rulemaking.—Public Law 108–282 required a final 

rule to define and permit the use of the term ‘‘gluten-free’’ on food 

labels not later than August 2008. Given the importance of this 

rule to protecting consumers, the Committee is concerned that FDA 

has not issued a final rule. The Committee instructs FDA to issue 

a final rule before December 31, 2011. 

OTC Cold Medicines for Children.—The Committee is concerned 

that FDA has not issued a proposed rule revising the monograph 

regulating the labeling of over-the-counter cough and cold products 

for children. The Committee directs the agency to publish a proposed rule by December 31, 2011, based on scientific evidence for 

safety and efficacy in pediatric populations and consistent with the 

October 19, 2007, joint recommendations of its Pediatric Advisory 

Committee and Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee. 

Medical Devices Advisory Committee.—The Committee commends 

FDA for convening the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel 

of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee in March 2010 to review the medical device classification of tanning beds. The Committee encourages the agency to act in a timely fashion to finalize 

its review and make formal recommendations regarding this classification. 

Seafood Advisory.—The Committee is concerned about differing 

messages from Federal agencies to pregnant women regarding the 

nutritional value of seafood consumption during pregnancy. The 

Committee directs FDA to initiate formal reconsideration of the 

2004 advisory in consideration of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. FDA 

shall report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this 

Act on progress made and a timeline for final action on a new FDA 

advisory. 

Nutrition Labeling.—The Committee is concerned with the proposed rule that FDA issued on April 6, 2011, on nutrition labeling 

of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments. The proposed rule would include establishments that 

are not primarily in the business of selling food for immediate consumption or selling food that is prepared or processed on the premises. These establishments are not similar to restaurants and the 

Committee believes that FDA should define the term ‘‘restaurant’’ 

to mean only restaurants doing business marketed under the same 

name or retail establishments where the primary business is the 

selling of food for immediate consumption. The Committee urges 

FDA to use the proposed alternative definition in the rule that 

would encompass only establishments where the primary business 

is the selling of food for immediate consumption or selling food that 

is prepared and processed on the premises. 

FDA Spending.—The Committee is deeply troubled about the expenditure of scarce appropriated funds investigating alleged use of 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
54 

performance enhancing drugs. The Committee can discern no prudent interest for the FDA to investigate allegations that unapproved drugs may have been used outside the United States, where 

there is no allegation that they were sought to be imported into the 

U.S. and no risks to public health in the U.S. It exemplifies the 

problems identified by the GAO in 2010, which found that the FDA 

has failed to exercise appropriate oversight of the Office of Criminal Investigation or to ensure that its activities are consistent with 

the FDA’s mission and priorities. The Committee takes no position 

on the merits of any pending allegations, but holds concerns about 

the use of taxpayer funds for investigations falling outside the 

agency’s core missions. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $9,980,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 13,055,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 8,788,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥180,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥3,255,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For Buildings and Facilities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Committee provides $8,788,000. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

2011 appropriation ............................................................................. $202,270,000 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... 308,000,000 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. 171,930,000 

Comparison: 

2011 appropriation ...................................................................... ¥30,340,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. ¥136,070,000 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the 

Committee provides an appropriation of $171,930,000. 

Spending Plans.—Within 30 days from the enactment of this Act, 

the Commissioner shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 

both Houses of Congress, on the allocation of the funds provided 

herein by account, and within each account by program, project 

and activity. 

Implementation and Sequencing.—The Committee directs CFTC 

to develop and publish, with a 60-day comment period, a schedule 

of implementation and sequencing of all rules and regulations 

under subtitle A of Title VII of Public Law 111–203. 

