Expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill and Extension for 2025

Expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill
August 21, 2023and Extension February 23, 2024 in 2024 Jim Monke
The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of agricultural and food The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of agricultural and food
Specialist in Agricultural programs. It provides an opportunity for policymakers to address a broad range of agricultural programs. It provides an opportunity for policymakers to address a broad range of agricultural
Jim MonkePolicy
and food issues about every five years. and food issues about every five years. TheOn November 19, 2023, Congress enacted a one-year extension (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102) of the current farm bill (the Agriculture Improvement current farm bill (the Agriculture Improvement Act
Specialist in Agricultural
Megan Stubbs Act of 2018; P.L. 115-334)of 2018; P.L. 115-334) has many provisions expiring in 2023.
. The 2018 farm bill expired on September 30, 2023, and with the Specialist in Agricultural 2023 crop year (crops harvested in 2023). The extension continues authorizations until Conservation and Natural September 30, 2024, and for the 2024 crop year. Resources Policy Policy

Recent farm bills have faced legislative hurdles for enactment, such as insufficient votes to pass Recent farm bills have faced legislative hurdles for enactment, such as insufficient votes to pass
Megan Stubbs
the House floor, presidential vetoes, and delays resulting in short-term extensions. The 2002 farm the House floor, presidential vetoes, and delays resulting in short-term extensions. The 2002 farm
Randy Alison Aussenberg Specialist in Specialist in AgriculturalNutrition
bill expired at the end of 2007, and parts were extended in the spring of 2008. The 2008 farm bill bill expired at the end of 2007, and parts were extended in the spring of 2008. The 2008 farm bill
Conservation and NaturalAssistance Policy
expired at the end of 2012 and was extended for one year in 2013. The 2014 farm bill was not expired at the end of 2012 and was extended for one year in 2013. The 2014 farm bill was not
Resources Policy
extended because the 2018 farm bill was enacted during the period between the end of the fiscal extended because the 2018 farm bill was enacted during the period between the end of the fiscal

year and the end of the calendar year.year and the end of the calendar year.
Randy Alison Aussenberg In 2023, no markups or legislative action occurred to reauthorize the farm bill besides the extension.
The timing and consequences of the farm bill expiring vary by program across the breadth of the The timing and consequences of the farm bill expiring vary by program across the breadth of the
Specialist in Nutrition
act. There are two act. There are two new principal expiration dates: September 30, principal expiration dates: September 30, 20232024, and December 31, , and December 31, 20232024. The . The
Assistance Policy

major issues and consequences for expiration are the following: major issues and consequences for expiration are the following:
• •

For programs with mandatory funding that is provided by the farm bill and For programs with mandatory funding that is provided by the farm bill and have
for provisions that expire at the provisions that expire at the end of end of FY2023FY2024, authority to operate may cease. , authority to operate may cease.
• For programs with a fiscal year authorization that are funded with discretionary appropriations, or for • For programs with a fiscal year authorization that are funded with discretionary appropriations, or for
programs with mandatory spending authorized but not appropriated by the farm bill—such as the programs with mandatory spending authorized but not appropriated by the farm bill—such as the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—an appropriations act or continuing resolution could Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—an appropriations act or continuing resolution could
allow operations to continue. allow operations to continue.
• For the farm commodity and dairy support programs that expire after the • For the farm commodity and dairy support programs that expire after the 20232024 crop year, the consequences crop year, the consequences
of expiration begin on January 1, of expiration begin on January 1, 20242025, when inactive and outdated laws—commonly called “permanent , when inactive and outdated laws—commonly called “permanent
law”—would be restored for dairy, the first commodity affected in the new crop year.law”—would be restored for dairy, the first commodity affected in the new crop year.
• Some programs had their expiration dates extended beyond the expiration of the farm bill by other • Some programs had their expiration dates extended beyond the expiration of the farm bill by other
legislation. P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, extended some—but legislation. P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, extended some—but
not all—conservation programs through FY2031. not all—conservation programs through FY2031.
• Some programs, such as crop insurance, are permanently authorized, do not expire, and would not be • Some programs, such as crop insurance, are permanently authorized, do not expire, and would not be
affected by farm bill expiration. affected by farm bill expiration.
For the farm commodity programs that face consequences after January 1, For the farm commodity programs that face consequences after January 1, 20242025, permanent law refers to a set of non-, permanent law refers to a set of non-
expiring provisions from the 1938 and 1949 farm bills that remain in statute but are temporarily suspended by each recent expiring provisions from the 1938 and 1949 farm bills that remain in statute but are temporarily suspended by each recent
farm bill. Permanent law does not recognize relationships in productivity gains and technological advances in agriculture. It farm bill. Permanent law does not recognize relationships in productivity gains and technological advances in agriculture. It
is inconsistent with modern government policies that reduce the effects of market intervention and that meet U.S. obligations is inconsistent with modern government policies that reduce the effects of market intervention and that meet U.S. obligations
in the World Trade Organization. Permanent law would support dairy, wheat, rice, cotton, and corn but would not support in the World Trade Organization. Permanent law would support dairy, wheat, rice, cotton, and corn but would not support
soybeans, peanuts, and sugar, among other commodities. If the permanent law suspension were to expire, the U.S. soybeans, peanuts, and sugar, among other commodities. If the permanent law suspension were to expire, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) would be required to implement permanent law, which is likely more expensive to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would be required to implement permanent law, which is likely more expensive to the
government and consumers than the current farm bill. Under permanent law, USDA would be required to support eligible government and consumers than the current farm bill. Under permanent law, USDA would be required to support eligible
commodities at levels that exceed commodities at levels that exceed 20232024 market prices. USDA has found during previous farm bill reauthorizations that market prices. USDA has found during previous farm bill reauthorizations that
billions of dollars of additional government expenditures could occur if the suspension were to expire. billions of dollars of additional government expenditures could occur if the suspension were to expire.
The one-year extension during 2024 continues all of the 2018 farm bill authorities that were in effect at the end of FY2023 for all of FY2024 and the 2024 crop year. The extension provides $177 million of mandatory funding, with offsets, to 19 of the 21 programs from the 2018 farm bill that did not have continuing funding.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

---

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 65 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 98 link to page link to page 119 link to page link to page 1211 link to page link to page 1213 link to page 13 link to page link to page 13 link to page 1514 link to page 16 link to page link to page 16 link to page 1617 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 1119 link to page 12 link to page 10 link to page link to page 10 link to page 1415 link to page link to page 2021 link to page link to page 2021 link to page link to page 2324 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Contents
Farm Bill Expiration: Timing and Effects Vary ............................................................................... 1
Timing of Expiration ................................................................................................................. 1
Expiration by Fiscal Year .................................................................................................... 1
Expiration by Crop Year ..................................................................................................... 1
Historical ExamplesFunding Sources Affect the Consequences of Expiration ......................................................... 2 Discretionary Funding ...................................... 2
Funding Sources Affect the Consequences of Expiration .................................................................. 2
Discretionary Funding Mandatory Funding ........................................................................................................... 3
Mandatory Funding .. 2 Extension of the Farm Bill .............................................................................................................. 3
Historical Examples of Extension ............................................................................................. 4 Farm Commodity Support Programs ............................................................................................... 4
Possible Reversion to Permanent Law ...................................................................................... 45
Description of Permanent Law .................................................................................................. 5
Parity Price Support Levels and Production Controls ........................................................ 6
Government Costs Under Permanent Law .......................................................................... 8
Implementing Permanent Law ............................................................................................ 9 10
Crop Insurance and Disaster Programs ........................................................................................... 9 10
Conservation Programs ................................................................................................................. 10. 11
SNAP and the Other Nutrition Programs ...................................................................................... 1213
Programs Permanently Authorized and Funded ...................................................................... 1314
Programs Continued by the Enactment of Further Funding .................................................... 1314
Programs That Would Require Extension or Specific Appropriations Language ................... 1415
Other Agricultural Programs ......................................................................................................... 1516

Figures
Figure 1. Permanent Law Relative to Current Market Prices and the 2018 Farm Bill .................... 89

Tables
Table 1. Parity Prices and Permanent Law Support Prices .............................................................. 7
Table 2. Conservation Program Funding Authority Expiration Dates ............................................ 11 12

Appendixes
Appendix. Legislative Options Given Existence of Permanent Law for Farm Commodity
Programs. .................................................................................................................................... 1718

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 2021

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

---

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Farm Bill Expiration: Timing and Effects Vary
The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of agricultural and food The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of agricultural and food
programs. It provides an opportunity for policymakers to periodically address a broad range of programs. It provides an opportunity for policymakers to periodically address a broad range of
agricultural and food issues about every five years. In the past, farm bills have focused primarily agricultural and food issues about every five years. In the past, farm bills have focused primarily
on farm commodity program support for a handful of staple commodities—corn, soybeans, on farm commodity program support for a handful of staple commodities—corn, soybeans,
wheat, cotton, rice, dairy, and sugar. In recent decades, farm bills have expanded in scope. A wheat, cotton, rice, dairy, and sugar. In recent decades, farm bills have expanded in scope. A
nutrition title was added in 1973, and other prominent titles include conservation, horticulture, nutrition title was added in 1973, and other prominent titles include conservation, horticulture,
credit, research, rural development, and bioenergy programs.1 credit, research, rural development, and bioenergy programs.1
Recent farm bills have faced legislative hurdles for enactment, such as insufficient votes to pass Recent farm bills have faced legislative hurdles for enactment, such as insufficient votes to pass
the House floor, presidential vetoes, and delays resulting in short-term extensions. The 2002 farm the House floor, presidential vetoes, and delays resulting in short-term extensions. The 2002 farm
bill was the last farm bill to be enacted before its fiscal year expiration. The 2008 and 2014 farm bill was the last farm bill to be enacted before its fiscal year expiration. The 2008 and 2014 farm
bills were each enacted during extensions of the previous farm bill. The 2018 farm bill was bills were each enacted during extensions of the previous farm bill. The 2018 farm bill was
enacted without an extension during a period after its fiscal year expiration and before the farm enacted without an extension during a period after its fiscal year expiration and before the farm
commodity programs reverted to outdated laws that could have taken effect.2 commodity programs reverted to outdated laws that could have taken effect.2
The timing and consequences of farm bill expiration vary by program across the breadth of the The timing and consequences of farm bill expiration vary by program across the breadth of the
act. The current farm bill (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018; P.L. 115-334)act. The current farm bill (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018; P.L. 115-334), as extended for one year (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102), has provisions has provisions
that begin to expire that begin to expire in 2023on October 1, 2024. .
This report first explains timing and budget factors affecting the consequences of expiration. This report first explains timing and budget factors affecting the consequences of expiration.
Then it illustrates those concepts It explains the extension of the farm bill and when extensions have been enacted. Then it illustrates the concepts of expiration by discussing the authorizations for the farm commodity by discussing the authorizations for the farm commodity
programs and agricultural conservation programs, as well as the Supplemental Nutrition programs and agricultural conservation programs, as well as the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) and other nutrition programs that could be most affected by an Assistance Program (SNAP) and other nutrition programs that could be most affected by an
expiration. Other farm bill programs that may be affected by expiration are identified in a final expiration. Other farm bill programs that may be affected by expiration are identified in a final
heading. heading.
Timing of Expiration
There are two principal expiration dates for the farm billThere are two principal expiration dates for the farm bill as extended: the end of the : the end of the fiscal year (September (September
30, 30, 20232024) and the end of the ) and the end of the crop year (December 31, (December 31, 20232024). ).
Expiration by Fiscal Year
Expiration of a farm bill on September 30 matters for programs with fiscal year authorizations. Expiration of a farm bill on September 30 matters for programs with fiscal year authorizations.
The effects may vary among the mandatory spending programs—including nutrition, The effects may vary among the mandatory spending programs—including nutrition,
conservation, and other agricultural programs—and may affect some programs’ operations, as conservation, and other agricultural programs—and may affect some programs’ operations, as
explained through this report. The fiscal year date also affects programs with explained through this report. The fiscal year date also affects programs with authorizations of
appropriations to receive discretionary funding but with fewer consequences. to receive discretionary funding but with fewer consequences.
Expiration by Crop Year
Farm commodity support programs are authorized on the basis of Farm commodity support programs are authorized on the basis of crop years. A crop year refers . A crop year refers
to the calendar year during which a crop is harvested.3 The 2018 farm billto the calendar year during which a crop is harvested.3 The 2018 farm bill authorizes the farm, as extended, authorizes

1 CRS In Focus IF12047, 1 CRS In Focus IF12047, Farm Bill Primer: What Is the Farm Bill?, by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke. , by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke.
2 CRS Report R45210, 2 CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-20182023, by Jim Monke. , by Jim Monke.
3 The end of a crop year is the last month in which a commodity is typically harvested. A marketing year is the 12 3 The end of a crop year is the last month in which a commodity is typically harvested. A marketing year is the 12
months following harvest during which a crop is typically sold and is eligible for commodity program benefits. Dairy ismonths following harvest during which a crop is typically sold and is eligible for commodity program benefits. Dairy is
the exception because milk is produced or “harvested” daily, and the current Dairy Margin Coverage program pays
(continued...) (continued...)
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1 1

