House Report 112-101 - AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012

[House Report 112-101]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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 higher. 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
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 Dodd-Frank 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.

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 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 YourFarmer-
Know 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.
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 appropriation 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

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.

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.

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:

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

[In thousands of dollars]

2011 2012 budget Committee
enacted request recommendation

Rental Payments............... $178,113 $164,470 $151,396
Department of Homeland 13,473 13,800 11,452
Security Building Security...
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.

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 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.
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 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 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 Committee
enacted 2012 budget provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch Act, Formula Funds......... $236,334 $204,250 $208,000
McIntire-Stennis, Cooperative 32,934 27,550 30,000
Forestry, Formula Funds.........
Evans-Allen Program (1890 50,898 48,500 48,000
Colleges and Tuskegee
University).....................
Special Grants for Global Change/ 1,405 1,408 1,250
Ultraviolet Radiation...........
Other Special Grants............. 1,433 427 0
Integrated Pest Management and 16,153 16,185 14,000
Biological Control..............
Agriculture and Food Research 264,470 324,655 229,500
Initiative......................
Animal Health and Disease 2,944 0 4,000
Research........................
Veterinary Medicine Loan 4,790 4,800 4,200
Repayment.......................
Multicultural Scholars Program... 1,239 1,241 1,000
Hispanic Education Partnership 9,219 10,161 7,800
Grants..........................
Alaska Native and Hawaiian Native 3,194 3,200 2,700
Education Grants................
Secondary, 2 Year Post Secondary 981 3,483 900
and Ag in the Classroom.........
Aquaculture Grants............... 3,920 3,928 3,300
Sustainable Agriculture Research 14,471 15,000 12,300
and Education...................
Capacity Building Grants for1890 19,336 20,075 16,400
Institution.....................
Payments to 1994 Institutions.... 3,335 3,676 2,800
Resident Instruction Grants for 898 900 900
Insular Areas...................
Distance Education Grants for 749 750 750
Insular Areas...................
Competitive Grants for Policy 0 0 3,000
Research........................
Federal Administration........... 11,230 14,253 10,000
Data Information System 2,699 2,704 2,500
(REEIS).....................
Electronic Grants 2,132 5,136 2,000
Administration System.......
--------------------------------------
Total Research and Education 698,740 708,107 600,800
Activities......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
appropriation 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 Committee
enacted 2012 budget provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever Sections 3(b) and $293,911 $282,625 $259,200
3(c)............................
Extension Services at 1994 4,312 5,321 3,600
Institutions....................
Expanded Food and Nutrition 67,934 68,070 58,000
Education Program...............
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 19,730 19,770 16,700
1890 Institutions...............
Youth at Risk Program............ 8,395 8,412 7,100
Youth Farm Safety Education and 485 486 0
Extension.......................
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 42,592 42,677 36,000
Institutions....................
Grants to Youth Organizations.... 1,780 0 1,500
Food Animal Residue Avoidance 998 0 1,000
Database........................
Women and Minorities in STEM 399 400 0
Fields..........................
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

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 resources 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 19,000,000
Preparedness................................
Safe Trade & International Technical Assistance:
Animal Agriculture Import/Export................. 12,000,000
Overseas Technical and Trade Operations.......... 20,000,000
------------------
Subtotal, Safe Trade & International 32,000,000
Technical Assistance........................
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 stakeholders 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
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.

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

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 $6,605,946 $7,947,046
Receipts)........................
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, 122,127 167,268
Start of Year....................
Unavailable for Obligations....... -167,268 -114,478
Transfer of Prior Year Funds to -117,000 -167,268
FNS..............................
-------------------------------------
Available for Obligation.......... 1,098,000 1,116,522
Less Obligations:
Child Nutrition Programs 307,900 465,000
(Entitlement Commodities)....
12 Percent Commodity Floor 0 120,000
Requirement..............
Cotton, Soybean, Rice and 390,000 0
Sweet Potato Disaster Program
State Option Contract......... 5,000 5,000
Removal of Defective 2,500 2,500
Commodities..................
Emergency Surplus Removal..... 7,600 0
Disaster Relief............... 5,000 5,000
Additional Fruits, Vegetables, 158,300 206,000
and Nuts Purchases...........
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 33,000 20,000
Program......................
Laboratory Testing of Ground 1,452 0
Beef.........................
Accounting Adjustment......... 800 0
Estimated Future Needs........ 139,282 196,713
-------------------------------------
Total, Commodity 1,050,834 1,020,813
Procurement..............
Administrative Funds:
Commodity Purchase Support.... 27,110 27,731
Marketing Agreements and 20,056 20,056
Orders.......................
-------------------------------------
Total, Administrative 47,166 47,787
Funds....................
-------------------------------------
Total Obligations................. 1,098,000 1,068,000
-------------------------------------
Unobligated Balance Not Available, 167,268 114,478
End of Year......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 eventually 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.

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.

FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services

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)

Transfer from
Appropriation 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
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

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 2012 Committee
FY 2011 level estimate 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 Guaranteed Administrative
subsidy loan subsidy Grants/other 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 FY 2012 Committee
estimate estimate 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
-----------------------------------------------------
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).

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....................... ---

1Current 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 provides
a limitation of $5,000,000.

TITLE II

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

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.

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
provides an appropriation of $15,000,000.

TITLE III

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

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)

Committee
FY 2011 estimate FY 2012 estimate 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
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account........... 4,931,000 4,941,000 3,500,000
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loan 38,297,000 39,959,000 30,000,000
Program Account......................................
-----------------------------------------------------
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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Loan level Subsidy level 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2011 level FY 2012 estimate 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:

ESTIMATED LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2011 level FY 2012 estimate 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
provides an appropriation of $22,000,000.

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
Committee 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 2012 Committee
FY 2011 level estimated 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 41,379 38,400 18,000
subsidy and grants..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 2012 Committee
FY 2011 level estimated 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 85,280 89,857 64,500
grants......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Loan level Subsidy level 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................................ ---
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY11 level FY12 level 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)

Administrative
Loan level Subsidy level 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2011 enacted FY 2012 estimate provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
Electric:
Direct, 5%........................................ $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
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.

TITLE IV

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

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 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 unrelated 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 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
Committee 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,
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
Supplemental 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 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 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.

TITLE V

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Transfer from
Appropriation 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
market-driven institutions and science-based regulatory
frameworks that facilitate trade and create an environment
conducive to agricultural growth.

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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
FY 2011 enacted FY 2012 estimate 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. 107-171 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), the Committee provides an
appropriation of $180,000,000.

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
authority 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.
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) Customs-Trade 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 post-market 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 science-based, 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 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 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 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 ever-growing
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 Dodd-
Frank Act. Such expediency jeopardizes the diligence of the
cost-benefit 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.

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.
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.
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
Program 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.
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 development 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.
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.

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.--
(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 [2012] 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 [2012]
2014 fiscal years, the Secretary shall provide payments to
producers that enter into contracts with the Secretary under
the program.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E--Funding and Administration

SEC. 1241. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.

(a) In General.--For each of fiscal years 2002 through
[2012,] 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 [fiscal 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 [fiscal 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 [2012] 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 [fiscal years 2008
through 2012] certain fiscal years.--
For each of fiscal years 2008 through
[2012] 2014, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall make available to
carry out this subsection $15,000,000.

* * * * * * *

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
Last year of Authorization in last year Appropriations
Agency/program authorization level of in this bill
authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

[In millions of dollars]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) Allocation This Bill
---------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays 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.

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.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Amount 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 one-third 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.
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 non-
emergency 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
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.