IG Report on Cost-Benefit Analysis.—A report completed by 

CFTC Inspector General (IG) analyzed the limited cost-benefit 

analysis performed by CFTC during rulemaking under Title VII of 

the Dodd-Frank Act, P.L. 111–203, as required by Section 15(a) of 

the Commodity Exchange Act. The Committee wishes to highlight 

several of the IG’s findings. First, the role of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) during the cost-benefit analysis was ‘‘dominant 

. . . (and) had the greater ‘say’ ’’ during the entire process. To 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
55 

begin with, the formulation by the OGC of an analysis template 

that did not change from a 10-year precedent due to fear of supposed litigation risk, although CFTC has never been presented 

with such a challenge in court. The Committee finds this revealing 

at a time when the Commission, in both its budget proposal and 

testimony, highlights the need for expanded resources due to evergrowing responsibility. Moreover, the OGC disregarded the opinions of those on the various analysis teams and injected its own 

views as superior. The Commission’s expanded role under the 

Dodd-Frank Act will drastically effect the financial industry and 

U.S. economy as a whole. As such, the Commission should adapt 

its cost-benefit analysis practices to its new responsibilities. Second, the lack of participation, and in certain cases, exclusion of 

CFTC’s Office of the Chief Economist in the cost-benefit analysis 

process shows a lack of due diligence to wholly consider the economic impact of the rulemaking process. Finally, the report noted 

the haste with which the cost-benefit analysis took place due to the 

ill-conceived July rulemaking deadline set forth under the DoddFrank Act. Such expediency jeopardizes the diligence of the costbenefit analysis. The Committee encourages CFTC to reexamine its 

procedures for cost-benefit analysis and follow the recommendations of the IG in doing so. While the Committee acknowledges that 

the Commission is not subject to complying with Executive Orders, 

it nonetheless encourages the Commission to conduct cost-benefit 

analysis on its proposed rules and regulations in the spirit of Executive Order 13563—Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. 

Exemptions.—The Committee directs the Commission to exempt 

from margin requirements swaps entered into by commercial end 

users or entities whose primary business is a producer, processor, 

or merchant handling an agricultural commodity or exempt commodity, provided that such swaps are used to hedge or mitigate 

commercial risks related to such commodities. 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

2011 limitation .................................................................................... ($59,281,000) 

2012 budget estimate ......................................................................... (62,000,000) 

Provided in the bill ............................................................................. (62,000,000) 

Comparison: 

2011 limitation ............................................................................ +2,719,000 

2012 budget estimate .................................................................. – – – 

COMMITTEE PROVISIONS

For a limitation on the expenses of the Farm Credit Administration, the Committee provides $62,000,000. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(56) 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

INCLUDING RESCISSIONS AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

The General Provisions contained in the accompanying bill for 

fiscal year 2012 are fundamentally the same as those included in 

last year’s appropriations bill. 

The following general provisions are included in the bill: 

Section 701: Limitation on the purchase of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 702: Transfer authority regarding the Working Capital 

Fund. 

Section 703: Limitation on certain obligations. 

Section 704: Indirect cost rates for cooperative agreements with 

nonprofit institutions. 

Section 705: Disbursement of rural development loans. 

Section 706: Limitation on funds for an advisory committee. 

Section 707: Authority of the Chief Information Officer relating to 

new IT systems. 

Section 708: Availability of mandatory conservation program funding. 

Section 709: Rural Utility Service borrower eligibility. 

Section 710: Indirect costs related to research grants. 

Section 711: Availability of agency funds for information technology. 

Section 712: Funding availability for liquid infant formula. 

Section 713: Prohibition on first-class airline travel. 

Section 714: Use of funds authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Act. 

Section 715: Language regarding Rural Housing Service Loan 

Guarantees. 

Section 716: Language regarding the extension of a program. 

Section 717: Disbursement of loans made under the Rural Electrification Act. 

Section 718: Rescission/limitation of certain funds. 

Section 719: Funding for advisory committees. 

Section 720: Indirect costs for competitive agricultural research 

grants. 

Section 721: Regulations under the Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration. 

Section 722: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 723: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 724: Language regarding the Conservation Stewardship 

Program. 

Section 725: Language regarding the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
57 

Section 726: Language regarding the Farmland Protection Program. 

Section 727: Language regarding the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program. 

Section 728: Language regarding certain limitations. 

Section 729: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 730: Limitation on certain funds. 

Section 731: Conveyance authority of certain facilities. 

Section 732: Modification of National School Lunch Act. 

Section 733: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 734: Language on questions for the record. 

Section 735: Language on reprogramming. 

Section 736: Language on user fee proposals without offsets. 