---

link to page 6 Expiration Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

the farm commodity programs through the commodity programs through the 20232024 crop year. The first crop year. The first cropcommodity harvested with a harvested with a 20242025 crop year crop year
is dairy, which coincides with the calendar year beginning on January 1, is dairy, which coincides with the calendar year beginning on January 1, 2024.
Historical Examples of Expiration
Farm bill expiration has recent precedent: The 2002 farm bill expired at the end of 2007 and was
extended for a short term, the 2008 farm bill expired at the end of 2012 and was extended for one
year, and the 2014 farm bill expired during the fall of 2018 but was not extended.4
When the 2002 farm bill expired, portions of it were extended six times in spring 2008 for less
than a year in total. The first of those extensions continued authority for many expired programs
for about three months (P.L. 110-161, Division A, §751). Because final agreement was pending
on a new farm bill, five more extensions each covered periods of a week to a month (P.L. 110-
196, P.L. 110-200, P.L. 110-205, P.L. 110-208, and P.L. 110-231). With a few exceptions, these
extensions continued the 2002 farm bill provisions, including the dairy and sugar programs, but
not the price and income support programs for the other supported farm commodities that had not
yet been harvested.
When the 2008 farm bill expired in 2012, some farm bill programs ceased new operations after
October 1, 2012, and others continued under appropriations acts. Because the 112th Congress was
about to end legislatively, a one-year extension of all provisions that were in effect on September
30, 2012, was enacted to cover FY2013 and the 2013 crop year (P.L. 112-240, Title VII).
Programs without a budget baseline (see “Mandatory Funding”), however, did not continue in
FY2013 because no additional mandatory funding was provided during the extension.5 When the
one-year extension expired at the end of 2013, Congress did not renew the extension, because a
conference agreement was near and permanent law for dairy was delayed, citing the need for
rulemaking to implement it.
Congress did not pass any extensions of the 2014 farm bill in fall 2018. When the fiscal year
provisions of the 2014 farm bill began expiring on October 1, 2018, regular appropriations acts
allowed many programs to continue operations without specifically mentioning farm bill
expiration. The 2018 farm bill was enacted on December 20, 2018, before permanent law for the
farm commodity programs would have taken effect on January 1, 2019.
Funding Sources Affect the Consequences of Expiration
Some farm bill programs are designed to use discretionary spending (provided by appropriations
acts), and others receive mandatory funding. These differences affect the consequences of
expiration and extension.

producers monthly if a payment is triggered. The dairy crop year and marketing year run from January 1 until
December 31.
4 CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-2018, by Jim Monke.
5 CRS Report R41433, Programs Without a Budget Baseline at the End of the 2008 Farm Bill, by Jim Monke. For an
extension to provide mandatory funding for programs without a baseline, new spending authority would be needed, and
the extension would not be costless. While the one-year extension included new authorizations of appropriations for
FY2013 for some of the programs without a baseline, those authorizations went unfunded in appropriations acts.
Congressional Research Service

2

---

Expiration 2025. Funding Sources Affect the Consequences of Expiration Some farm bill programs are designed to use discretionary spending (provided by appropriations acts), and others receive mandatory funding. These differences affect the consequences of expiration and extension. Discretionary Funding Discretionary programs include most rural development, credit, and research programs, as well as some conservation and nutrition programs.4 In addition to setting policy parameters, farm bills provide authorizations of appropriations for discretionary programs. Subsequent annual appropriations acts may or may not provide funding. Appropriated levels may be different from authorizations of appropriations. Budget enforcement for discretionary spending is through appropriations acts and budget resolutions. Without a new farm bill or extension, some discretionary programs may not appear to have statutory authority to receive appropriations.5 However, appropriations practice allows programs to continue to operate when they receive appropriations. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has determined that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for appropriations to have a prior authorization.6 Congress distinguishes between the processes of authorizing and appropriating, but this is a congressional construct.7 GAO states that “the existence of a statute imposing substantive functions upon an agency that require funding for their performance is itself sufficient legal authorization for the necessary appropriations.” For expired authorizations, GAO states that “appropriation of funds for a program whose funding authorization has expired … provides sufficient legal basis to continue the program.” Bills containing unauthorized appropriations may require waivers of House and Senate rules to avoid being subject to a point of order on the floor.8 Mandatory Funding Programs that rely on mandatory funding are perhaps the most at risk for interruption if a farm bill expires. A mandatory funded program may have an expiring program authority or an expiring funding authority. Without reauthorization or an extension, such programs generally cease to operate or undertake new activities following a farm bill expiration. The farm commodity the exception because milk is produced or “harvested” daily, and the current Dairy Margin Coverage program pays producers monthly if a payment is triggered. The dairy crop year and marketing year run from January 1 until December 31. 4 Discretionary funded farm bill nutrition programs include the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and administrative funds for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) consists of discretionary funding as well but is not part of the farm bill. 5 An authorization of appropriations is a recommendation from an authorizing committee to the appropriations committee via a law. It is nonbinding and has no bearing on budget enforcement for an authorizing bill. Appropriators may choose not to fund a program or may choose to exceed the authorization. Authorization amounts may be specific or indefinite (“such sums as necessary”). 6 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Chapter 2, “The Legal Framework” (4th ed., 2016 rev.), p. 2-55, at https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/red-book. 7 CRS Report R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues, coordinated by Edward C. Liu. 8 GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Chapter 2, p. 2-80. Congressional Research Service 2 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill programs, conservation programs, and nutrition programs that are the primary subjects of this report represent nearly 92% of the mandatory spending available in the farm bill. The crop insurance and disaster programs represent over 7% of the mandatory spending available. A farm bill authorizes mandatory spending for entitlement programs and pays for it with multiyear budget estimates when the farm bill is enacted. Budget enforcement is through “PayGo” budget rules, baseline projections, and scores of the effects of proposed bills. The baseline is a projection of future federal spending on mandatory programs under current law. It is a benchmark against which proposed changes in law are measured (i.e., the score of a bill).9 Two categories of mandatory funded programs exist regarding expiration—programs with a budget baseline and programs without a budget baseline.10 Both categories may face similar disruption from a farm bill expiration. Not having a baseline, however, imposes budgetary costs to reauthorize or extend a program. For example, when Congress enacted the one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill, the expedient compromise was for the extension bill to be budget-neutral. The major farm bill programs that had a budget baseline were able to be extended at no additional projected budgetary cost. Extending programs without a budget baseline would have needed budgetary offsets to provide continued mandatory funding. Congress decided not to extend mandatory funding for programs without a baseline. Extension of the Farm Bill During 2023, no markups or legislative action occurred to reauthorize the farm bill. On November 19, 2023, Congress enacted a one-year extension (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102) of the 2018 farm bill, which had expired on September 30, 2023, and with the 2023 crop year (crops harvested in 2023). The extension continues authorities that were in effect at the end of FY2023 for all of FY2024 and the 2024 crop year. (a) Extension. The authorities … of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and each provision of law amended by that Act (and for mandatory programs at such funding levels), as in effect on September 30, 2023, shall continue, and the authorities shall be carried out, until the later of September 30, 2024, or the date specified in the provision of that Act or the provision of law amended by that Act. (b) Discretionary Programs … that are funded by discretionary appropriations … shall be subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) Commodity Programs. In general, the provisions of law applicable to a covered commodity, a loan commodity, sugarcane, or sugar beets for the 2023 crop year … shall be applicable to the 2024 crop year [and] dairy margin coverage … is amended by striking 2023 and inserting 2024 (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102). The extension of mandatory spending programs that have a budget baseline does not incur any budgetary cost.11 This applied to most of the spending in the farm bill and for most of the programs in the farm commodity title, conservation title, and nutrition title. The extension also provided $177 million of new mandatory funding, while extending the authority, for 19 of the 21 programs in the 2018 farm bill that did not have a budget baseline. During the extension, such programs generally receive one-fifth of their five-year allocation that was in the 2018 farm bill and remain without baseline when the extension expires at the end of FY2024. The extension 9 CRS In Focus IF12233, Farm Bill Primer: Budget Dynamics, by Jim Monke. 10 CRS In Focus IF12115, Farm Bill Primer: Programs Without Baseline Beyond FY2024, by Jim Monke. 11 CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process. Congressional Research Service 3 link to page 5 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill fully offset the new mandatory funding by rescinding unobligated balances in the Biorefinery Assistance account remaining from the 2014 and 2018 farm bills.12 Historical Examples of Extension Extensions of a prior farm bill while its successor was being written were historically atypical but are now common in three of the past four reauthorizations (extensions during 2008, 2013 and 2024).13 When the 2002 farm bill expired, portions of it were extended six times in spring 2008 for less than a year in total. The first of those extensions continued authority for many expired programs for about three months (P.L. 110-161, Division A, §751). Because final agreement was pending on a new farm bill, five more extensions each covered periods of a week to a month (P.L. 110-196, P.L. 110-200, P.L. 110-205, P.L. 110-208, and P.L. 110-231). With a few exceptions, these extensions continued the 2002 farm bill provisions, including the dairy and sugar programs, but not the price and income support programs for the other supported farm commodities that had not yet been harvested. When the 2008 farm bill expired in 2012, some farm bill programs ceased new operations after October 1, 2012, and others continued under appropriations acts. Because the 112th Congress was about to end legislatively, a one-year extension of all provisions that were in effect on September 30, 2012, was enacted to cover FY2013 and the 2013 crop year (P.L. 112-240, Title VII). Programs without a budget baseline (see “Mandatory Funding”), however, did not continue in FY2013 because no additional mandatory funding was provided during the extension.14 When the one-year extension expired at the end of 2013, Congress did not renew the extension because a conference agreement was near. Congress did not pass any extensions of the 2014 farm bill in fall 2018. When the fiscal year provisions of the 2014 farm bill began expiring on October 1, 2018, regular appropriations acts allowed many programs to continue operations without specifically addressing farm bill expiration. The 2018 farm bill was enacted on December 20, 2018, before permanent law for the farm commodity programs would have taken effect on January 1, 2019. With no markups or floor action in 2023 to reauthorize the farm bill, Congress enacted a one-year extension in November 2023 after the 2018 farm bill had expired. Farm Commodity Support Programs Farm commodity programs in the farm bill (Title I) support farm income by making payments and reducing financial risks from uncertain weather and market conditions. They include the Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) program, Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP), the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program, the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program, and the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program. These programs make payments when market-based receipts fall 12 Ibid. 13 CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-2023, by Jim Monke. 14 CRS Report R41433, Programs Without a Budget Baseline at the End of the 2008 Farm Bill, by Jim Monke. While the one-year extension in 2013 included new authorizations of appropriations for some of the programs without a baseline, those authorizations went unfunded in appropriations acts. Congressional Research Service 4 link to page 21 link to page 4 link to page 21 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill below support levels (government-set reference prices, revenue guarantees, or margin guarantees above input costs).15 The last year authorized for the 2018 farm bill’s commodity programs, as extended, is the 2024 crop year—that is, crops harvested during calendar year 2024of the Farm Bill

Discretionary Funding
Discretionary programs include most rural development, credit, and research programs, as well as
some conservation and nutrition programs.6
In addition to setting policy parameters, farm bills provide authorizations of appropriations for
discretionary programs. Subsequent annual appropriations acts may or may not provide funding.
Appropriated levels may be different from authorizations of appropriations. Budget enforcement
for discretionary spending is through appropriations acts and budget resolutions.
Without a new farm bill or extension, some discretionary programs may not appear to have
statutory authority to receive appropriations.7 However, appropriations practice allows programs
to continue to operate when they receive appropriations.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has determined that there is no constitutional or
statutory requirement for appropriations to have a prior authorization.8 Congress distinguishes
between the processes of authorizing and appropriating, but this is a congressional construct.9
GAO states that “the existence of a statute imposing substantive functions upon an agency that
require funding for their performance is itself sufficient legal authorization for the necessary
appropriations.” For expired authorizations, GAO states that “appropriation of funds for a
program whose funding authorization has expired … provides sufficient legal basis to continue
the program.” Bills containing unauthorized appropriations may require waivers of House and
Senate rules to avoid being subject to a point of order on the floor.10
Mandatory Funding
Programs that rely on mandatory funding are perhaps the most at risk for interruption if a farm
bill expires. A mandatory funded program may have an expiring program authority or an expiring
funding authority. Without reauthorization or an extension, such programs generally cease to
operate or undertake new activities following a farm bill expiration.
A farm bill authorizes mandatory spending for entitlement programs and pays for it with
multiyear budget estimates when the farm bill is enacted. Budget enforcement is through
“PayGo” budget rules, baseline projections, and scores of the effects of proposed bills. The
baseline is a projection of future federal spending on mandatory programs under current law. It is
a benchmark against which proposed changes in law are measured (i.e., the score of a bill).11
Two categories of mandatory funded programs exist regarding expiration—programs with a
budget baseline and programs without a budget baseline.12 Both categories may face similar

6 Discretionary funded farm bill nutrition programs include the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and
administrative funds for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The Special Supplemental Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) consists of discretionary funding as well but is not part of the farm bill.
7 An authorization of appropriations is a recommendation from an authorizing committee to the appropriations
committee via a law. It is nonbinding and has no bearing on budget enforcement for an authorizing bill. Appropriators
may choose not to fund a program or may choose to exceed the authorization. Authorization amounts may be specific
or indefinite (“such sums as necessary”).
8 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Chapter 2, “The Legal
Framework” (4th ed. 2016 rev.), p. 2-55, at https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/red-book.
9 CRS Report R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues, coordinated by Edward C. Liu.
10 GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Chapter 2, p. 2-80.
11 CRS In Focus IF12233, Farm Bill Primer: Budget Dynamics, by Jim Monke.
12 CRS In Focus IF12115, Farm Bill Primer: Programs Without Baseline Beyond FY2023, by Jim Monke.
Congressional Research Service

