The Agriculture appropriations bill—formally known as the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act—provides funding for the following agencies and departments: all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (except the Forest Service, which is funded by the Interior appropriations bill), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health and Human Services, and in the House, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In the Senate, CFTC appropriations are handled by the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee. Jurisdiction for the appropriations bill rests with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, particularly each committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. These subcommittees are separate from the agriculture authorizing committees—the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) carries out widely varied responsibilities through about 30 separate internal agencies and offices staffed by about 100,000 employees. USDA spending is not synonymous with farm program spending. USDA also is responsible for many activities outside of the Agriculture budget function, such as conservation and nutrition. USDA's budget authority for FY2010 was $126.6 billion, before supplemental appropriations. Food and nutrition programs are the largest mission area, with $83 billion, or 65% of the total, to support the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and child nutrition programs ( Figure 1 ). The second-largest USDA mission area, with $23 billion (19%) in budget authority, is farm and foreign agricultural services. This broad mission area includes the farm commodity price and income support programs of the Commodity Credit Corporation, crop insurance, certain mandatory conservation and trade programs, farm loans, and foreign food aid programs. Other USDA mission areas include natural resource and environmental programs (8% of the total), rural development (3%), research and education programs (2%), marketing and regulatory programs (2%), and food safety (1%). About 60% of the budget for natural resources programs (the third-largest slice in Figure 1 ) goes to the Forest Service (about $6 billion), which is funded through the Interior appropriations bill. The Forest Service is the only USDA agency not funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill; it also accounts for about one-third of USDA's personnel, with over 36,000 staff years in FY2010. Comparing USDA's organization and budget data to the Agriculture appropriations bill in Congress is not always easy. USDA defines its programs using "mission areas" that do not always correspond to categories in the Agriculture appropriations bill ( Figure 2 ). Spending may not correspond between USDA summaries and the appropriations bill for other reasons. For example: Foreign agricultural assistance is a separate title in the appropriations bill (Title V in Figure 2 ). Foreign assistance is joined with domestic farm support in USDA's "farm and foreign agriculture" mission area (second-largest slice in Figure 1 ). Conversely, USDA has separate mission areas for agricultural research, marketing and regulatory programs, and food safety (three of the smaller slices in Figure 1 ). These are joined with other domestic farm support programs in Title I of the appropriations bill (the second-largest slice in Figure 2 ). The type of funding (mandatory vs. discretionary) also is important in how it is summarized. Conservation in the appropriations bill (Title II in Figure 2 ) includes only discretionary programs. The mandatory funding for conservation programs is included in Title I of the appropriations bill. Conversely, USDA's natural resources mission area in Figure 1 includes both discretionary and mandatory conservation programs (and the Forest Service). In addition to the USDA agencies mentioned above, the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees have jurisdiction over appropriations for two related agencies: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC, an independent financial markets regulatory agency) —in the House only. The combined share of FDA and CFTC funding in the overall Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations bill is about 2% (see Title VI in Figure 2 ). Jurisdiction over CFTC appropriations is assigned differently in the House and Senate. In the House, appropriations jurisdiction for CFTC remains with the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. In the Senate, jurisdiction moved to the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee with the FY2008 appropriations cycle. Prior to 2008, it was with the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. Final placement in recent appropriations acts has alternated annually between the subcommittees. The FY2010 and FY2008 appropriations put CFTC funding in the Agriculture bill; the consolidated FY2009 appropriation put CFTC in the Financial Services bill. These agencies are included in the Agriculture appropriations bill because of their historical connection to agricultural markets. However, the number and scope of non-agricultural issues has grown at these agencies in recent decades. Some may argue that these agencies no longer belong in the Agriculture appropriations bill. But despite the growing importance of non-agricultural issues, agriculture and food issues are still an important component of FDA's and CFTC's work. At FDA, medical and drug issues have grown in relative importance, but food safety responsibilities that are shared between USDA and FDA have been in the media during recent years and are the subject of legislation and hearings. At CFTC, the market for financial futures contracts has grown significantly compared with agricultural futures contracts, but volatility in agricultural commodity markets has been a subject of recent scrutiny at CFTC and in Congress. Discretionary and mandatory spending are treated differently in the budget process. Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and consumes most of the attention during the appropriations process. The subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees originate bills each year that provide funding and direct activities among discretionary programs. Eligibility for participation in mandatory programs (sometimes referred to as entitlement programs) is usually written into authorizing laws, and any individual or entity that meets the eligibility requirements is entitled to the benefits authorized by the law. Congress generally controls spending on mandatory programs through authorizing committees that set rules for eligibility, benefit formulas, and other parameters, not through appropriations. Just under 20% of the Agriculture appropriations bill is for discretionary programs, and the remaining balance of about 80% is classified as mandatory. Major discretionary programs include certain conservation programs, most rural development programs, research and education programs, agricultural credit programs, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Public Law (P.L.) 480 international food aid program, meat and poultry inspection, and food marketing and regulatory programs. The discretionary accounts also include FDA and CFTC appropriations. The vast majority of USDA's mandatory spending is for food and nutrition programs—primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) and child nutrition (school lunch)—along with the farm commodity price and income support programs, the federal crop insurance program, and various agricultural conservation and trade programs (nearly all of Figure 1 's largest two pie pieces). Some mandatory spending, such as the farm commodity program, is highly variable and driven by program participation rates, economic and price conditions, and weather patterns. Formulas are set in the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 ). But in general, mandatory spending has tended to rise over time, particularly as food stamp participation and benefits have risen in recent years because of the recession, rise in unemployment, and food price inflation. See " Historical Trends " in a later section on funding. Although these programs have mandatory status, many of these accounts receive funding in the annual Agriculture appropriations act. For example, the food stamp and child nutrition programs are funded by an annual appropriation based on projected spending needs. Supplemental appropriations generally are made if these estimates fall short of required spending. The Commodity Credit Corporation operates on a line of credit with the Treasury, but receives an annual appropriation to reimburse the Treasury and to maintain its line of credit. In addition to the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, four other terms are important to understanding differences in discussions about the federal spending: budget authority, obligations, outlays, and program levels. 1. Budget authority = How much money Congress allows a federal agency to commit to spend. It represents a limit on funding and is generally what Congress focuses on in making most budgetary decisions. It is the legal basis to incur obligations. Most of the amounts mentioned in this report are budget authority. 2. Obligations = How much money agencies commit to spend. Activities such as employing personnel, entering into contracts, and submitting purchase orders. 3. Outlays = How much money actually flows out of an agency's account. Outlays may differ from appropriations (budget authority) because, for example, payments on a contract may not flow out until a later year. For construction or delivery of services, budget authority may be committed (contracted) in one fiscal year and outlays may be spread across several fiscal years. 4. Program level = Sum of the activities supported or undertaken by an agency. A program level may be much higher than its budget authority for several reasons. User fees support some activities (e.g., food or border inspection). The agency makes loans; for example, a large loan authority (program level) is possible with a small budget authority (loan subsidy) because the loan is expected be repaid. The appropriated loan subsidy makes allowances for defaults and interest rate assistance. Transfers from other agencies, or funds are carried forward from prior years. For the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill, no separate floor action and limited formal committee action occurred in the 111 th Congress. The full Senate Appropriations Committee reported an Agriculture appropriations bill ( S. 3606 , S.Rept. 111-221 ) on July 15, 2010. The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its draft on June 30, 2010, but the bill did not see full committee action nor was it reported. In the 112 th Congress, a full-year continuing resolution ( P.L. 112-10 ) was enacted with many line-item changes on April 15, 2011. Table 1 summarizes the steps in the passage of the bill in each chamber. The FY2011 Agriculture appropriation is somewhat similar to the FY2009 bill in that