Section 737: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 738: Language on prohibition on paid details in excess of 

30 days. 

Section 739: Language on horse slaughter. 

Section 740: Language on FDA regulations. 

Section 741: Language on cotton payments. 

Section 742: Language on Federal loans, grants and contracts to 

convicted felons. 

Section 743: Language on cotton payments. 

Section 744: Language on farm payments. 

Section 745: Language on Federal loans, grants and contracts to 

corporations with tax liabilities. 

Section 746: Spending Reduction Account. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
58 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 6(e) of the Rules of the Appropriations Committee requires each committee report on a public bill or joint resolution to 

contain a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress 

in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 

resolution. 

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation on clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, which states ‘‘No money shall be drawn 

from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by 

Law. . . .’’ 

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following lists the transfers of unexpended 

balances included in the accompanying bill. 

1. Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.— 

The bill allows funds to be transferred to recover the full cost of 

space and security expenses. 

2. Hazardous Materials Management.—The bill allows the funds 

appropriated to the Department for hazardous materials management to be transferred to agencies of the Department as required. 

3. Departmental Administration.—The bill requires reimbursement for expenses related to certain hearings. 

4. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.— The bill allows a portion of the funds appropriated to the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary to be transferred to agencies. 

5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—Authority is included to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer from other 

appropriations or funds of the Department such sums as may be 

necessary to combat emergency outbreaks of certain diseases of 

animals, plants, and poultry. 

6. Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply.—The 

bill limits the transfer of section 32 funds to purposes specified in 

the bill. 

7. Farm Service Agency Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides that funds provided to other accounts in the agency may be 

merged with the salaries and expenses account of the Farm Service 

Agency. 

8. Dairy Indemnity Program.—The bill authorizes the transfer of 

funds to the Commodity Credit Corporation, by reference. 

9. Commodity Credit Corporation.—The bill includes language allowing certain funds to be transferred to the Foreign Agricultural 

Service for information resource management activities. 

10. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—The bill provides 

that prior year balances from certain accounts shall be transferred 

to and merged with this account. 

11. Rural Community Facilities Program Account, Rural Business Program Account, and Rural Water and Waste Disposal ProVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jun 03, 2011 Jkt 066631 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
59 

gram Account.—The bill provides that balances from the Rural 

Community Advancement Program may be transferred to and 

merged with these accounts. 

12. Child Nutrition Programs.—The bill includes authority to 

transfer section 32 funds to these programs. 

13. Foreign Agricultural Service Salaries and Expenses.—The bill 

allows for the transfer of funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loan Program Account. 

14. Food for Peace Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress 

Program Account.—The bill allows funds to be transferred to the 

Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses account. The bill also 

provides that funds made available for the cost of title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably. 

15. Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program.—The 

bill provides for transfer of funds to the Foreign Agricultural Service and to the Farm Service Agency for overhead expenses associated with credit reform. 

16. Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses.—The 

bill allows funds to be transferred among activities. 

17. General Provisions.—The bill allows unobligated balances of 

discretionary funds to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. 

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill that directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations 

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and 

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing 

the application of existing law: 

1. Office of the Secretary.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses, 

as determined by the Secretary. 

2. Office of the Chief Financial Officer.—Language is included 

that no funds may be obligated for FAIR Act or A–76 activities 

until the Secretary provides a report to the Congress on contracting 

out policies. 

3. Departmental Administration.—Language is included to reimburse the agency for travel expenses incident to the holding of 

hearings. 

4. Agricultural Research Service.—Language is included that allows the Agricultural Research Service to grant easements at the 

Beltsville, MD, agricultural research center. 

5. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.—A provision carried in the bill since fiscal year 1973 regarding state matching 

funds has been continued to assure more effective operation of the 

brucellosis control program through state cost sharing, with resulting savings to the Federal budget. 

Language is included to allow APHIS to recoup expenses incurred from providing technical assistance goods, or services to 

non-APHIS personnel, and to allow transfers of funds for Agricultural emergencies. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
60 

Language is included to limit the amount of funds for representational allowances. 