3

---

link to page 4 Expiration of the Farm Bill

disruption from a farm bill expiration. Not having a baseline, however, imposes budgetary costs
to reauthorize or extend a program.
For example, when Congress enacted the one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill, the expedient
compromise was for the extension bill to be budget-neutral. The major farm bill programs that
had a budget baseline were able to be extended at no additional projected budgetary cost.
Extending programs without a budget baseline would have needed budgetary offsets to provide
continued mandatory funding. Congress decided not to extend mandatory funding for programs
without a baseline.
Farm Commodity Support Programs
Farm commodity programs in the farm bill (Title I) support farm income by making payments
and reducing financial risks from uncertain weather and market conditions. They include the
Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) program, Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP), the Price Loss
Coverage (PLC) program, the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program, and the Dairy Margin
Coverage (DMC) program. These programs make payments when market-based receipts fall
below support levels (government-set reference prices, revenue guarantees, or margin guarantees
above input costs).13
The last year authorized for the 2018 farm bill’s commodity programs is the 2023 crop year—that
is, crops harvested during calendar year 2023 and and marketed during the 12 months following during the 12 months following
harvest.harvest.1416 Government supports for crops harvested in the Government supports for crops harvested in the 20232024 crop year may be payable until crop year may be payable until
the end of the crop’s marketing year, which for corn and soybeans would end in September the end of the crop’s marketing year, which for corn and soybeans would end in September
2024.152025.17 These obligations on the These obligations on the 20232024 crop would continue despite farm bill expiration. crop would continue despite farm bill expiration.
Regarding the consequences of expiration, the first commodity harvested in the Regarding the consequences of expiration, the first commodity harvested in the 20242025 crop year crop year
(and thus not covered by the (and thus not covered by the extension of the 2018 farm bill) is dairy on January 1, 2018 farm bill) is dairy on January 1, 20242025, since some cows are , since some cows are
milked every day of the year. New plantings of other commodities harvested in milked every day of the year. New plantings of other commodities harvested in 20242025—such as —such as
wheat, corn, cotton, and rice—would not be affected until harvest in the summer or fall of wheat, corn, cotton, and rice—would not be affected until harvest in the summer or fall of 2024,
2025, when their respective marketing years would begin. when their respective marketing years would begin.
Possible Reversion to Permanent Law
Farm bills have revised and superseded policy since the first farm bill in 1933. However, a set of Farm bills have revised and superseded policy since the first farm bill in 1933. However, a set of
non-expiring provisions from the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agricultural Act of non-expiring provisions from the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agricultural Act of
1949—commonly known as “permanent law”—remain in statute suspended and inactive. 1949—commonly known as “permanent law”—remain in statute suspended and inactive.
Each farm bill since the 1960s and 1970s contained a temporary suspension of permanent law.18 Some see the existence of permanent law—and the policy and budget consequences that could result from restoring permanent law if the suspension expired—as assurance that Congress would revisit the farm commodity programs when a farm bill expires. Recent farm bills have retained permanent law and continued to suspend it. Some Members have proposed bills over the past three decades to repeal or replace permanent law (see options and discussion in the Appendix). Description of Permanent Law The commodity support provisions of the 1938 and 1949 acts are commonly viewed as so fundamentally different from current policy and potentially costly to the federal government that Congress has been reluctant to let permanent law take effect. Permanent law is generally considered inconsistent with modern farming practices, marketing systems, and international trade agreements. Permanent law provides support based on a parity price from the 1910-1914 15
13 CRS In Focus IF12218, CRS In Focus IF12218, Farm Bill Primer: Farm Safety Net Programs, by Stephanie Rosch; CRS In Focus IF12114, , by Stephanie Rosch; CRS In Focus IF12114,
Farm Bill Primer: PLC and ARC Farm Support Programs, by Stephanie Rosch; CRS In Focus IF12140, , by Stephanie Rosch; CRS In Focus IF12140, Farm Bill
Primer: MAL and LDP Farm Support Programs, by Stephanie Rosch; and CRS In Focus IF12202, , by Stephanie Rosch; and CRS In Focus IF12202, Farm Bill Primer:
Support for the Dairy Industry, by Joel L. Greene. , by Joel L. Greene.
1416 See footnote See footnote 3. For example, for wheat, barley, and oats, the crop year is June 1-May 31; for cotton, peanuts, and For example, for wheat, barley, and oats, the crop year is June 1-May 31; for cotton, peanuts, and
rice, it is August 1-July 31; for sugar beets, it is September 1-August 31; for corn, sorghum, and soybeans, it is October rice, it is August 1-July 31; for sugar beets, it is September 1-August 31; for corn, sorghum, and soybeans, it is October
1-September 30. The dairy program is authorized for the calendar year. For wool, mohair, and sugarcane, the marketing 1-September 30. The dairy program is authorized for the calendar year. For wool, mohair, and sugarcane, the marketing
year is January 1-December 31; for honey, it is April 1-March 31. year is January 1-December 31; for honey, it is April 1-March 31.
1517 Under the Under the extension of the 2018 farm bill, Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments for the 2018 farm bill, Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments for the 2023
crops2024 crop year are to be disbursed in October year are to be disbursed in October 20242025, which is in , which is in FY2025FY2026. Additionally, Marketing Assistance Loans (. Additionally, Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL)
MALs) are loans of nine-month duration, which may begin as late as May 31, are loans of nine-month duration, which may begin as late as May 31, 20242025, for , for 20232024 corn and soybean crops, and such corn and soybean crops, and such
loans may have benefits payable as late as February loans may have benefits payable as late as February 2025.
Congressional Research Service

4

---

link to page 20 link to page 10 link to page 20 Expiration of the Farm Bill

Each farm bill since the 1960s and 1970s contained a temporary suspension of permanent law.16
Some see the existence of permanent law—and the policy and budget consequences that could
result from restoring permanent law if the suspension expired—as assurance that Congress would
revisit the farm commodity programs when a farm bill expires. Recent farm bills have retained
permanent law and continued to suspend it. Some Members have proposed bills over the past
three decades to repeal or replace permanent law (see options and discussion in the Appendix).
Description of Permanent Law
The commodity support provisions of the 1938 and 1949 acts are commonly viewed as so
fundamentally different from current policy and potentially costly to the federal government that
Congress has been reluctant to let permanent law take effect. Permanent law is generally
considered inconsistent with modern farming practices, marketing systems, and international
trade agreements. Permanent law provides support based on a parity price from the 1910-1914
2026. 18 For example, 7 U.S.C. §9092, updated in the 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334, §1702): “(a) The following provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 … [and] the Agricultural Act of 1949 shall not be applicable to the 2014 through 2023 crops … and shall not be applicable to milk … through December 31, 2023.” See full text in the Appendix. The extension in 2024 directs that the provisions shall not be applicable to the 2024 crops, including milk. Congressional Research Service 5 link to page 10 link to page 10 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill period that does not recognize productivity gains and technological advances in agriculture.period that does not recognize productivity gains and technological advances in agriculture.1719
Permanent law also does not utilize modern government policy and marketing approaches to Permanent law also does not utilize modern government policy and marketing approaches to
reduce market distortions. Permanent law may require the U.S. Department of Agriculture reduce market distortions. Permanent law may require the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to purchase or take possession of commodities to raise market price levels. In contrast, (USDA) to purchase or take possession of commodities to raise market price levels. In contrast,
modern farm bills allow supply and demand to determine market prices and make direct modern farm bills allow supply and demand to determine market prices and make direct
payments to producers in the event of low prices. payments to producers in the event of low prices.
Not all commodities supported by the 2018 farm bill would be included under permanent law. Not all commodities supported by the 2018 farm bill would be included under permanent law.
Permanent law would support dairy, wheat, rice, cotton, corn, and other feed grains.Permanent law would support dairy, wheat, rice, cotton, corn, and other feed grains.1820 Support Support
would not continue for soybeans and other oilseeds, peanuts, wool, mohair, sugar beets and would not continue for soybeans and other oilseeds, peanuts, wool, mohair, sugar beets and
sugarcane, dry peas, lentils, and small and large chickpeas.sugarcane, dry peas, lentils, and small and large chickpeas.1921
Permanent Law and the “Dairy Cliff”
Dairy is often mentioned concerning farm Dairy is often mentioned concerning farm bil bill expiration because it would be the first commodity to revert to expiration because it would be the first commodity to revert to
permanent law, and it signals the scale of potential market and budget consequences. permanent law, and it signals the scale of potential market and budget consequences.
Permanent law would compel USDA to purchase dairy products (whole milk, butterfat, and products of such Permanent law would compel USDA to purchase dairy products (whole milk, butterfat, and products of such
commodities) in quantities sufficient to raise demand so that the farm price of milk would rise to the desired commodities) in quantities sufficient to raise demand so that the farm price of milk would rise to the desired
support level. Under permanent law, the mandated purchase price for milk would be $50.support level. Under permanent law, the mandated purchase price for milk would be $50.7025 per hundredweight per hundredweight
(cwt., or100 pounds) based on (cwt., or100 pounds) based on May 2023 data, more thanJanuary 2024 data, about 2.5 times (or 2.5 times (or 162144% higher than) the current market % higher than) the current market
price of milk ($price of milk ($19.3020.60/cwt. for all milk;/cwt. for all milk; Table 1). .
The high purchase price under permanent law could result in the government outbidding commercial markets for The high purchase price under permanent law could result in the government outbidding commercial markets for
a sizeable share of dairy outputa sizeable share of dairy output; changing the . This level of intervention in the market would be expensive to the government, expensive for consumers, and disruptive to the marketplace by changing the available shares of fluid milk, butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milkshares of fluid milk, butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk in the
market; and subsequently raising the retail price of milk. and subsequently raising the retail price of milk. While farmers may be paid more, the disruption may jeopardize the market for milk and dairy products. The possibility that fluid milk prices could more than The possibility that fluid milk prices could more than
double became known as the “dairy cliff” in December 2012 during the time of the budgetary “fiscal cliff” (see double became known as the “dairy cliff” in December 2012 during the time of the budgetary “fiscal cliff” (see
CRS Report R42884, CRS Report R42884, The “Fiscal Cliff” and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, coordinated by Mindy R. , coordinated by Mindy R. Levit). Parity Price Support Levels and Production Controls The parity prices used in permanent law refer to the relationship between prices that farmers receive for their products and prices they paid for inputs during a benchmark period of 1910-1914.22 Permanent law requires USDA to set support prices that would guarantee producers between 50% and 90% of the parity price depending on the commodity (Table 1).23 Permanent law uses nonrecourse loans to support wheat, rice, cotton, corn, and other feed grains. This is similar to the commodity marketing loan program authorized in the 2018 farm bill.24 At harvest, a farmer can receive a loan for their production valued at the loan rate (price) by pledging 19Levit).

16 For example, 7 U.S.C. §9092, updated in the 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334, §1702): “(a) The following provisions of
the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 … [and] the Agricultural Act of 1949 shall not be applicable to the 2014
through 2023 crops … and shall not be applicable to milk … through December 31, 2023.” See full text in the
Appendix.
17 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS), Possible Economic Consequences of
Reverting to Permanent Legislation or Eliminating Price and Income Supports, AER-526, January 1985, pp. 1-2, at , AER-526, January 1985, pp. 1-2, at
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/40547/50862_aer526a.pdf?v=7772.8. See also USDA-NASS, “Prices https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/40547/50862_aer526a.pdf?v=7772.8. See also USDA-NASS, “Prices
Paid and Received: Parity Ratio by Year,” https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Paid and Received: Parity Ratio by Year,” https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Agricultural_
PricesAgricultural_Prices/parity.php. /parity.php.
1820 Feed grains refers to any of the several grains most commonly used to feed livestock, including corn, grain sorghum, refers to any of the several grains most commonly used to feed livestock, including corn, grain sorghum,
oats, rye, and barley. oats, rye, and barley.
1921 Parity-based supports once existed for wool, mohair, and peanuts but were repealed. 22 Parity prices are computed pursuant to provisions in Title III, §301(a), of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by the Agricultural Acts of 1948, 1949, and 1956. Permanent law requires USDA to regularly estimate and publish parity prices (see USDA-NASS, Agricultural Prices, monthly). 23 7 U.S.C. §1441; 7 U.S.C. §1444; 7 U.S.C. §1444b; 7 U.S.C. §1445; 7 U.S.C. §1446. 24 CRS In Focus IF12140, Farm Bill Primer: MAL and LDP Farm Support Programs, by Stephanie Rosch. Congressional Research Service 6 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill the crop Parity-based supports once existed for wool, mohair, and peanuts but were repealed.
Congressional Research Service

5

---

link to page 10 Expiration of the Farm Bill

Parity Price Support Levels and Production Controls
The parity prices used in permanent law refer to the relationship between prices that farmers
receive for their products and prices they paid for inputs during a benchmark period of 1910-
1914.20 Permanent law requires USDA to set support prices that would guarantee producers
between 50% and 90% of the parity price depending on the commodity (Table 1).21
Permanent law uses nonrecourse loans to support wheat, rice, cotton, corn, and other feed grains.
This is similar to the commodity loan program authorized in the 2018 farm bill.22 At harvest, a
farmer can receive a loan for their production valued at the loan rate (price) by pledging the crop
as collateral. If market prices remain below the loan rate during the nine-month duration of the as collateral. If market prices remain below the loan rate during the nine-month duration of the
loan, the producer may forfeit the collateral of a nonrecourse loan, surrender the crop to the loan, the producer may forfeit the collateral of a nonrecourse loan, surrender the crop to the
government, and keep the principal amount. Historically, grain forfeitures were expensive and government, and keep the principal amount. Historically, grain forfeitures were expensive and
challenging for USDA to manage. To avoid forfeiture problems from the government taking challenging for USDA to manage. To avoid forfeiture problems from the government taking
possession of large quantities of grain, USDA has permanent authority allowing farmers to repay possession of large quantities of grain, USDA has permanent authority allowing farmers to repay
nonrecourse loans for less than the principal (loan rate), plus interest, similarly as with marketing nonrecourse loans for less than the principal (loan rate), plus interest, similarly as with marketing
loans in the modern commodity program.loans in the modern commodity program.2325 The approach of encouraging producers to market The approach of encouraging producers to market
their commodities to repay the loans yet receive a supported price has reduced government their commodities to repay the loans yet receive a supported price has reduced government
storage costs and improved the market for processors. storage costs and improved the market for processors.
Production controls also exist for wheat and cotton. Permanent law would require USDA to Production controls also exist for wheat and cotton. Permanent law would require USDA to
announce acreage allotments and to hold producer referenda on implementing marketing quotas. announce acreage allotments and to hold producer referenda on implementing marketing quotas.
This can result in farmers not planting land in order to qualify for support payments. A two-thirds This can result in farmers not planting land in order to qualify for support payments. A two-thirds
affirmative vote for marketing quotas results in the highest levels of support and mandatory affirmative vote for marketing quotas results in the highest levels of support and mandatory
acreage and quantity restrictions. acreage and quantity restrictions.