neither chamber acted on the Agriculture bill as a stand-alone measure ( Table A-1 in the appendix). Conversely, Agriculture appropriations were enacted as stand-alone bills in FY2010 and FY2006. Omnibus appropriations were used as recently as FY2008 and FY2009. FY2007 saw a year-long continuing resolution. Table A-1 has links to each appropriation and annual CRS report. On April 11, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1473 , a Defense appropriation and full-year continuing resolution for the other 11 appropriations bills (vote of 260-167, Table 1 ). On February 19, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1 , a full-year continuing resolution for FY2011 covering all 12 regular appropriations bills (vote of 235-189). The bill was introduced on February 11, going directly to the floor without formal committee or subcommittee markup. In the 111 th Congress, the House did not move the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill beyond subcommittee. The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill on June 30, 2010, but the markup did not see full committee action, nor was it reported. Thus no full-text version of the bill or report language was made public. The subcommittee, however, did release an eight-page summary by the committee chairwoman and a funding table of discretionary appropriations at the agency level. On April 14, 2011, the Senate passed H.R. 1473 (vote of 81-19). The President signed the bill on April 15, 2011 ( P.L. 112-10 ). On March 9, 2011, the Senate voted on H.R. 1 , but failed to pass it by a vote of 44-56. Later on March 9, 2011, the Senate also voted on a substitute amendment to H.R. 1 , S.Amdt. 149 . It failed by a vote of 42-58. Both bills were debated on the Senate floor without formal committee or subcommittee action. In the 111 th Congress, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill ( S. 3606 , S.Rept. 111-221 ) on July 15, 2010. The full committee bypassed subcommittee action by "polling" the bill out of subcommittee—a procedure that permits a bill to advance if subcommittee members independently agree to move it along. This expedited committee procedure was formerly uncommon for the Agriculture appropriations bill, but was used for the FY2009 and FY2010 Agriculture appropriations bills as well. Seven short-term continuing resolutions were enacted after October 1, 2010, to continue funding the government before the final agreement was reached: P.L. 111-242 (October 1 through December 3, 2010), P.L. 111-290 (through December 18, 2010), P.L. 111-317 (through December 21, 2010), P.L. 111-322 (through March 4, 2011), P.L. 112-4 (through March 18, 2011), P.L. 112-6 (through April 8, 2011), and P.L. 112-8 (through April 15, 2011). The continuing resolutions covered all 12 appropriations bills and were necessary because, in the 111 th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee reported only two FY2011 bills, both of which the House passed, and the Senate Appropriations Committee reported 11 of its 12 bills, but with none getting to the floor. The two bills that saw House action were Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. The only bill not reported by the full committee in the Senate was Interior and Environment. The premise behind most continuing resolutions is that prior-year funding and instructions continue into the current year, unless changed. Mandatory programs, including those in the agricultural appropriations bill are allowed to operate at required levels. The first four CRs (through March 4, 2011) continued discretionary agricultural appropriations at FY2010 levels. The fifth and sixth CRs, though, began trimming discretionary appropriations levels. Across all 12 appropriations bills, these two CRs cut $10 billion from selected accounts, on an annualized basis, from FY2010 appropriated levels at a rate of $2 billion per week. For Agriculture accounts, these two CRs reduced FY2010 appropriated levels by $532 million ( Table 4 ), mostly though not exclusively targeted to accounts that had earmarks in FY2010 (see later discussion in " Reductions in Short-Term Continuing Resolutions "). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) allocates funding to departments and agencies under the continuing resolution, but sometimes in a limited way that makes operations more restricted than might otherwise occur when continuing last year's funding levels. For FY2011, the Administration requested a total of $132.3 billion for accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill (including CFTC), 9% higher than the enacted FY2010 appropriation, but mostly because of mandatory spending. For mandatory amounts, the Administration requested $109.1 billion, 11% more than FY2010. The increase in mandatory spending was for domestic nutrition assistance in the food stamp and child nutrition accounts. For the discretionary amount, the Administration requested $23.2 billion, which is $187 million less than (-0.8%) the official FY2010 amount. However, the FY2010 appropriation included two large items that are not in the FY2011 budget: $350 million of supplemental dairy assistance, and $173 million for a rural housing program that was replaced by user fees in a FY2010 supplemental appropriation. If these two items totaling $523 million are excluded from FY2010 for comparison, the Administration's discretionary request was $336 million more than the FY2010 adjusted total (+1.5%). P.L. 112-10 provided $19.9 billion in discretionary appropriations for accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill, resulting in a $3.4 billion reduction from FY2010 levels (-15%) ( Table 2 ). Discretionary agriculture-related programs fell to $6.89 billion, 6% below FY2010; discretionary conservation programs fell to $889 million, 12% below FY2010; rural development fell to $2.64 billion, 11% below FY2010; discretionary nutrition assistance fell to $7.13 billion, 7% below FY2010; and foreign assistance fell to $1.89 billion, 9% below FY2010. CFTC increased to $202 million, 20% above FY2010 ( Table 3 ). Table 2 summarizes the totals of the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill by title or broad program. Table 3 provides more detail within each title by including accounts and agencies. Table 3 also shows the Administration's request and the Senate-reported bill in the 111 th Congress. Supplemental appropriations are not included in the fiscal year totals because the primary purpose of this report is to compare the regular annual appropriation across years. Before final agreement was reached on the full-year appropriation, seven short-term continuing resolutions (CRs) were enacted. Two of these, P.L. 112-4 and P.L. 112-6, began trimming discretionary appropriations levels in order secure votes for passage. Accounts in the Agriculture appropriations bill were reduced below FY2010 appropriated levels by $532 million, although not all of these cuts were maintained in the final full-year CR. The subset of 12 accounts cut in the short-term CRs were reduced by a smaller $481 million in the full-year CR. ( Table 4 ). Most of the reductions in the short-term CR were targeted to accounts that had earmarks in FY2010 and are noted in the Table 4 with an asterisk (*). Regardless of these reductions, however, all FY2010 earmarks are not continued and "have no legal effect," as discussed in the section on earmarks. Other accounts were reduced because of policy issues. For example, funding for rural broadband was targeted in H.R. 1, eliminated in the short-term CR, but ultimately reduced by a smaller amount in the full-year CR. Budget authority for rural housing guaranteed loans also was eliminated, though not to cancel the program, but because the program is now self-funding after higher fees are being charged to banks (Sec. 102 in P.L. 111-212 ). After years of growth, Agriculture appropriations peaked in absolute terms in FY2010. This section offers perspective on type of funding (mandatory or discretionary), purpose (nutrition vs. other), relationship to inflation, and other variables over the period FY1995 through FY2011. Figure 3 shows total discretionary appropriations levels in the Agriculture appropriations bill. The total amount is divided between discretionary domestic nutrition assistance programs and the rest of the bill. Over the past 10 years (FY2001 through FY2011), the total of the Agriculture appropriations bill has increased at a 5.3% average annualized rate ( Table 5 ). Figure 4 shows the Agriculture appropriations bill total divided between mandatory and discretionary spending. Mandatory appropriations have increased at 5.8% average annualized rate, and discretionary appropriations have increased at a 3.0% average annualized rate. Figure 5 shows the same bill total as in Figure 4 , but divided between domestic nutrition and other program spending. The share going to domestic nutrition generally is increasing, rising from 46% in FY2000 to 72% in FY2011 ( Table 6 ). Since FY2001, total nutrition spending has increased at an average 10% annual rate, compared to a -1.3% average annual change for the "rest of the bill" (the rest of USDA but excluding the Forest Service, plus FDA and CFTC). Although sensitive to time periods and economic conditions, nutrition program spending has increased faster than non-nutrition spending for the most recent 5-, 10-, and 15-year periods ( Table 5 ). Most nutrition program spending is mandatory spending, primarily in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) and child nutrition (school lunch). Figure 6 takes the orange-colored bars from Figure 5 (total domestic nutrition programs) and divides them into mandatory and discretionary. Over the past 10 years, mandatory nutrition spending rose at an average rate of 10.8% per year, while the discretionary portion increased at about 4.8% per year. Spending on the non-nutrition programs in the bill is more evenly divided between mandatory and discretionary spending, more variable over time, and generally changing at a slower rate than nutrition spending. Figure 7 divides the yellow-colored bars in Figure 5 into mandatory and discretionary. This subtotal of mandatory spending has shown a -2.8% average annual change over 10 years, and +3.1% per year over 15 years. Discretionary spending on this component—arguably where appropriators have the most control—has grown at a 2.9% annual rate since 2006, and was reduced by 17% in the most recent year compared to a 6.9% one-year reduction in discretionary nutrition appropriations ( Table 5 ). The Agriculture appropriations totals can also be viewed in inflation-adjusted terms and in comparison to other economic variables ( Figure 8 through Figure 11 ). If the general level of inflation is subtracted, total Agriculture appropriations still have experienced positive "real" growth—that is, growth above the rate of inflation ( Table 6 ). The total of the annual bill has increased at an average annual 3.1% real rate over the past 10 years ( Figure 8 ). Within that total, nutrition programs have increased at a higher average annual real rate of 7.8%, while the rest of the bill had a -3.4% average annual real change over 10 years. Comparing Agriculture appropriations to the entire federal budget authority, the Agriculture bill's share has declined from 4.4% of the federal budget in FY1995 to 2.7% in FY2009, before rising again to about 3.4% in FY2010-FY2011 ( Figure 9 ). The share of the federal budget for nutrition programs has declined (from 2.5% in FY1995 to 1.8% in FY2008), although the increase in FY2010-FY2011 returns the share (2.5%) to levels last seen in FY1997. The share for the other agriculture programs also has declined from 1.8% in FY1995 and 2.1% in FY2001, to about 1.0% in FY2011. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), Agriculture appropriations have been fairly steady at just under 0.75% of GDP from FY2000-FY2009, but have risen to about 0.83% of GDP in FY2010-FY2011 ( Figure 10 ). Nutrition programs have been rising as a percentage of GDP since FY2000 (0.33% in FY2001 to 0.59% in FY2011), while non-nutrition agricultural programs have been declining (0.42% in FY2000 to 0.24% in FY2011). Finally, on a per capita basis, inflation-adjusted total Agriculture appropriations have risen slightly over the past 10 to 15 years ( Figure 11 ). Nutrition programs have risen more steadily on a per capita basis, while the non-nutrition "other" agricultural programs have been more steady over a 15-year period and declining over a 10-year period. In recent years, appropriators have placed limitations on mandatory spending that was authorized in the farm bill. These limitations are also known as CHIMPS, "changes in mandatory program spending." Mandatory programs usually are not part of the annual appropriations process since the authorizing committees set the eligibility rules and payment formulas in multi-year authorizing legislation (such as the 2008 farm bill). Funding for mandatory programs usually is assumed to be available based on the authorization without appropriations action. Passage of a new farm bill in 2008 made more mandatory funds available for programs that appropriators or the Administration may want to reduce, either because of policy preferences or jurisdictional issues between authorizers and appropriators. Historically, decisions over expenditures are assumed to rest with the appropriations committees. The division over who should fund certain agriculture programs—appropriators or authorizers—has roots dating to the 1930s and the creation of the farm commodity programs. Outlays for the farm commodity programs were highly variable, difficult to predict and budget, and based on multi-year programs that resembled entitlements. Thus, a mandatory funding system—the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)—was created to remove the unpredictable funding issue from the appropriations process. This separation worked for many decades. But the dynamic changed particularly in the late 1990s and the 2002 farm bill when authorizers began writing farm bills using mandatory funds for programs that typically were discretionary. Appropriators had not funded some of these programs as much as authorizers had desired, and agriculture authorizing committees wrote legislation with the mandatory funding at their discretion. Thus, tension arose over who should fund these typically discretionary activities: authorizers with mandatory funding sources at their disposal, or appropriators having standard appropriating authority. Some question whether the CCC, which was created to fund the hard-to-predict farm commodity programs, should be used for programs that are not highly variable and are more often discretionary. The programs affected by these limits include conservation, rural development, bioenergy, and research programs. The limits have not affected the farm commodity programs or the nutrition assistance programs such as food stamps, both of which are generally accepted by appropriators as legitimate mandatory programs. When the appropriators limit mandatory spending, they do not change the authorizing law. Rather, appropriators have put limits on mandatory programs by using appropriations language such as: "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section [ ... ] of Public Law [ ... ] in excess of $[ ... ]." These provisions usually have appeared in Title VII, General Provisions, of the Agriculture appropriations bill. For FY2011, P.L. 112-10 contains $924 million in reductions from six mandatory programs (the same as proposed in H.R. 1 and more than in S.Amdt. 149 ). The final FY2010 reduction in farm bill programs of $924 million is 81% higher than the FY2010 amount ( Table 7 ). In addition to the reductions to these farm bill programs, the FY2011 appropriation also makes unusually large rescissions to unobligated balances in other program accounts (e.g., building accounts and rural broadband) that totaled over $1 billion. These are often one-time savings from cancelling unobligated budget authority that in some cases may no longer have been spent. In total, the FY2011 appropriation contains $2 billion in rescissions and savings from farm bill limitations (Title VII in Table 3 ). These cuts were used to meet the discretionary budget allocation and avoid deeper cuts to regular discretionary accounts. Of the $3.4 billion total reduction in discretionary programs, about half of the cut ($1.7 billion) was the increase in the amount of rescissions and farm bill limitations. Congress adopted earmark disclosure rules in 2007 that require appropriations acts to disclose "earmarks and congressionally directed spending items." The disclosure—self-identified by Congress—includes the agency, project, amount, and requesting Member(s). Prior to FY2008, earmark lists were subject to agency or analyst definitions as to what constituted an earmark. Earmarks specified in the explanatory statement accompanying the final version of the bill generally are not considered to have the same force of law as if they were in the text of the law itself. But in the past, executive branch agencies usually have followed such directives since, when they testify before Congress, they do not wish to explain why congressional directives were not followed. Beginning in FY2009 appropriations acts, appropriations earmarks became more formal by being incorporated, at least by reference, in the text of the bill. For FY2011, the final, full-year CR contains no earmark disclosure lists. Moreover, the short-term CRs were the first to cancel the effect of the FY2010 earmarks. That is, the language of short-term CR P.L. 112-4 said that the FY2010 earmarks "have no legal effect." This statement is true regardless of the FY2011 funding available to an agency or program that administered the earmarks. All of the agricultural programs with earmarks in FY2010 were reduced in the last short-term CR ( P.L. 112-6 ) by the amount of FY2010 earmarks (that is, many of the reductions listed in Table 4 correspond to the amount of FY2010 earmarks). As discussed and shown in Table 4 , however, some accounts were not held to that initial level of reduction. The "no legal effect" language in the CRs makes all of the earmarks nonbinding (nonstatutory) in FY2011; agencies are not legally required to continue to fund earmarks, regardless whether funding was reduced. Nonetheless, agencies retain discretion to allocate funding under regular program rules, and could decide to fund projects that received earmarks in FY2010—not necessarily because of earmark instructions, but for other merit- or formula-based criteria. The following tables compare the effect of the FY2011 appropriation within three USDA program areas at a more detailed level than in Table 3 . These include the agricultural research mission area ( Table 8 ), farm loan programs ( Table 9 ), and rural development mission area ( Table 10 ) and its three agencies ( Table 11 through Table 13 ).

Summary: The Agriculture appropriations bill provides funding for all of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) except the Forest Service, plus the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, in some cases, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Appropriations jurisdiction for the CFTC is split between two subcommittees—the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and the Senate Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee. For the FY2011 Agriculture appropriations bill, no separate floor action and limited formal committee action occurred in the 111th Congress. The full Senate Appropriations Committee reported an Agriculture appropriations bill (S. 3606, S.Rept. 111-221) on July 15, 2010. The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its draft on June 30, 2010, but the bill did not see full committee action nor was it reported. None of the 12 appropriations bills was enacted in 2010. In the 112th Congress, the House passed H.R. 1, a full-year continuing resolution for FY2011, by a vote of 235-189 on February 19, 2011. For Agriculture, H.R. 1 would have made $5.3 billion in cuts to discretionary programs (-23%), reducing them from $23.4 billion in FY2010 to $18.1 billion for FY2011. On March 9, 2011, the Senate voted on H.R. 1, but failed to pass it by a vote of 44-56. Later on March 9, 2011, the Senate also voted on a substitute amendment, S.Amdt. 149; it failed by a vote of 42-58. S.Amdt. 149 would have reduced discretionary Agriculture appropriations by $1.7 billion (-7%) from the FY2010 level of $23.4 billion to $21.7 billion. On April 15, 2011, a final, full-year continuing resolution was enacted as Division B of the Department of Defense appropriation, P.L. 112-10. Seven short-term continuing resolutions (CRs) were enacted in between, some with spending reductions, to prevent a government shutdown before the final agreement was reached for the full-year continuing resolution. P.L. 112-10 provides $19.9 billion of discretionary funding for Agriculture appropriations, a 15% reduction (-$3.4 billion) from FY2010 levels. Mandatory appropriations for farm programs and domestic nutrition increased a net 7% to $105.1 billion. Thus, the total Agriculture appropriation (mandatory plus discretionary) for FY2011 is $125.0 billion, 3% greater than FY2010. Discretionary agriculture-related programs fell to $6.89 billion, 6% below FY2010; discretionary conservation programs fell to $889 million, 12% below FY2010; rural development fell to $2.64 billion, 11% below FY2010; discretionary nutrition assistance fell to $7.13 billion, 7% below FY2010; and foreign assistance fell to $1.89 billion, 9% below FY2010. FDA increased to $2.46 billion, 4% above FY2010, and CFTC increased to $202 million, 20% above FY2010. Cuts to individual agricultural agencies' operating budgets would have been even bigger had it not been for usually large amounts of rescissions of unobligated prior-year balances and limitations on mandatory farm bill programs. Of the $3.4 billion total reduction in discretionary appropriations from FY2010, about half of the cut was the increase in the amount of rescissions and farm bill limitations.