6. Agricultural Marketing Service, Limitation on Administrative 

Expenses.—The bill includes language to allow AMS to exceed the 

limitation on administrative expenses by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows flexibility in 

case crop size is understated and/or other uncontrollable events 

occur. 

7. Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, Inspection and Weighing Services.—The bill includes authority to exceed the limitation on inspection and weighing services by 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations Committees. This allows for flexibility if export activities require additional supervision 

and oversight, or other uncontrollable factors occur. 

8. Dairy Indemnity Program.—Language is included by reference 

that allows the Secretary to utilize the services of the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity payments. 

9. Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account.—Language is included that deems the pink bollworm a boll weevil for 

the purposes of administering the boll weevil loan program. 

10. Risk Management Agency.—Language is included to limit the 

amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

11. Commodity Credit Corporation Fund.—Language is included 

to provide for the reimbursement appropriation. Language is also 

included to allow certain funds transferred from the Commodity 

Credit Corporation to be used for information resource management. In addition, language is included which limits the amount of 

funds that can be spent on operation and maintenance costs of 

CCC hazardous waste sites. 

12. Natural Resources Conservation Service—Conservation Operations.—Language which has been included in the bill since 1938 

prohibits construction of buildings on land not owned by the government, although construction on land owned by states and counties is authorized by basic law. 

13. Rural Development Salaries and Expenses.—Language is included to allow funds to be used for advertising and promotional 

activities and to limit the amount of funds to provide modest nonmonetary awards to non-USDA employees. 

14. Rental Assistance Program.—Language is included which provides that agreements entered into during the current fiscal year 

be funded for a one-year period. 

15. Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children (WIC).—Language is included to purchase infant formula except in accordance with law and pay for activities that are 

not fully reimbursed by other departments or agencies unless authorized by law. 

16. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.—Language is 

included on funds availability for Employment and Training and to 

enter into contracts and employ staff to conduct studies, evaluations, or to conduct activities related to program integrity. 

17. Foreign Agricultural Service.—Language carried since 1979 

enables this agency to use funds received by an advance or by reimbursement to carry out its activities involving international deVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:34 Jun 03, 2011 Jkt 066631 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
61 

velopment and technical cooperation. Language is included to limit 

the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

18. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.—Language is included to limit the amount of funds for official reception and representation expenses. 

19. General Provisions.— 

Section 704: This provision provides that none of the funds in 

this Act may be made available to pay indirect costs charged 

against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension 

grants awarded by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

in excess of 10 percent of total direct costs. 

Section 705: This provision allows funds made available in the 

current fiscal year for the Rural Development Loan Fund program 

account; the Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 

program account; and the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program 

account to remain available until expended to disburse obligations. 

Section 706: Provides that none of the funds may be used to 

carry out certain provisions of the meat and poultry inspection act. 

Section 707: Language is included that requires approval of the 

Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board for acquisition of 

new information technology systems or significant upgrades, and 

that prohibits the transfer of funds to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the notification of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. 

Section 708: Language is included regarding the availability of 

funds for certain conservation programs. 

Section 709: Language is included regarding certain Rural Utilities Service Programs. 

Section 710: Language is included regarding indirect costs to 

grants made under section 412 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. 

Section 711: Language is included that allows unobligated balances of the Farm Service Agency and Rural Development mission 

areas to be used for information technology purposes. 

Section 712: Language is included regarding reconstituted liquid 

concentrate infant formula issuance to WIC participants. 

Section 713: Language is included regarding the prohibition of 

first-class travel by the employees of agencies funded in this Act. 

Section 714: Language is included regarding the use of authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation. 

Section 715: Language is included regarding the Rural Housing 

Insurance Fund Program account that authorities under Section 

502 of the program may be used for Section 538 of the program. 

Section 716: Language is included regarding the Agricultural 

Management Assistance Program. 

Section 717: Language is included regarding the disbursement of 

valid obligations for certain Rural Electrification Loans. 

Section 718: Language is included that limits and rescinds section 32 balances. 

Section 719: Language is included that limits the amount of 

spending for USDA Advisory Committees. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
62 

Section 720: Language is included modifying matching requirements for certain research grants. 

Section 721: Language is included regarding regulations under 

the Packers and Stockyards Act. 