20 Parity prices are computed pursuant to provisions in Title III, §301(a), of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as
amended by the Agricultural Acts of 1948, 1949, and 1956. Permanent law requires USDA to regularly estimate and
publish parity prices (see USDA-NASS, Agricultural Prices, monthly).
21 7 U.S.C. §1441; 7 U.S.C. §1444; 7 U.S.C. §1444b; 7 U.S.C. §1445; 7 U.S.C. §1446.
22 CRS In Focus IF12140, Farm Bill Primer: MAL and LDP Farm Support Programs, by Stephanie Rosch.
23 The repayment provision was added to permanent law in §1009 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. §1308a).
Congressional Research Service

6

---

link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 Expiration of the Farm Bill

Table 1. Parity Prices and Permanent Law Support Prices
Permanent Law Provisions
2018
Permanent Law
Farm Bill
Farm Prices

Support Price
Support
Received
Commoditya
Description
Parity Price (minimum of range)
Priceb
(May Table 1. Parity Prices and Permanent Law Support Prices Permanent Law Provisions Farm Market Permanent Law 2018 Prices Parity Price Support Price Farm Bill Received (December (minimum of Support (December Commoditya Description 2023) statutory range) Priceb 2023)
All Milk, Cwt. All Milk, Cwt.
Purchase milk and butterfat products at Purchase milk and butterfat products at
$67. $67.6000 75% of parity = $50. 75% of parity = $50.7025 Margin- Margin-basedc
$19.30basedc $20.60
75%-90% of parity. 75%-90% of parity.
Wheat, Bu. Wheat, Bu.
Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases. Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases.
$20. $20.4020 75% of parity = $15. 75% of parity = $15.3015
$3.38 $3.38
$ $8.07
6.79 Acreage Acreage allotmentsallotments.d If marketing quotas If marketing quotas
are approved, loan rate = 65%-90% of are approved, loan rate = 65%-90% of
parityparity.e If quotas are not approved, loan If quotas are not approved, loan
rate = 50% parity. If quotas are not rate = 50% parity. If quotas are not
announced, loan = 75%-90% parity. announced, loan = 75%-90% parity.
Upland cotton, Lb. Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases. Upland cotton, Lb. Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases.
$2. $2.48 46 65% of parity = $1.65% of parity = $1.6160
$0.52 $0.52
$0. $0.853
732 Acreage allotments. If quotas are Acreage allotments. If quotas are
approved, loan rate = 65%-90% of parity. approved, loan rate = 65%-90% of parity.
If quotas are not approved, loan rate = If quotas are not approved, loan rate =
50% parity. If quotas are not announced, 50% parity. If quotas are not announced,
loan rate = 65%-90% of parity. loan rate = 65%-90% of parity.
Rice, Cwt. Rice, Cwt.
Permanent authority repealed by 1981 Permanent authority repealed by 1981
$48. $48.5000 50% of parity = $24. 50% of parity = $24.2500
$7.00 $7.00
$ $18.9017.50
farm farm bil bill but restored by 1996 farm but restored by 1996 farm bil bill. .
Loan rate = 50%-90% of parity. Loan rate = 50%-90% of parity.
Corn, Bu. Corn, Bu.
Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases. Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases.
$15. $15.3010 50% of parity = $7. 50% of parity = $7.6555
$2.20 $2.20
$ $6.544.80
Acreage allotments are not authorized. Acreage allotments are not authorized.
Loan rate = 50%-90% of parity. Loan rate = 50%-90% of parity.
Sorghum, Sorghum, BuCwt. .
Support for sorghum, barley, oats, and Support for sorghum, barley, oats, and
$ $27.0026.70 50% of parity = $13. 50% of parity = $13.50
$2.20
$11.6035 $3.93f $8.70
rye is set based on the feeding value of rye is set based on the feeding value of
Barley, Bu. Barley, Bu.
each in relation to corn. each in relation to corn.
$18. $18.4020 50% of parity = $9. 50% of parity = $9.2010
$2.50 $2.50
$ $7.566.68
Oats, Bu. Oats, Bu.
$11. $11.3020 50% of parity = $5. 50% of parity = $5.6560
$2.00 $2.00
$ $4.313.98
Rye, Bu. Rye, Bu.
$22. $22.5010
50% of parity = 11. 50% of parity = 11.2505
none none
$ $6.75f7.18g
Honey, Lb. Honey, Lb.
Purchases of honey at 60%-90% of parity. Purchases of honey at 60%-90% of parity.
$7. $7.4481 60% of parity = $4. 60% of parity = $4.4669
$0.69 $0.69
$2.9 $2.98g7h 25 The repayment provision was added to permanent law in §1009 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. §1308a). Congressional Research Service 7 link to page 10 link to page 12 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill
Source: CRS, using USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), CRS, using USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Prices, , June 30, 2023; the
January 31, 2024; marketing loan rates in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334); and policy Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334); and policy infor implementing permanent law from USDA, USDA, The Effects of Failure to Enact a New
Farm Bill: Permanent Law Support for Commodities and Authorization Lapse of Other USDA Programs, 2012, , 2012, available at at
https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/p/e/r/m/o/Permanent_Law_Authorization_memo.pdf. https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/p/e/r/m/o/Permanent_Law_Authorization_memo.pdf.
Notes: Cwt. = hundredweight; Bu. = bushel; and Lb. = pound. Cwt. = hundredweight; Bu. = bushel; and Lb. = pound.
a. Permanent law mandates support for the commodities listed in the table. Parity support is not provided for a. Permanent law mandates support for the commodities listed in the table. Parity support is not provided for
oilseeds or sugar. Wool, mohair, and peanuts were formerly included, but their supports were repealed. oilseeds or sugar. Wool, mohair, and peanuts were formerly included, but their supports were repealed.
b. The 2018 farm b. The 2018 farm bil bill support prices listed in this table are the marketing loan rates that are coupled to support prices listed in this table are the marketing loan rates that are coupled to
production and are most similar to policy under permanent law. Reference prices for PLC are decoupled production and are most similar to policy under permanent law. Reference prices for PLC are decoupled
from production. Minimum support prices under permanent law also exceed PLC reference prices for all from production. Minimum support prices under permanent law also exceed PLC reference prices for all
commodities. commodities.
c. The 2018 farm c. The 2018 farm bil bill does not specify a support price for milk. The DMC program makes payments if the does not specify a support price for milk. The DMC program makes payments if the
margin of the milk market price minus feed costs falls below certain guaranteed levels. See CRS In Focus margin of the milk market price minus feed costs falls below certain guaranteed levels. See CRS In Focus
IF12202, IF12202, Farm Bill Primer: Support for the Dairy Industry, by Joel L. Greene. , by Joel L. Greene.
d. An d. An acreage allotment is a share of the national acreage needed to produce sufficient supplies of a particular is a share of the national acreage needed to produce sufficient supplies of a particular
crop and is based on a farm’s previous production. crop and is based on a farm’s previous production.
e. Marketing quotas may limit farm sales of certain commodities and must be approved by a two-thirds e. Marketing quotas may limit farm sales of certain commodities and must be approved by a two-thirds
referendum of eligible producers. Quotas were intended to ensure a normal supply of the commodity. referendum of eligible producers. Quotas were intended to ensure a normal supply of the commodity.
Producers who market in excess of their quotas pay penalties on the excess and are ineligible for Producers who market in excess of their quotas pay penalties on the excess and are ineligible for
government price-support loans. government price-support loans.
Congressional Research Service

7

---

link to page 11 link to page 10 link to page 10
Expiration of the Farm Bill

f.
f. The 2018 farm bill marketing loan rate for sorghum is $2.20/bu. For comparison to the parity price in hundredweight, the marketing loan rate is $3.93/cwt. ($2.20*100/56). g. The most recent market price published for rye is the The most recent market price published for rye is the 20212022 marketing year ( marketing year (Agricultural Prices, August , August 20222023). ).
gh. The market price for honey is implied from the “price as a percent of parity” published in . The market price for honey is implied from the “price as a percent of parity” published in Agricultural Prices. .
Government Costs Under Permanent Law A likely consequence of implementing permanent law would be greater federal outlays for agricultural commodity support than under the 2018 farm bill. Support levels under permanent law, even at the lower end of the range directed in statute, exceed both market prices and 2018 farm bill marketing loan prices for all the supported commodities at the end of 2023 (Table 1). Figure 1 shows the gap between permanent law support prices and market prices or 2018 farm bill marketing loan rates for five of the major supported commodities. Congressional Research Service 8 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill Figure 1. Permanent Law Relative to Current Market Prices and the 2018 Farm Bill

Source: CRS using USDA-NASS, CRS using USDA-NASS, Agricultural Prices, , June 30, 2023January 31, 2024; and P.L. 115-334. ; and P.L. 115-334.
Note: The The 2018 farm bil graph shows the gap between permanent law support prices and market prices or 2018 farm bill marketing loan rates. The 2018 farm bill support prices shown in this figure are the marketing loan rates (prices) that are support prices shown in this figure are the marketing loan rates (prices) that are
coupled to production most similar to the policy under permanent law. coupled to production most similar to the policy under permanent law.
Government Costs Under Permanent Law
A likely consequence of permanent law is greater federal outlays for agricultural commodity
support than under the 2018 farm bill. Support levels at the lower end of the range provided in
permanent law exceed market prices for all the supported commodities in 2023 (Figure 1, Table
1)The 2018 farm bill does not specify a support price for milk; support is based on the margin of the milk market price minus feed costs. Columns are sorted by the percent that November 2023 market prices are of the permanent law support prices. .
Official government estimates of the cost of reverting to permanent law have been rare. In 1979, Official government estimates of the cost of reverting to permanent law have been rare. In 1979,
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the effect on dairy policy.the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the effect on dairy policy.2426 In 1985, USDA In 1985, USDA
analyzed more comprehensively the possible economic consequences of permanent law.analyzed more comprehensively the possible economic consequences of permanent law.2527 USDA USDA
found that significant market intervention and increased government expenditures could occur. found that significant market intervention and increased government expenditures could occur.
USDA estimated that permanent law for dairy could cost $6.5 billion per year in 1990.USDA estimated that permanent law for dairy could cost $6.5 billion per year in 1990.26
28 In 2013, the White House indicated that permanent law for dairy could cost $12 billion per year In 2013, the White House indicated that permanent law for dairy could cost $12 billion per year
and result in milk prices doubling.and result in milk prices doubling.2729 This statement is consistent with the methodology and This statement is consistent with the methodology and
economic relationships in the 1985 study by applying 2013 prices and production levels. Estimated outlays would be between $10 billion and $12.5 billion per year for dairy.30 26
24 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Consequences of Dairy Price Support Policy, March 1979, at https://www.cbo., March 1979, at https://www.cbo.
gov/sites/default/files/96th-congress-1979-1980/reports/79doc637.pdf. gov/sites/default/files/96th-congress-1979-1980/reports/79doc637.pdf.
2527 USDA ERS, USDA ERS, Possible Economic Consequences of Reverting to Permanent Legislation or Eliminating Price and
Income Supports, AER-526 (1985), pp. 65-67 and pp. 21-35. AER-526 (1985), pp. 65-67 and pp. 21-35.
2628 The 1985 ERS report estimated that USDA would need to remove (that is, purchase) 13%-17% of milk production to The 1985 ERS report estimated that USDA would need to remove (that is, purchase) 13%-17% of milk production to
raise market prices to support levels that would be mandated under permanent law (p. 33). The market effect of that raise market prices to support levels that would be mandated under permanent law (p. 33). The market effect of that
demand based on price elasticity would have nearly doubled market prices from about $13/hundredweight (cwt.) in demand based on price elasticity would have nearly doubled market prices from about $13/hundredweight (cwt.) in
1985 to a parity-based support price of $24/cwt. in 1990. The report estimated that removing 270 million cwt. (17.5% 1985 to a parity-based support price of $24/cwt. in 1990. The report estimated that removing 270 million cwt. (17.5%
of 154 billion pounds of milk produced) would cost about $6.5 billion per year (p. 34). of 154 billion pounds of milk produced) would cost about $6.5 billion per year (p. 34).
2729 White House, White House, The Economic Importance of Passing a Comprehensive Food, Farm, and Jobs Bill, November 2013, , November 2013,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

8

---

Expiration of the Farm Bill

economic relationships in the 1985 study by applying 2013 prices and production levels.
Estimated outlays would be between $10 billion and $12.5 billion per year for dairy.28
For 2023pp. 24, 27, at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/farm_bill_report_211.pdf. See also Ron Nixon, “With Farm Bill Stalled, Consumers May Face Soaring Milk Prices,” New York Times, December 20, 2012, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/us/milk-prices-could-double-as-farm-bill-stalls.html. 30 Using the same economic responsiveness as in the 1985 USDA study (for the ratio of milk to remove from the market to double prices, a midpoint of 15%), removing 300 million cwt. (15% of 200 billion pounds of milk produced in 2013) would cost over $11 billion per year at a parity-based dairy support price of $37/cwt. Congressional Research Service 9 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill For 2024, applying the same methodology suggests a possible, albeit unofficial, cost estimate of , applying the same methodology suggests a possible, albeit unofficial, cost estimate of
between $15 billion and $19 billion per year to support dairy at permanent law support prices.between $15 billion and $19 billion per year to support dairy at permanent law support prices.2931
By comparison, the CBO projection for dairy outlays under the 2018 farm bill in By comparison, the CBO projection for dairy outlays under the 2018 farm bill in FY2023 is $521FY2024 is $428
million.million.3032 These estimates for a cost These estimates for a cost ofto implement permanent law may not be precise due to the use of permanent law may not be precise due to the use of
economic parameters (price elasticities) from the 1985 study. However, the economic parameters (price elasticities) from the 1985 study. However, the magnitude of the potential difference potential difference
between continuing 2018 farm bill policy and between continuing 2018 farm bill policy and implementing permanent permanent law law (more than one order of magnitude)
may be sufficient to illustrate how government costs may increasemay be sufficient to illustrate how government costs may increase—billions of dollars for one particular commodity. .
Implementing Permanent Law
If the suspension of permanent law expires, USDA would be required to begin implementing the If the suspension of permanent law expires, USDA would be required to begin implementing the
permanent law statutes. USDA outlined how it would implement permanent law when the farm permanent law statutes. USDA outlined how it would implement permanent law when the farm
bill faced expiration in 2012.bill faced expiration in 2012.3133 To actually implement the law, however, USDA might need time To actually implement the law, however, USDA might need time
to write and publish new regulations. The market effects from implementing permanent law may to write and publish new regulations. The market effects from implementing permanent law may
be gradual and take effect over weeks or months.be gradual and take effect over weeks or months.3234 The high support prices under permanent law could result in the government outbidding commercial markets for a sizeable share of the supported commodities, especially milk. This level of government intervention in the market could be expensive to the government, expensive for consumers, and disruptive to the marketplace. While farmers may be paid more at expense to the government, the market disruption may jeopardize market supply-and-demand relationships for agricultural commodities.
Crop Insurance and Disaster Programs
The federal crop insurance program protects producers against losses in crop revenue or yield The federal crop insurance program protects producers against losses in crop revenue or yield
through federally subsidized policies that are purchased by producers. The program is through federally subsidized policies that are purchased by producers. The program is
permanently authorized and funded by the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. permanently authorized and funded by the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C.
§1501 et seq.). The program does not expire with the 2018 farm bill.§1501 et seq.). The program does not expire with the 2018 farm bill.3335
Producers who grow crops that are ineligible for crop insurance may be eligible for risk coverage Producers who grow crops that are ineligible for crop insurance may be eligible for risk coverage
through USDA’s Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), which has permanent through USDA’s Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), which has permanent
authority under Section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 authority under Section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. §7333).U.S.C. §7333).3436
Previous farm bills also authorized four agricultural disaster programs for livestock and fruit Previous farm bills also authorized four agricultural disaster programs for livestock and fruit
trees—Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP); Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP); trees—Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP); Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP);
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP); and Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP); and

pp. 24, 27, at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/farm_bill_report_211.pdf. See also New
York Times, “With Farm Bill Stalled, Consumers May Face Soaring Milk Prices,” December 20, 2012, at http://www.
nytimes.com/2012/12/21/us/milk-prices-could-double-as-farm-bill-stalls.html.
28 Using the same economic responsiveness as in the 1985 USDA study (for the ratio of milk to remove from the
market to double prices, a midpoint of 15%), removing 300 million cwt. (15% of 200 billion pounds of milk produced
in 2013) would cost over $11 billion per year at a parity-based dairy support price of $37/cwt.
2931 Using the same economic responsiveness as in the 1985 USDA study for the ratio of milk to remove from the market Using the same economic responsiveness as in the 1985 USDA study for the ratio of milk to remove from the market
to double prices, removing 15% of 225 billion pounds of milk produced in 2022 (NASS, to double prices, removing 15% of 225 billion pounds of milk produced in 2022 (NASS, Milk Production, June 21, , June 21,
2023), or 337 million cwt., may cost 2023), or 337 million cwt., may cost overabout $17 billion per year at a parity-based dairy support price of $50. $17 billion per year at a parity-based dairy support price of $50.7025/cwt. /cwt.
3032 CBO, CBO, Baseline Projections for USDA Mandatory Farm Programs, , May 2023February 2024, at https://www.cbo.gov/data/baseline-, at https://www.cbo.gov/data/baseline-
projections-selected-programs#25. projections-selected-programs#25.
3133 USDA, USDA, The Effects of Failure to Enact a New Farm Bill: Permanent Law Support for Commodities and
Authorization Lapse of Other USDA Programs, September 2012, at https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/, September 2012, at https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/
p/e/r/m/o/Permanent_Law_Authorization_memo.pdf. p/e/r/m/o/Permanent_Law_Authorization_memo.pdf.
3234 Andrew M. Novakovic, “Is Reverting to the 1949 Agricultural Act Really a Possibility for Dairy Price Supports?,” Andrew M. Novakovic, “Is Reverting to the 1949 Agricultural Act Really a Possibility for Dairy Price Supports?,”
December 2013, available at https://www.thebullvine.com/ing-1949-agricultural-act-possibility-dairy-price-supports. December 2013, available at https://www.thebullvine.com/ing-1949-agricultural-act-possibility-dairy-price-supports.
3335 CRS In Focus IF12201, CRS In Focus IF12201, Farm Bill Primer: Federal Crop Insurance Program, by Stephanie Rosch. , by Stephanie Rosch.
3436 CRS In Focus IF12101, CRS In Focus IF12101, Farm Bill Primer: Disaster Assistance, by Megan Stubbs. , by Megan Stubbs.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

910

---

link to page link to page 1415 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Tree Assistance Program (TAP). These four programs are permanently authorized (7 U.S.C. Tree Assistance Program (TAP). These four programs are permanently authorized (7 U.S.C.
§9081).§9081).3537
Conservation Programs
USDA administers close to 20 agricultural conservation programs that are directly or indirectly USDA administers close to 20 agricultural conservation programs that are directly or indirectly
available to assist producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural available to assist producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural
lands.lands.3638 These programs address natural resource concerns on private agricultural and forested These programs address natural resource concerns on private agricultural and forested
lands through technical and financial assistance. Many conservation programs have different lands through technical and financial assistance. Many conservation programs have different
expiration dates for program authority and funding authority. Therefore, they may be affected expiration dates for program authority and funding authority. Therefore, they may be affected
differently by expiration differently by expiration or extension of the 2018 farm billof the 2018 farm bill.37, as extended.39
For many conservation programs, program authority is permanent. Therefore, the funding For many conservation programs, program authority is permanent. Therefore, the funding
authority is of interest since, if expired, the lack of funding authority could affect the program’s authority is of interest since, if expired, the lack of funding authority could affect the program’s
operation. Discretionary spending is authorized through the farm bill for some conservation operation. Discretionary spending is authorized through the farm bill for some conservation
programs. However, since appropriations law allows the continued operation of a program where programs. However, since appropriations law allows the continued operation of a program where
an appropriation has occurred, programs that rely on mandatory funding are most impacted when an appropriation has occurred, programs that rely on mandatory funding are most impacted when
funding authority expires.funding authority expires.3840 Without reauthorization or an extension, these mandatorily funded Without reauthorization or an extension, these mandatorily funded
programs would cease to operate or undertake new activities following the expiration of funding programs would cease to operate or undertake new activities following the expiration of funding
authority. authority.
Most farm-bill-authorized conservation programs have had program and funding authority that Most farm-bill-authorized conservation programs have had program and funding authority that
runs for the duration of a farm bill, typically four to six yearsruns for the duration of a farm bill, typically four to six years in duration.39.41 Many of the programs Many of the programs
authorized in the 2018 farm bill were authorized in the 2018 farm bill were originally authorized through FY2023authorized through FY2023, and as extended through FY2024. However, P.L. 117-169, . However, P.L. 117-169,
commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), extended some conservation programs commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), extended some conservation programs
and their funding authority for the IRA’s 10-year budget window—through FY2031. This has and their funding authority for the IRA’s 10-year budget window—through FY2031. This has
resulted in some farm bill conservation programs expiring at the end of resulted in some farm bill conservation programs expiring at the end of FY2023FY2024 and others at the and others at the
end of end of FY2031FY2031. Table 2 includes the expiration date of most farm bill conservation programs by includes the expiration date of most farm bill conservation programs by
type of funding authority—mandatory or discretionary. type of funding authority—mandatory or discretionary.

3537 CRS In Focus IF12101, CRS In Focus IF12101, Farm Bill Primer: Disaster Assistance, by Megan Stubbs. , by Megan Stubbs.
3638 CRS Report R40763, CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs, by Megan Stubbs. , by Megan Stubbs.
3739 CRS Report R47478, CRS Report R47478, Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill, by Megan Stubbs. , by Megan Stubbs.
3840 CRS Report R42388, CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, coordinated by James V. Saturno. , coordinated by James V. Saturno.
3941 CRS Report R45210, CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-20182023, by Jim Monke. , by Jim Monke.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1011

---

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Table 2. Conservation Program Funding Authority Expiration Dates
Expiration of Funding
Authority
s
d
3 dn 024 031 Fu onti , 2 2 0 , 0 me ira 3 3 Ti t. t. p p e- Exp Program Se Se On No
n
2
1
u
n
0
30
F
oi
2,
2
at
0
,0
me
ri
3
p
.
3
Ti
x
t
.t
p
p
e-
n
E
o
Program
e
e
S
S
O
N
Programs Authorized to Receive Mandatory Funding
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)

X X


Agricultural Management Assistance Agricultural Management Assistance



X X
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
X X



CRP – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CRP – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
X X



CRP – CLEAR30 CRP – CLEAR30
X X



CRP – Farmable Wetlands CRP – Farmable Wetlands
X X



CRP – Grasslands CRP – Grasslands
X X



CRP – Soil Health and Income Protection Program (SHIPP) CRP – Soil Health and Income Protection Program (SHIPP)
X X



Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

X X


CSP – Grassland Conservation Incentive CSP – Grassland Conservation Incentive
X X



Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

X X


EQIP – Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) EQIP – Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)

X X


EQIP, CIG – On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials EQIP, CIG – On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials

X X


Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program


X X

Grassroots Source Water Protection Program Grassroots Source Water Protection Program


X X

Regional Conservation Partnership Program Regional Conservation Partnership Program

X X


Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program


X X

Programs Authorized to Receive Discretionary Funding
Emergency Conservation Program Emergency Conservation Program



X X
Emergency Forest Restoration Program Emergency Forest Restoration Program



X X
Emergency Watershed Protection program Emergency Watershed Protection program



X X
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program Grassroots Source Water Protection Program
X X



Healthy Forest Restoration Program Healthy Forest Restoration Program
X X



Water Bank Program Water Bank Program



X X
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations



X X
Watershed Rehabilitation Program Watershed Rehabilitation Program
X X



Wetlands Mitigation Banking Wetlands Mitigation Banking
X X



Source: CRS using various statutory authorities. CRS using various statutory authorities.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1112

---

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Notes: Some mandatory farm Some mandatory farm bil bill conservation programs were authorized to receive specific amounts of one-conservation programs were authorized to receive specific amounts of one-
time mandatory funding. In some cases, no fiscal year is specified or only one fiscal year is identified. Funds are to time mandatory funding. In some cases, no fiscal year is specified or only one fiscal year is identified. Funds are to
remain available until expended. These funds are referred to in the table as “One-Time Funds.” remain available until expended. These funds are referred to in the table as “One-Time Funds.”
The IRA extended only some policy provisions within the funded conservation programs. The IRA extended only some policy provisions within the funded conservation programs.
Therefore, some programs that are extended through FY2031 contain policy provisions that Therefore, some programs that are extended through FY2031 contain policy provisions that
expire at the end of expire at the end of FY2023FY2024. Without reauthorization or extension, policy provisions expiring in . Without reauthorization or extension, policy provisions expiring in
FY2023FY2024 would no longer apply to funds provided for the overall program that continues. For would no longer apply to funds provided for the overall program that continues. For
example, under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the following policy example, under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the following policy
provisions were either extended through FY2031 or will expire at the end provisions were either extended through FY2031 or will expire at the end FY2023FY2024: :
Expires in FY2023FY2024
• • Livestock funding. Requires 50% of funding to be used for payments related to Requires 50% of funding to be used for payments related to
livestock practices. livestock practices.
• • Payment limits. Limits total EQIP payments to $450,000 per person or legal Limits total EQIP payments to $450,000 per person or legal
entity for the duration of the 2018 farm bill. entity for the duration of the 2018 farm bill.
• • Organic payment limits. Limits total EQIP payments related to organic Limits total EQIP payments related to organic
production to $140,000 per person or legal entity for the duration of the 2018 production to $140,000 per person or legal entity for the duration of the 2018
farm bill. farm bill.
Extended to FY2031
• • Wildlife habitat funding. Requires 10% of funding to be used for payments Requires 10% of funding to be used for payments
related to wildlife habitat. related to wildlife habitat.
• • Air quality funding. Requires $37.5 million annually to be used for payments Requires $37.5 million annually to be used for payments
for air quality concern practices. for air quality concern practices.
• • On-farm conservation innovation trials. Requires $25 million annually to be Requires $25 million annually to be
used to carry out on-farm conservation innovation trials. used to carry out on-farm conservation innovation trials.
SNAP and the Other Nutrition Programs
As discussed earlier, expiration and extension of SNAP (and most of the related nutrition As discussed earlier, expiration and extension of SNAP (and most of the related nutrition
programs in the farm bill) particularly hinge on whether funding is provided in an explicit programs in the farm bill) particularly hinge on whether funding is provided in an explicit
extension or in an appropriations act, including a continuing extension or in an appropriations act, including a continuing appropriations act (commonly
referred to as a continuing resolution or CR)resolution. In the case of the 2018 farm bill’s nutrition title, . In the case of the 2018 farm bill’s nutrition title,
as extended, certain provisions of law include a September 30, certain provisions of law include a September 30, 2023, 2024, expiration date. These are primarily expiration date. These are primarily
authorizations of appropriations, but authorizations of appropriations, but someseveral are program are program authorizationsauthorizations, policies, or funds. The impact on operations . The impact on operations
is based on factors related to programs’ authorizing statutes, appropriations actions, and the terms is based on factors related to programs’ authorizing statutes, appropriations actions, and the terms
of a farm bill extension (if applicable).of a farm bill extension (if applicable).4042
The 2018 farm bill reauthorized a number of domestic food assistance programs, including SNAP The 2018 farm bill reauthorized a number of domestic food assistance programs, including SNAP
(formerly food stamps), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity (formerly food stamps), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR), the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP), Community Food Projects, (FDPIR), the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP), Community Food Projects,