Section 722: Language is included regarding the rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 723: Language is included regarding the rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 724: Language is included regarding the Conservation 

Stewardship Program. 

Section 725: Language regarding the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 

Section 726: Language regarding the Farmland Protection Program. 

Section 727: Language regarding the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 

Program. 

Section 728: Language regarding certain limitations. 

Section 729: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 730: Limitation on certain funds. 

Section 731: Conveyance authority of certain facilities. 

Section 732: Modification of National School Lunch Act. 

Section 733: Rescission of certain unobligated balances. 

Section 734: This provision prohibits the Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration from transmitting or 

making available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-Department of Health and Human Services employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for 

the appropriations hearing process. 

Section 735: Language is included that requires certain reprogramming procedures of funds provided in Appropriations Acts. 

Section 736: Language is included that prohibits funds from 

being used to prepare a budget submission to Congress that assumes reductions from the previous years budget due to user fee 

proposals unless the submission also identifies spending reductions 

which should occur if the user fees are not enacted. 

Section 737: Language regarding prepackaged news stories. 

Section 738: This provision prohibits any employee of the Department of Agriculture from being detailed or assigned to any other 

agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days unless 

the individual’s employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by 

the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. 

Section 739: Language on horse slaughter. 

Section 740: Language on FDA regulations. 

Section 741: Language on cotton payments. 

Section 742: Language on Federal loans, grants and contracts to 

convicted felons. 

Section 743: Language on cotton payments. 

Section 744: Language on farm payments. 

Section 745: Language on Federal loans, grants and contracts to 

corporations with tax liabilities. 

Section 746: Spending Reduction Account. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
63 

DISCLOSURE OF EARMARKS AND CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED

SPENDING ITEMS

Neither the bill nor the report contains any Congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9 of rule XXI. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining 

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 14222 OF THE FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND 

ENERGY ACT OF 2008 

SEC. 14222. DOMESTIC FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TRANSFER TO FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE.—(1) In general.—Amounts made available for a fiscal year to carry out section 

32 in excess of the maximum amount calculated under paragraph 

(2) shall be transferred to the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, to be used to carry out 

the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 

et seq.) except section 21, and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), except sections 17 and 21. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 9 OF THE RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL 

SCHOOL LUNCH ACT 

NUTRITIONAL AND OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 9. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(l) FOOD DONATION PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each school and local educational agency 

participating in the school lunch program under this Act may 

donate any food not consumed under such program to eligible 

local food banks or charitable organizations. 

(2) GUIDANCE.— 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
64 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall develop and publish guidance to schools and local educational agencies participating in the school lunch program 

under this Act to assist such schools and local educational 

agencies in donating food under this subsection. 

(B) UPDATES.—The Secretary shall update such guidance 

as necessary. 

(3) LIABILITY.—Any school or local educational agency making donations pursuant to this subsection shall be exempt from 

civil and criminal liability to the extent provided under the Bill 

Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (42 U.S.C. 1791). 

(4) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘eligible local 

food banks or charitable organizations’’ means any food bank 

or charitable organization which is exempt from tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 

501(c)(3)). 

FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XII—CONSERVATION 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 2—CONSERVATION SECURITY AND 

FARMLAND PROTECTION 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter B—Conservation Stewardship Program 

SEC. 1238E. CONSERVATION STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE.—During each of fiscal years 

2009 through ø2012¿ 2014, the Secretary shall carry out a conservation stewardship program to encourage producers to address 

resource concerns in a comprehensive manner— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES 

PROGRAM 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1240B. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—During each of the 2002 through ø2012¿ 

2014 fiscal years, the Secretary shall provide payments to producers that enter into contracts with the Secretary under the program. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
65 

Subtitle E—Funding and Administration 

SEC. 1241. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For each of fiscal years 2002 through ø2012,¿ 

2012 (and fiscal year 2014 in the case of the programs specified in 

paragraphs (3)(B), (4), (6), and (7)), the Secretary shall use the 

funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the following programs under subtitle D (including 

the provision of technical assistance): 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) The farmland protection program under subchapter C of 

chapter 2, using, to the maximum extent practicable— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(E) $200,000,000 in øfiscal year 2012¿ each of fiscal 

years 2012 through 2014. 