4042 For example, the extension in P.L. 112-240 for the most part continued the current law policies for the Supplemental For example, the extension in P.L. 112-240 for the most part continued the current law policies for the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the other programs in the SNAP account that had existed on or before Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the other programs in the SNAP account that had existed on or before
September 30, 2012. The exception was that the farm bill extension contained a change to the mandatory funding of the September 30, 2012. The exception was that the farm bill extension contained a change to the mandatory funding of the
SNAP-related Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program, reducing the program’s FY2013 funding by SNAP-related Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program, reducing the program’s FY2013 funding by
$110 million. Also, the extension continued the FY2012 SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) mandatory funding, $110 million. Also, the extension continued the FY2012 SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) mandatory funding,
which was reduced from $90 million to $79 million. Such funding has been used in previous appropriations acts to which was reduced from $90 million to $79 million. Such funding has been used in previous appropriations acts to
offset additional discretionary appropriations (i.e., changes in mandatory program spending, or so-called CHIMPS). offset additional discretionary appropriations (i.e., changes in mandatory program spending, or so-called CHIMPS).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1213

---

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

and nutrition assistance block grants for certain U.S. territories. and nutrition assistance block grants for certain U.S. territories.4143 The law also authorized and The law also authorized and
provided funding for the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), which renamed provided funding for the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), which renamed
and expanded the 2014 farm bill’s Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grants. Regarding and expanded the 2014 farm bill’s Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grants. Regarding
expiration or extension, these programs fall into expiration or extension, these programs fall into one of three categories: three categories:
1. programs that are permanently authorized and funded, 1. programs that are permanently authorized and funded,
2. programs that can be continued by the enactment of further funding, or 2. programs that can be continued by the enactment of further funding, or
3. programs or authorities that would expire unless extended by statute or explicit 3. programs or authorities that would expire unless extended by statute or explicit
appropriations for such purposes. appropriations for such purposes.
These categories are elaborated upon below. The majority of farm bill nutrition programs (and the These categories are elaborated upon below. The majority of farm bill nutrition programs (and the
majority of nutrition spending) fall into the second category. majority of nutrition spending) fall into the second category.
Programs Permanently Authorized and Funded
The 2008 farm bill included an expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP, The 2008 farm bill included an expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP,
known as the “snack” program) and provided permanent funding through Section 32.known as the “snack” program) and provided permanent funding through Section 32.4244 (The 2014 (The 2014
bill added a time-limited pilot project, and the 2018 bill did not amend the program.bill added a time-limited pilot project, and the 2018 bill did not amend the program.4345) The ) The
program’s base operations were not impacted by periods of expiration after the 2008 farm bill and program’s base operations were not impacted by periods of expiration after the 2008 farm bill and
would not be affected by an expiration after would not be affected by an expiration after the current extension, September 30, September 30, 20232024. .
The 2018 farm bill authorized the GusNIP grant program and provided mandatory funding via the The 2018 farm bill authorized the GusNIP grant program and provided mandatory funding via the
Commodity Credit Corporation from FY2018 through FY2023 and “each year thereafter.”Commodity Credit Corporation from FY2018 through FY2023 and “each year thereafter.”4446
Under current law, this provides funding and continues operations for the grant program beyond Under current law, this provides funding and continues operations for the grant program beyond
FY2023FY2024. .
Programs Continued by the Enactment of Further Funding
Appropriations can allow a program to continue even if the underlying authorization or Appropriations can allow a program to continue even if the underlying authorization or
authorization of appropriations has not been extended. Because many of the nutrition programs authorization of appropriations has not been extended. Because many of the nutrition programs
authorize mandatory funding that is then provided via appropriations—in particular SNAP and authorize mandatory funding that is then provided via appropriations—in particular SNAP and
other programs funded by SNAP’s appropriations account—appropriated funds for the SNAP other programs funded by SNAP’s appropriations account—appropriated funds for the SNAP
account would allow continued operations for most of the programs in the Food and Nutrition Act account would allow continued operations for most of the programs in the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (one of the nutrition program statutes amended by the 2018 farm bill). of 2008 (one of the nutrition program statutes amended by the 2018 farm bill).

4143 Note that the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food Note that the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Special Milk Program, and Special Supplemental Program Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Special Milk Program, and Special Supplemental Program
for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs are generally not reauthorized in a farm bill. These programs are for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs are generally not reauthorized in a farm bill. These programs are
authorized by the Russell National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act statutes; these statutes were most authorized by the Russell National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act statutes; these statutes were most
recently reauthorized by P.L. 111-296 (Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010). See CRS In Focus IF10266, recently reauthorized by P.L. 111-296 (Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010). See CRS In Focus IF10266, Child
Nutrition Reauthorization (CNR): An Overview, by Kara Clifford Billings and Randy Alison Aussenberg. , by Kara Clifford Billings and Randy Alison Aussenberg.
4244 Section 32 (of the act of August 24, 1935; 7 U.S.C. §612c) refers to a permanent appropriation of 30% of customs Section 32 (of the act of August 24, 1935; 7 U.S.C. §612c) refers to a permanent appropriation of 30% of customs
receipts. Section 32 receives more than $20 billion annually, though most of it supports the child nutrition programs. receipts. Section 32 receives more than $20 billion annually, though most of it supports the child nutrition programs.
About $1.5 billion is available annually to support mostly commodities typically not covered by price support programs About $1.5 billion is available annually to support mostly commodities typically not covered by price support programs
(such as meats, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and fish). USDA often donates these surplus commodities to various (such as meats, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and fish). USDA often donates these surplus commodities to various
nutrition assistance programs. See CRS In Focus IF12193, nutrition assistance programs. See CRS In Focus IF12193, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Account, ,
by Jim Monke. by Jim Monke.
4345 The 2014 farm bill included authority and funding for a one-time pilot project for canned, frozen, or dried fruits and The 2014 farm bill included authority and funding for a one-time pilot project for canned, frozen, or dried fruits and
vegetables. The pilot and evaluation have been completed. See Mathematica Policy Research for USDA Food and vegetables. The pilot and evaluation have been completed. See Mathematica Policy Research for USDA Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS), Nutrition Service (FNS), Evaluation of the Pilot Project for Canned, Frozen, or Dried Fruits and Vegetables in the
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP-CFD), January 2017, at https://www.fns.usda.gov/evaluation-elementary-, January 2017, at https://www.fns.usda.gov/evaluation-elementary-
schools-pilot-project-canned-frozen-or-dried-fruits-and-vegetables-fresh. schools-pilot-project-canned-frozen-or-dried-fruits-and-vegetables-fresh.
4446 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (as amended by P.L. 115-334), §4405, codified at 7 U.S.C. §7517. Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (as amended by P.L. 115-334), §4405, codified at 7 U.S.C. §7517.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1314

---

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

After September 30, After September 30, 20232024, the following farm bill programs could continue to operate if funding , the following farm bill programs could continue to operate if funding
for the SNAP account were provided in appropriations acts, including continuing appropriations: for the SNAP account were provided in appropriations acts, including continuing appropriations:
• SNAP and related grant programs (such as the SNAP Employment & Training • SNAP and related grant programs (such as the SNAP Employment & Training
Program); Program);
• purchase and distribution of TEFAP commodities (administrative funds could • purchase and distribution of TEFAP commodities (administrative funds could
continue with appropriations in the Commodity Assistance Program account); continue with appropriations in the Commodity Assistance Program account);
• FDPIR; • FDPIR;
• nutrition assistance funding for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and • nutrition assistance funding for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands; and Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands; and
• Community Food Projects. • Community Food Projects.
For CSFP, in the Commodity Assistance Program account, the authority to make commodity For CSFP, in the Commodity Assistance Program account, the authority to make commodity
purchases and fund administrative costs can continue with funding. purchases and fund administrative costs can continue with funding.
GusNIP includes an authority for discretionary appropriations on top of the mandatory funding GusNIP includes an authority for discretionary appropriations on top of the mandatory funding
provided. Although the discretionary authorization of appropriations provided. Although the discretionary authorization of appropriations currently appears to end in appears to end in FY2023,
FY2024, applying principles discussed earlier, discretionary appropriations could still be provided beyond applying principles discussed earlier, discretionary appropriations could still be provided beyond
that date. that date.
During the periods of expiration before enactment of the 2014 farm bill, for example, when During the periods of expiration before enactment of the 2014 farm bill, for example, when
funding was provided, these programs continued to operate.funding was provided, these programs continued to operate.4547 In addition, during a partial In addition, during a partial
government shutdown in October 2013, there was a period when some Commodity Assistance government shutdown in October 2013, there was a period when some Commodity Assistance
Program account operations were affected, but SNAP continued (discussed in the Program account operations were affected, but SNAP continued (discussed in the text box, ,
below). below).
SNAP and the October 2013 Government Shutdown
The 2013 government shutdown sheds light on how SNAP is affected without certain congressional action.
However, USDA provided SNAP benefits during that period through a legal authority that has since expired.
At the start of FY2014 (i.e., October 2013), there was a period when the farm bil extension (P.L. 112-240) had
expired, and Congress had not provided FY2014 appropriations.46 SNAP operations continued during this lapse.
This continuity of operations was possible due to USDA’s reliance on authority and funds provided in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), cited in the Food and Nutrition Service’s
contingency plan.47 Regular operations resumed once appropriations were provided in a continuing resolution
(P.L. 113-46, enacted October 17, 2013). This ARRA authority ended after October 31, 2013.48
Programs That Would Require Extension or Specific
Appropriations Language
The SFMNP’s authorizing law (Programs That Would Require Extension or Specific Appropriations Language Examples of two grant programs that the 2018 farm bill provided with annual funding through FY2023 are the Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) and TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Project Grants. Both of these programs were authorized by and received mandatory funding from the farm bill through and including FY2023, and P.L. 118-22 extended their funding through FY2024. Following their September 30, 2024, expiration, these grants would not be expected to receive FY2025 funding unless the funding is extended or specifically provided from other sources. The SFMNP’s authorizing law (first enacted by the 2002 farm bill and most recently amended by the 2018 farm bill) contains both the most recently amended by the 2018 farm bill) contains both the
program’s authority and mandatory funding (program’s authority and mandatory funding (a transferan annual transfer of $20.6 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation) from the Commodity Credit Corporation)
through the end of through the end of FY2023.49 Therefore, operations may be affected after September 30, 2023,

45FY2024.48 Some states may have carryover funding available to help, as the FY2023 appropriations law includes language making FY2023 SFMNP grants available for expenditure until the end of 47 Funding was provided by the continuing resolution (P.L. 113-46) and the full-year appropriation (P.L. 113-76). Funding was provided by the continuing resolution (P.L. 113-46) and the full-year appropriation (P.L. 113-76).
46 CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief Overview, by James V. Saturno.
47 USDA-FNS, FNS Contingency Plan: For Shutdown Due to a Lapse in Appropriations, October 1, 2013, p. 2, at
http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-fns-shutdown-plan.pdf.
48 See CRS Report R43257, Background on the Scheduled Reduction to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Gene Falk.
49 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (as amended by P.L. 115-334), §4402(a), codified at 7 U.S.C.
§3007(a).
Congressional Research Service