* * * * * * * 

(6) The environmental quality incentives program under 

chapter 4, using, to the maximum extent practicable— 

(A) * * * 

(E) $1,750,000,000 in øfiscal year 2012¿ each of fiscal 

years 2012 through 2014. 

(7) The wildlife habitat incentives program under section 

1240N, using, to the maximum extent practicable— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) $85,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2005 through 

ø2012¿ 2014. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 524 OF THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT 

SEC. 524. EDUCATION AND RISK MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE. 

(a) * * * 

(b) AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out this subsection through the Commodity Credit Corporation. 

(B) FUNDING.— 

(i) * * * 

(ii) EXCEPTION FOR øFISCAL YEARS 2008 THROUGH

2012¿ CERTAIN FISCAL YEARS.—For each of fiscal years 

2008 through ø2012¿ 2014, the Commodity Credit 

Corporation shall make available to carry out this subsection $15,000,000. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
66 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law for 

the period concerned: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/program Last year of 

authorization 

Authorization 

level 

Appropriations 

in last year of 

authorization 

Appropriations 

in this bill 

Office of the Secretary: 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative ......................................... N/A N/A N/A ....................

Rural Housing Service: 

Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program ....................... 9/30/2010 43,191 43,191 ....................

Rural Utilities Service: 

Broadband Telecommunications Grants ............................... 9/30/2010 17,976 17,976 ....................


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
67 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1 HR101.001
68 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 2 HR101.002
69 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 3 HR101.003
70 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 4 HR101.004
71 

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following lists the rescissions of unexpended 

balances included in the accompanying bill: 

The bill proposes rescissions of $155,000,000 of funds derived 

from interest on the cushion of credit payments under the Rural 

Economic Development Loans Program Account; $150,000,000 from 

Section 32 funds; $11,000,000 from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program employment and training funds; $5,500,000 from the 

Forestry Incentives Program; $500,000 from the Great Plains Conservation Program; $90,000,000 from Trade Adjustment Assistance 

for farmers; and $63,000,000 from unobligated balances at the Department of Agriculture. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives and section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, the following table compares the levels of new 

budget authority provided in the bill with the appropriate allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act: 

302(b) Allocation This Bill 

Budget 

authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays 

Comparision of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 2012: .................... .................... .................... ....................

Discretionary ......................................................................... $17,250 $20,950 $17,250 1 $21,452 

Mandatory ............................................................................. 116,916 104,805 116,916 1 104,805 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the following table contains five-year projections prepared 

by the Congressional Budget Office of outlays associated with the 

budget authority provided in the accompanying bill: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Projection of outlay associated with the recommendation: 

2012 ................................................................................................. 1 $114,692 

2013 ................................................................................................. 3,839 

2014 ................................................................................................. 1,489 

2015 ................................................................................................. 209 

2016 and future years .................................................................... ¥73 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Pursuant to section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the amounts of financial assistance to State and local governments is as follows: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget Authority ................................................................................... $34,896 

Outlays ................................................................................................... 1 33,480 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
72 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 5 HR101.005
73 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 6 HR101.006
74 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 7 HR101.007
75 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 8 HR101.008
76 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 HR101.009
77 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 HR101.010
78 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 11 HR101.011
79 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 12 HR101.012
80 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 HR101.013
81 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 HR101.014
82 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 HR101.015
83 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 HR101.016
84 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 HR101.017
85 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 HR101.018
86 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 HR101.019
87 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 HR101.020
88 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 HR101.021
89 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 HR101.022
90 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 HR101.023
91 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 HR101.024
92 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 HR101.025
93 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 HR101.026
94 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 HR101.027
95 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 HR101.028
96 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 HR101.029
97 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 HR101.030
98 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 HR101.031
99 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 HR101.032
100 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 HR101.033
101 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 HR101.034
(102) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

The allocation for this bill, $17.250 billion, is $5 billion (23%) 

below the 2012 President’s request; $2.9 billion (14%) below the 

2011 enacted level; and $6.1 billion (26%) below the 2010 enacted 

level. It is even below the 2008 enacted level. 

Among all the subcommittee allocations, this is the worst or second worst, in percentage terms, relative to the 2012 request and to 

the 2008, 2010, and 2011 enacted levels. 

This allocation has resulted in a predictably bad bill that slashes 

programs vital to the Nation. 

We also have serious concerns about language in the bill and report. 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 

Children (WIC) 

At the funding level for WIC in the subcommittee bill, USDA and 

the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities agreed that hundreds 

of thousands of eligible applicants would have been denied participation in the program in 2012. 

We are very pleased that the Committee agreed to add $147 million to WIC, bringing the funding level to $6,048,250,000. 

However, even with this significant increase, the bill is still well 

below the level needed to serve all eligible applicants and thousands of persons will still be unserved. 

The majority attempted to address concerns about the funding 

shortfall by saying in the report: 

While funding for this program represents a relatively significant reduction, the Secretary can utilize funding mechanisms 

at his discretion, including the use of fiscal year 2011 carryover 

funds, the contingency fund for this account in the amount of 

$125 million, as well as other funding options currently authorized in law. 

Estimates as to persons turned away under the funding level in 

the bill already assume use of all the 2011 carryover funds and depletion of the entire $125 million reserve fund. 

The mention above of ‘‘other funding options currently authorized 

in law’’ refers to the ability of the Secretary of Agriculture to increase an appropriation by up to 7% by taking funds from other accounts. In this case, the Secretary could transfer up to $423 million 

from SNAP (food stamps) or the National School Lunch Program 

to WIC. 

Relying on the use of such authority to backfill partially the 

funding gap in this bill is not honest budgeting. Full funding to 

support all eligible applicants must be provided in this bill. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
103 

WIC administrative costs 

There was an extended debate in Committee about the majority’s 

assertion in the report that the administrative costs of WIC are 

‘‘well above 40 percent.’’ 

This statement was based on a 2008 report by the Brookings Institution that says nutrition services and administration or ‘‘NSA’’ 

‘‘includes a broad range of activities, such as referrals to health and 

social services, breast feeding promotion, and nutrition education, 

as well as eligibility determinations based on income and nutrition 

risk assessments.’’ 

Committee Democrats made the same point during the debate. 

These activities go far beyond any traditional definition of administrative activities or program management. The table below, using 

data from USDA, shows that program management constitutes 

only 9% of total program costs. 

FY 2010 WIC COSTS BY CATEGORY 

Amount Percent of 

total 

Total Food Costs .................................................................................................................... 4,561,570,027 70.44 

Nutrition Services and Administration (‘‘NSA’’): 

Breastfeeding Support .................................................................................................. 149,133,594 2.30 

Nutrition Education ....................................................................................................... 418,437,331 6.46 

Other Client Services .................................................................................................... 758,015,711 11.70 

Program Management .................................................................................................. 588,984,767 9.09 

Subtotal NSA ........................................................................................................ 1,914,571,403 29.56 

Total WIC .................................................................................................... 6,476,141,430 100.00 

1 $1.00 in benefits + $0.414 in administrative costs = $1.414. The percentage of costs of administration is $0.414 divided by $1.414, 

which is 29 percent. 

Nor is 2010 an anomaly. A 2009 Congressional Research Service 

report said that NSA costs were typically about 30% of total WIC 

costs and that ‘‘traditional administrative activities like eligibility 

determinations and issuing and redeeming vouchers’’ were onethird of NSA costs, or 10% of total WIC costs. 

Other domestic food programs 

The bill also makes deep cuts in other important domestic food 

programs: 

• Funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 

which serves predominantly low-income seniors, is $138.5 million. 

This is $38 million (22%) below the 2012 request and $37 million 

(21%) below 2011. 

• Funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program 

(TEFAP), which works with states to assist food banks, is $38 million. This is $12 million (24%) below the 2012 request, and about 

$11 million (23%) below 2011. The bill also cuts $51 million (20%) 

from the funding that TEFAP receives annually from the SNAP 

program. • The bill reduces the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program 

to $15 million, which is $5 million (25%) below the $20 million 

level that has been provided for many years. The program gives 

vouchers to WIC participants for the purchase of fresh fruits and 

vegetables at state-approved farmers’ markets. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
104 

International food aid 

The bill provides $1.040 billion for the Food for Peace program, a reduction of $650 million (38%) from the 2012 request and $457 

million (31%) from the 2011 level. 