14

---

Expiration of the Farm Bill

without an extension or specific additional funding provided. In parts of FY2013 and parts of
FY2014, expiration temporarily affected program operations.50
48 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (as amended by P.L. 115-334), §4402(a), codified at 7 U.S.C. §3007(a). Congressional Research Service 15 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill FY2024.49 In parts of FY2013 and parts of FY2014, expiration temporarily affected program operations.50 While TEFAP operations continue with appropriations (discussed in the previous section), the TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Project Grants expire on September 30, 2024. Project funds would not carry over and would not be available for FY2025. The 2018 farm bill provided $4 million in annual mandatory funding for the projects from FY2019 to FY2023 and required at least a 50% nonfederal match (extended through FY2024).51 The nutrition title also includes a SNAP policy that would have expired September 30, 2023. Within SNAP’s authorizing provisions, the 2018 farm bill added a provision that prevented companies from charging “switching fees” for electronic benefit transfer (EBT) services.52 This provision, through FY2024 as extended, barred a state or an agent or contractor of the state from charging any fee for switching or routing SNAP benefits.53 Fees are typically established in contracts between parties, so the impact of this provision expiring may depend on the duration of expiration and the timing of existing contracts. Other Agricultural Programs
Programs that rely on mandatory funding authorizations in the farm bill are the most impacted if Programs that rely on mandatory funding authorizations in the farm bill are the most impacted if
the farm bill expires. By size of funding levels, the farm bill expires. By size of funding levels, the expiring programs in farm bill programs in farm bill titlesTitles I (Commodities), II I (Commodities), II
(Conservation), and IV (Nutrition) could be the most impacted, as discussed (Conservation), and IV (Nutrition) could be the most impacted, as discussed above.51above, and represent nearly 92% of mandatory funding available in the farm bill. Other farm Other farm
bill titles, however, include examples of agricultural programs that could also be affected by bill titles, however, include examples of agricultural programs that could also be affected by
expiration after expiration after FY2023FY2024, including programs in farm bill , including programs in farm bill titlesTitles III (Trade), VII (Research), IX III (Trade), VII (Research), IX
(Energy), X (Horticulture), and XII (Miscellaneous). (Energy), X (Horticulture), and XII (Miscellaneous). These programs represent about 1% of mandatory funding in the farm bill. Without reauthorization or an extension, Without reauthorization or an extension,
these programs may not have authority to operate or continue to receive new budget authority these programs may not have authority to operate or continue to receive new budget authority
after FY2023. This list after FY2023. This list is generally representative but may not be exhaustiveis not meant to be comprehensive, and the consequences of expiration , and the consequences of expiration
may vary. may vary.
• • Title III—Trade. Agricultural Trade Promotion and Facilitation, including the Agricultural Trade Promotion and Facilitation, including the
Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, E Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, E
(Kika) de la Garza Emerging Markets Program and Technical Assistance for (Kika) de la Garza Emerging Markets Program and Technical Assistance for
Specialty Crops (7 U.S.C.Specialty Crops (7 U.S.C. §5623), Food for Progress (7 U.S.C. §1736o), and 49 A final FY2024 appropriations act remains pending. The FY2023 appropriation contained, “Provided further, [t]hat notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective with funds made available in fiscal year 2023 to support the Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by section 4402 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, such funds shall remain available through September 30, 2024” (P.L. 117-328, Title I). 50 This program expired after September 30, 2012. Once P.L. 112-240 was enacted, the funding and authority to operate the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) was extended through September 30, 2013. However, it expired again when that extension ended. Due to the seasonal nature of the SFMNP, it is possible that expiration of the farm bill during the fall and/or winter months may not significantly affect this program. When the 2014 farm bill was enacted in February 2014, the SFMNP provision was backdated to October 1, 2013. 51 Section 4018(b) of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334) amended Section 202A(b) and Section 203D of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. In statute, these grants are referred to as “Projects to Harvest, Process, Package, or Transport Donated Commodities.” 52 Section 4006(d) of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334) amended Section 7(h)(13) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. 53 Switching was defined as “routing of an intrastate or interstate transaction that consists of transmitting the details of a transaction electronically recorded through the use of an [EBT] card in one [s]tate to the issuer of the card that may be in the same or different [s]tate.” The fees in question had been charged to retailers. Congressional Research Service 16 link to page 5 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill §5623), Food for Progress (7 U.S.C. §1736o), and
authority to replenish stocks of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (7 U.S.C. authority to replenish stocks of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (7 U.S.C.
§1736f-1). 1736f-1).
• • Title VII—Research, Extension and Related Matters. Organic Agriculture Organic Agriculture
Research and Extension Initiative (7 U.S.C. §5925b). Research and Extension Initiative (7 U.S.C. §5925b).
• • Title IX—Energy. Biobased Markets Program (7 U.S.C. §8102) and Bioenergy Biobased Markets Program (7 U.S.C. §8102) and Bioenergy
Program for Advanced Biofuels (7 U.S.C. §8105). Program for Advanced Biofuels (7 U.S.C. §8105).
• • Title X—Horticulture. Specialty Crop Block Grants (7 U.S.C. §1621 note), Specialty Crop Block Grants (7 U.S.C. §1621 note),
Local Agriculture Market Program (7 U.S.C. Local Agriculture Market Program (7 U.S.C. §1627c), and National Organic 1627c), and National Organic
Certification Cost-Share (7 U.S.C. §6523). Certification Cost-Share (7 U.S.C. §6523).
• • Title XII—Miscellaneous. Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach, Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach,
including the Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran including the Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran
Farmers and Ranchers Program and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Farmers and Ranchers Program and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Grant Program (7 U.S.C. §2279); Animal Disease Prevention and Development Grant Program (7 U.S.C. §2279); Animal Disease Prevention and
Management, including the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the Management, including the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the
National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National
Animal Vaccine Bank (7 U.S.C. §8308a); Emergency Citrus Disease Research Animal Vaccine Bank (7 U.S.C. §8308a); Emergency Citrus Disease Research
and Development Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. §7632 note); Pima Cotton Trust Fund (7 and Development Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. §7632 note); Pima Cotton Trust Fund (7
U.S.C. §2101 note); Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. §7101 U.S.C. §2101 note); Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. §7101
note); and Wool Research and Promotion (7 U.S.C §7101 note).note); and Wool Research and Promotion (7 U.S.C §7101 note).52

50 This program expired after September 30, 2012. Once P.L. 112-240 was enacted, the funding and authority to
operate the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) was extended through September 30, 2013. However,
it expired again when that extension ended. Due to the seasonal nature of the SFMNP, it is possible that expiration of
the farm bill during the fall and/or winter months may not significantly affect this program. When the 2014 farm bill
was enacted in February 2014, the SFMNP provision was backdated to October 1, 2013.
51 See the headings “Error! Reference source not found.,” “Error! Reference source not found.,” and “Error!
Reference source not found.” for detailed explanations.
5254 Some of these other agricultural programs have baseline beyond their expiration in FY2024, and others do not.55 While both types of programs could be similarly impacted from lack of authorization, those without a baseline could incur budgetary costs to reauthorize or extend.56 54 The Pima Cotton Trust Fund, Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund, and Wool Research and Promotion program The Pima Cotton Trust Fund, Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund, and Wool Research and Promotion program
operate on a calendar-year basis and expire after December 31, 2023. operate on a calendar-year basis and expire after December 31, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

15

---

Expiration of the Farm Bill

Some of these other agricultural programs have baseline beyond their expiration in FY2023, and
others do not.53 While both types of programs could be similarly impacted from lack of
authorization, those without a baseline could incur budgetary costs to reauthorize or extend.54

53 See the heading “Error! Reference source not found.”55 See the heading “Mandatory Funding” for additional information on budgetary baseline. For for additional information on budgetary baseline. For
examples of agriculture programs that have a continuing budget baseline, see Figure 2 in CRS In Focus IF12233, examples of agriculture programs that have a continuing budget baseline, see Figure 2 in CRS In Focus IF12233, Farm
Bill Primer: Budget Dynamics, by Jim Monke, by Jim Monke.
5456 See CRS In Focus IF12115, See CRS In Focus IF12115, Farm Bill Primer: Programs Without Baseline Beyond FY2023FY2024, by Jim Monke. Not all , by Jim Monke. Not all
of the programs without baseline in the aforementioned report are included in this report about expiration. For example, of the programs without baseline in the aforementioned report are included in this report about expiration. For example,
some of the programs without baseline received one-time funding in FY2019 to remain available until expended. These some of the programs without baseline received one-time funding in FY2019 to remain available until expended. These
are not mentioned in this report, as their ability to operate has already been subject to the availability of unobligated are not mentioned in this report, as their ability to operate has already been subject to the availability of unobligated
funding. funding. FY2023FY2024 may not be a technical expiration date for the program, though the program remains a program may not be a technical expiration date for the program, though the program remains a program
without baseline in terms of its reauthorization. without baseline in terms of its reauthorization.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1617

---

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Appendix. Legislative Options Given Existence of
Permanent Law for Farm Commodity Programs
The farm commodity support provisions of permanent law have remained in statute—inactive—The farm commodity support provisions of permanent law have remained in statute—inactive—
since the mid-20th century. Each recent farm bill has suspended permanent law for the duration of since the mid-20th century. Each recent farm bill has suspended permanent law for the duration of
the farm bill. Some see the existence of permanent law—and the possibility of returning to the farm bill. Some see the existence of permanent law—and the possibility of returning to
permanent law—as assurance that Congress would revisit and reconsider changes to the farm permanent law—as assurance that Congress would revisit and reconsider changes to the farm
commodity programs about every five years when a farm bill expires. Given the consequences of commodity programs about every five years when a farm bill expires. Given the consequences of
returning to permanent law, Congress has not let a farm bill remain expired long enough for returning to permanent law, Congress has not let a farm bill remain expired long enough for
permanent law to take effect for any supported commodities. permanent law to take effect for any supported commodities.
Several legislative options relative to permanent law exist as a farm bill approaches expiration: Several legislative options relative to permanent law exist as a farm bill approaches expiration:
1. Retain permanent law and then do one of the following: 1. Retain permanent law and then do one of the following:
a. Do nothing (revert to permanent law). a. Do nothing (revert to permanent law).
b. Pass an extension (with a suspension of permanent law). b. Pass an extension (with a suspension of permanent law).
c. Pass a new farm bill (and reinstate the suspension of permanent law). c. Pass a new farm bill (and reinstate the suspension of permanent law).
d. Suspend permanent law (without a new farm bill or extension). d. Suspend permanent law (without a new farm bill or extension).
2. Repeal permanent law and then do one of the following: 2. Repeal permanent law and then do one of the following:
a. Do nothing (no new farm bill). a. Do nothing (no new farm bill).
b. Pass an extension of the current farm bill. b. Pass an extension of the current farm bill.
c. Pass a new farm bill (with or without a new permanent law provision). c. Pass a new farm bill (with or without a new permanent law provision).
The existence of an inactive, outdated permanent law that could be automatically reactivated may The existence of an inactive, outdated permanent law that could be automatically reactivated may
encourage Congress to take action. Many policymakers perceive inaction on a farm bill and encourage Congress to take action. Many policymakers perceive inaction on a farm bill and
reversion to permanent law as having unacceptable consequences. If Congress were not to reach reversion to permanent law as having unacceptable consequences. If Congress were not to reach
agreement on a new farm bill, then a path of least resistance may be extending the current farm agreement on a new farm bill, then a path of least resistance may be extending the current farm
bill with its suspension of permanent law—but this, too, requires legislative action, which may bill with its suspension of permanent law—but this, too, requires legislative action, which may
pose political and budgetary challenges. pose political and budgetary challenges.
For those who seek significant changes to the farm commodity programs, repealing permanent For those who seek significant changes to the farm commodity programs, repealing permanent
law would allow Congress to debate farm supports without the looming consequences of law would allow Congress to debate farm supports without the looming consequences of
reverting to permanent law. But repealing permanent law also requires legislative action. Some reverting to permanent law. But repealing permanent law also requires legislative action. Some
believe that it is easier to negotiate and pass a new farm bill, with compromises and reforms, than believe that it is easier to negotiate and pass a new farm bill, with compromises and reforms, than
to deal with the question of repealing permanent law. to deal with the question of repealing permanent law.
Suspension of Permanent Law
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, farm bills generally used and amended the 1938 and/or 1949 Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, farm bills generally used and amended the 1938 and/or 1949
acts. Amendments were sometimes made permanent and sometimes applied only to specific acts. Amendments were sometimes made permanent and sometimes applied only to specific
years. As farm commodity policy continued to evolve, farm bills in the 1970s gradually began to years. As farm commodity policy continued to evolve, farm bills in the 1970s gradually began to
move away from using the permanent law provisions with their parity-based price supports and move away from using the permanent law provisions with their parity-based price supports and
quotas. quotas.
As recently as the 1970 and 1973 farm bills, the farm commodity programs were generally As recently as the 1970 and 1973 farm bills, the farm commodity programs were generally
written into the 1938 and/or 1949 acts using provisions that were applicable only for the new written into the 1938 and/or 1949 acts using provisions that were applicable only for the new
period of the farm bill.period of the farm bill.5557 Thus, although those farm bills might not have directly suspended Thus, although those farm bills might not have directly suspended

5557 For example, a form of suspension that occurs within the permanent law itself is in the 1970 farm bill (P.L. 91-524), For example, a form of suspension that occurs within the permanent law itself is in the 1970 farm bill (P.L. 91-524),
(continued...) (continued...)
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1718

---

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

permanent law in the way of modern farm bills, they supplanted some portion of the permanent permanent law in the way of modern farm bills, they supplanted some portion of the permanent
law parity-based support system for the life of the farm bill, albeit from within the body of the law parity-based support system for the life of the farm bill, albeit from within the body of the
permanent law itself. permanent law itself.
Beginning with the 1977 farm bill and continuing through the 2018 farm bill, direct suspension or Beginning with the 1977 farm bill and continuing through the 2018 farm bill, direct suspension or
nonapplicability language began to be used regarding permanent law.nonapplicability language began to be used regarding permanent law.5658
The 2018 farm bill provision that suspends permanent law was an extension of the suspension in The 2018 farm bill provision that suspends permanent law was an extension of the suspension in
the 2014 farm bill. the 2014 farm bill.
The one-year extension during 2024 is a further extension of the suspension of permanent law. Suspension of Permanent Price Support Authority ((2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334, §1702) P.L. 115-334, §1702)
Section 1602 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9092) is amended by striking Section 1602 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9092) is amended by striking
“2018” each place it appears and inserting “2023”. “2018” each place it appears and inserting “2023”.
The 2014 farm bill suspension specified the following provisionsAnd in the one-year extension (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102(c)(4)) Subsections (a) and (b) of section 1602 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (i) shall not be applicable to the 2024 crops … and (ii) shall not be applicable to milk through December 31, 2024; and section 1602(c) … shall not be applicable to the crops of wheat planted for harvest in calendar year 2024. The 2014 farm bill suspension to which these provisions refer specified the following provisions of permanent law: :
Suspension of Permanent Price Support Authority (7 U.S.C. §9092; P.L. 113-79, §1602) (7 U.S.C. §9092; P.L. 113-79, §1602)
(a) Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The following provisions of the Agricultural (a) Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The following provisions of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 shall not be applicable to the 2014 through 2018 crops of covered Adjustment Act of 1938 shall not be applicable to the 2014 through 2018 crops of covered
commodities (as defined in section 1111), cotton, and sugar and shall not be applicable to commodities (as defined in section 1111), cotton, and sugar and shall not be applicable to
milk during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through December milk during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through December
31, 2018: (1) Parts II through V of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C. 1326 et seq.). (2) In the 31, 2018: (1) Parts II through V of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C. 1326 et seq.). (2) In the
case of upland cotton, section 377 (7 U.S.C. 1377). 3) Subtitle D of title III (7 U.S.C. 1379a case of upland cotton, section 377 (7 U.S.C. 1377). 3) Subtitle D of title III (7 U.S.C. 1379a
et seq.). (4) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). et seq.). (4) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
(b) Agricultural Act of 1949. The following provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (b) Agricultural Act of 1949. The following provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949
shall not be applicable to the 2014 through 2018 crops of covered commodities (as defined shall not be applicable to the 2014 through 2018 crops of covered commodities (as defined
in section 1111), cotton, and sugar and shall not be applicable to milk during the period in section 1111), cotton, and sugar and shall not be applicable to milk during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and through December 31, 2018: (1) Section beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and through December 31, 2018: (1) Section
101 (7 U.S.C. 1441); (2) Section 103(a) (7 U.S.C. 1444(a)); (3) Section 105 (7 U.S.C. 101 (7 U.S.C. 1441); (2) Section 103(a) (7 U.S.C. 1444(a)); (3) Section 105 (7 U.S.C.
1444b); (4) Section 107 (7 U.S.C. 1445a); (5) Section 110 (7 U.S.C. 1445e); (6) Section 1444b); (4) Section 107 (7 U.S.C. 1445a); (5) Section 110 (7 U.S.C. 1445e); (6) Section
112 (7 U.S.C. 1445g); (7) Section 115 (7 U.S.C. 1445k); (8) Section 201 (7 U.S.C. 1446); 112 (7 U.S.C. 1445g); (7) Section 115 (7 U.S.C. 1445k); (8) Section 201 (7 U.S.C. 1446);
(9) Title III (7 U.S.C. 1447 et seq.); (10) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), other than sections (9) Title III (7 U.S.C. 1447 et seq.); (10) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), other than sections
404, 412, and 416 (7 U.S.C. 1424, 1429, and 1431); (11) Title V (7 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.); 404, 412, and 416 (7 U.S.C. 1424, 1429, and 1431); (11) Title V (7 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.);
and (12) Title VI (7 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.). and (12) Title VI (7 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.).
(c) Suspension of Certain Quota Provisions. The joint resolution, “A joint resolution (c) Suspension of Certain Quota Provisions. The joint resolution, “A joint resolution
relating to corn and wheat marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of relating to corn and wheat marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938, as amended,” approved May 26, 1941 (7 U.S.C. 1330 and 1340), shall not be
applicable to the crops of wheat planted for harvest in the calendar years 2014-2018.
Proposals to Repeal Permanent Law
Proposals to repeal permanent law have been rare, though some bills have passed either the
House or the Senate. For example, a proposal to repeal permanent law advanced perhaps the
furthest during the development of the 1996 farm bill. Repeal provisions may have had more

where §501 reads, “Effective only with respect to the 1971, 1972, and 1973 crops of feed grains, section 105 of the where §501 reads, “Effective only with respect to the 1971, 1972, and 1973 crops of feed grains, section 105 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: ‘Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: ‘Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law—(a)(1) The Secretary shall make available to producers loans and purchases on each crop of corn at provision of law—(a)(1) The Secretary shall make available to producers loans and purchases on each crop of corn at
such level, not less than $1.00 per bushel nor in excess of 90 per centum of the parity price.’” such level, not less than $1.00 per bushel nor in excess of 90 per centum of the parity price.’”
5658 For example, direct suspension of permanent law can be found in the 1977 farm bill (P.L. 95-113) in §§409-410, For example, direct suspension of permanent law can be found in the 1977 farm bill (P.L. 95-113) in §§409-410,
503-504, 601, and 703; in the 1981 farm bill (P.L. 97-98) in §§304-305, 402, and 501; in the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-503-504, 601, and 703; in the 1981 farm bill (P.L. 97-98) in §§304-305, 402, and 501; in the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-
198) in §§312, 402, and 502; in the 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) in §§302-305, 402, 502, and 801; in the 1996 farm 198) in §§312, 402, and 502; in the 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) in §§302-305, 402, 502, and 801; in the 1996 farm
bill (P.L. 104-127) in §171; in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) in §1602; in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) in bill (P.L. 104-127) in §171; in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) in §1602; in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) in
§1602; in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) in §1602; and in the 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334), §1702. §1602; in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) in §1602; and in the 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334), §1702.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1819

---

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill 1938, as amended,” approved May 26, 1941 (7 U.S.C. 1330 and 1340), shall not be applicable to the crops of wheat planted for harvest in the calendar years 2014-2018. Proposals to Repeal Permanent Law Proposals to repeal permanent law have been rare, though some bills have passed either the House or the Senate. For example, a proposal to repeal permanent law advanced perhaps the furthest during the development of the 1996 farm bill. Repeal provisions may have had more of the Farm Bill

saliency then because of a perceived intent that the farm commodity program in the 1996 farm saliency then because of a perceived intent that the farm commodity program in the 1996 farm
bill (known as “Freedom to Farm”) would significantly reduce or terminate supports after 2002.bill (known as “Freedom to Farm”) would significantly reduce or terminate supports after 2002.5759
In the end, repeal was dropped during conference negotiations in 1996 in favor of continued In the end, repeal was dropped during conference negotiations in 1996 in favor of continued
suspension. suspension.
More specifically regarding the 1995-1996 developments, the initial bill considered by the House More specifically regarding the 1995-1996 developments, the initial bill considered by the House
Agriculture Committee in 1995 would have continued to suspend permanent law (H.R. 2195, Agriculture Committee in 1995 would have continued to suspend permanent law (H.R. 2195,
Title IV). After not passing in committee, the text of that bill, including the suspension provision, Title IV). After not passing in committee, the text of that bill, including the suspension provision,
was incorporated into a broader House-passed budget reconciliation package (H.R. 2491, §1105). was incorporated into a broader House-passed budget reconciliation package (H.R. 2491, §1105).
However, the Senate-passed version of the 1995 reconciliation package included a provision to However, the Senate-passed version of the 1995 reconciliation package included a provision to
repeal permanent law (S. 1357, §1101). The conference agreement for the reconciliation package repeal permanent law (S. 1357, §1101). The conference agreement for the reconciliation package
adopted the Senate approach for repeal (H.R. 2491, §1109). The conference agreement passed in adopted the Senate approach for repeal (H.R. 2491, §1109). The conference agreement passed in
both the House and the Senate but was vetoed, albeit not because of the farm bill provisions.both the House and the Senate but was vetoed, albeit not because of the farm bill provisions.5860
The next year, a stand-alone 1996 farm bill was introduced and passed in the House with the The next year, a stand-alone 1996 farm bill was introduced and passed in the House with the
provision to repeal permanent law (H.R. 2854, §109). The repeal provision was also in the provision to repeal permanent law (H.R. 2854, §109). The repeal provision was also in the
Senate-reported bill (S. 1541, §19). However, the Senate-passed version (S. 1541, §109) did not Senate-reported bill (S. 1541, §19). However, the Senate-passed version (S. 1541, §109) did not
repeal permanent law but continued to suspend permanent law. The conference agreement for the repeal permanent law but continued to suspend permanent law. The conference agreement for the
1996 farm bill (H.R. 2854, §171) followed the Senate-passed version and continued the 1996 farm bill (H.R. 2854, §171) followed the Senate-passed version and continued the
suspension of permanent law. suspension of permanent law.
From 1995 to 2001, other bills besides the farm bill proposed repealing permanent law but were From 1995 to 2001, other bills besides the farm bill proposed repealing permanent law but were
not formally considered.not formally considered.5961 In 1995, several bills were introduced to restructure government In 1995, several bills were introduced to restructure government
agencies. A bill was introduced to abolish USDA, eliminate all price support authorities agencies. A bill was introduced to abolish USDA, eliminate all price support authorities
(including those of permanent law), and transfer certain powers to the Department of Commerce (including those of permanent law), and transfer certain powers to the Department of Commerce
(H.R. 1354, S. 586). A broader government-wide restructuring bill would have repealed (H.R. 1354, S. 586). A broader government-wide restructuring bill would have repealed
permanent law (H.R. 1923). A separate agricultural reform bill would have phased down permanent law (H.R. 1923). A separate agricultural reform bill would have phased down
agricultural supports and eventually repealed permanent law (H.R. 2010). Two other bills to agricultural supports and eventually repealed permanent law (H.R. 2010). Two other bills to
repeal permanent law were introduced in 1995 (H.R. 2523 and H.R. 2787). In 1997-1998, H.R. repeal permanent law were introduced in 1995 (H.R. 2523 and H.R. 2787). In 1997-1998, H.R.
502 and S. 2573 would have repealed permanent law. Other bills to repeal permanent law were 502 and S. 2573 would have repealed permanent law. Other bills to repeal permanent law were
H.R. 328 in 1999 and S. 1571 in 2001. None of these bills advanced beyond being introduced and H.R. 328 in 1999 and S. 1571 in 2001. None of these bills advanced beyond being introduced and
referred to committee. referred to committee.
Other bills in other Congresses have been introduced with targeted repeal provisions for certain Other bills in other Congresses have been introduced with targeted repeal provisions for certain
commodities but not comprehensive repeal. Those bills are not discussed here. commodities but not comprehensive repeal. Those bills are not discussed here.
In the 112th Congress during consideration of the 2012 farm bill, a Senate amendment was
submitted, but not actually introduced on the floor, to replace the suspension of permanent law
with the repeal of the suspended permanent law provisions (S.Amdt. 2379 to S. 3420).
In 2013, the House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2642) would have repealed the 1938 and 1949
permanent laws (§1602). As replacement, the House-proposed farm commodity program would
have become the new permanent law, as it would have applied to “the 2014 crop year and each
succeeding crop year” (§§1107, 1202, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1301). The Senate bill (S. 954)

57 59 See Daryll E. Ray and Harwood D. Schaffer, “The 1996 ‘Freedom to Farm’ Farm Bill,” Agricultural Policy Analysis See Daryll E. Ray and Harwood D. Schaffer, “The 1996 ‘Freedom to Farm’ Farm Bill,” Agricultural Policy Analysis
Center, Article 703, January 2014, at https://www.agpolicy.org/weekpdf/703.pdf; and Otto Doering and Phil Paarlberg, Center, Article 703, January 2014, at https://www.agpolicy.org/weekpdf/703.pdf; and Otto Doering and Phil Paarlberg,
“Critical Questions About the Farm Crisis: Causes and Remedies,” Purdue Ag Econ Report, PAER 1999-05, March 13, “Critical Questions About the Farm Crisis: Causes and Remedies,” Purdue Ag Econ Report, PAER 1999-05, March 13,
1999, at https://ag.purdue.edu/commercialag/home/paer-article/critical-questions-about-the-farm-crisis-causes-and-1999, at https://ag.purdue.edu/commercialag/home/paer-article/critical-questions-about-the-farm-crisis-causes-and-
remedies. See also discussion in H.Rept. 104-494, Conference Report for the Federal Agriculture Improvement and remedies. See also discussion in H.Rept. 104-494, Conference Report for the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996. Reform Act of 1996.
5860 CRS Report R45210, CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-20182023, by Jim Monke. , by Jim Monke.
5961 The listing of bills to repeal permanent law is not meant to be exhaustive. It is based on a full-text search of bills The listing of bills to repeal permanent law is not meant to be exhaustive. It is based on a full-text search of bills
since 1989 for the word since 1989 for the word repeal within 20 words of within 20 words of Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 or or Agricultural Act of 1949. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1920

---

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill In the 112th Congress during consideration of the 2012 farm bill, a Senate amendment was submitted, but not actually introduced on the floor, to replace the suspension of permanent law with the repeal of the suspended permanent law provisions (S.Amdt. 2379 to S. 3420). In 2013, the House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2642) would have repealed the 1938 and 1949 permanent laws (§1602). As replacement, the House-proposed farm commodity program would have become the new permanent law, as it would have applied to “the 2014 crop year and each succeeding crop year” (§§1107, 1202, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1301). The Senate bill (S. 954) of the Farm Bill

continued the long-standing suspension of permanent law, as did the initial House-rejected bill continued the long-standing suspension of permanent law, as did the initial House-rejected bill
(H.R. 1947). The enacted 2014 and 2018 farm bills continued to suspend permanent law. (H.R. 1947). The enacted 2014 and 2018 farm bills continued to suspend permanent law.

Author Information

Jim Monke Jim Monke
Randy Alison Aussenberg Randy Alison Aussenberg
Specialist in Agricultural Policy Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy


Megan Stubbs Megan Stubbs

Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy Resources Policy



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R47659 R47659 · VERSION 1 · NEW
204 · UPDATED 21

---