For emergency needs, this reduction is even worse than it appears. The 2008 farm bill established a minimum level of nonemergency funding that must be provided annually; in 2012, it is 

$450 million. After that funding is provided, there would be only 

$590 million left for emergency food assistance, compared to the 

2012 request for emergency assistance of $1.240 billion. 

In addition, the bill cuts the highly successfully McGovern-Dole 

International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program. It 

is funded at $180 million, which is 10% below 2011 and the 2012 

request and 14% below 2010. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

The bill funds FDA salaries and expenses at $2.163 billion, which is $567 million (21%) below the 2012 request and $284 million 

(12%) below 2011. 

The 2012 request sought increases for important activities, such 

as implementing the landmark Food Safety Modernization Act, enacted just months ago; continuing work on biosimilars; increasing 

the number of inspections of foreign medical facilities; and continuing work on medical countermeasures. Work in these areas will 

be stopped or slowed at the level in the Committee bill. 

After years of under-investment, there was recent widespread 

recognition by Congress and both industry and consumer groups 

that FDA did not have enough resources to keep up with the new 

responsibilities given it by Congress and the explosion of imports 

of food and medical products into the U.S. Congress began to give 

the agency the resources to meet this need. The deep cut in the 

Committee bill sets back this bicameral work of the past several 

years. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) 

The bill provides $171.93 million for CFTC, a reduction of $136 

million (44%) below the request (which proposed an increase for the 

implementation of the landmark Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation) and $30 million (15%) below 2011. At a time of volatile commodity prices, including oil and energy, and only three years after 

the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, inadequate 

funding of CFTC is an unacceptable risk to the markets on which 

our economy depends. 

New FDA bill language 

We are deeply disturbed that the Committee voted to include bill 

language that rewrites the statutory and regulatory standards protecting our food and medical products and regulating tobacco products. This is an extraordinarily vaguely drafted measure, requiring, 

for example, the use of undefined ‘‘hard’’ science. It prohibits consideration of consumer behavior in regulating products, despite the 

fact that such evidence can be critical in conducting the risk assessments that the provision demands. Further, it requires that 

there always be toxicological and epidemiological evidence clearly 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
105 

justifying an action to restrict use of a compound. This would mean 

that no action could be taken to stop dangerous foods or medical 

or tobacco products without conducting time-consuming, expensive, 

and often ethically inappropriate toxicological and epidemiological 

tests. 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) 

Livestock Competition Rule 

Section 721 of the bill prohibits GIPSA from essentially doing 

anything to develop a final rule on competition in the livestock and 

poultry industries. We strongly oppose this prohibition. For struggling small producers, fairness and a level playing field are essential to their ability to succeed. Prohibiting GIPSA from ensuring 

that they have these protections will negatively affect these vulnerable livestock producers. Both the National Farmers Union and the 

American Farm Bureau Federation have expressed serious concern 

about this provision. 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 

We commend USDA’s decision to propose scientifically sound nutrition standards for school lunch and breakfast programs. The 

USDA proposal closely tracks the scientifically-based recommendations for school meals made by the Institute of Medicine. As USDA 

has received over 130,000 comments from interested stakeholders, 

it would be time-consuming and costly to start the process over 

with a new proposed rule, as directed by the Committee report. 

Rather, USDA should review and consider the comments submitted 

and issue a final rule as planned. We would note that the Secretary 

has a number of options to meet the concerns expressed in the comments the Department received in response to its proposal. 

Farm bill programs 

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. 

Conclusion 

There are a host of other concerns about the Committee bill that 

we will discuss with our colleagues in the coming days and weeks. 

While we will do our best to address the many shortcomings of 

this bill as the process moves forward, we oppose this bill in its 

current form and urge our colleagues to do so as well. 

SAM FARR. 

NORMAN D. DICKS. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING