Order Code RL31195
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The 2002 Farm Bill: Overview and Status
Updated March 13, 2002
Geoffrey S. Becker and Jasper Womach, Coordinators
Specialists in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The 2002 Farm Bill: Overview and Status
Summary
Note: CRS has an online briefing book on many aspects of the farm bill: CRS
Agriculture Policy and Farm Bill Briefing Book.
Federal farm support, nutrition, agricultural trade and food aid, conservation,
credit, marketing, rural development, agricultural research, and related policies are
governed by a variety of separate laws. Although these laws may be considered and
as free-standing legislation, many of them are evaluated periodically, revised, and
renewed through an omnibus, multi-year farm bill. The Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127) was the most recent
omnibus farm bill, and many of its provisions expire in 2002.

Although differing in detail and rates of support, both the House and the Senate
bills continue marketing loans and fixed payments, create new counter-cyclical
assistance tied to target prices (a guaranteed per-bushel pricing system which had
been eliminated in 1996), for grains, cotton, and oilseeds, and continue planting
flexibility with no supply controls. Both extend, with some modifications, dairy and
sugar support (the Senate adds new direct payments for dairy), and end peanut quotas
by establishing a support program like that for major crops. Both also contain titles
(although somewhat differing) to expand conservation program funding; reauthorize
agricultural export and food aid programs; and amend and extend research, nutrition
(food stamps), credit, and rural development activities, among others.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the House bill would
create new mandatory spending, over 10 years, of $73.5 billion, over and above
baseline estimates (budget authority). Of this, $48.8 billion is new money for farm
commodity programs and another $15.8 billion is for conservation. The Senate bill
would add, over 10 years, $79.6 billion (which exceeds the $73.5 billion allocated by
the budget resolution). Of this, $46 billion is new money for farm commodity
programs and another $21.3 billion is for conservation. The Senate figures do not
include the $2.4 billion in additional FY2002 costs for 2001 crop and livestock losses
and for 2000 apple losses. This aid, approved as a floor amendment to the Senate bill,
was designated as “emergency” spending and thus not counted toward the $73.5
billion budget allocation.
Conferees have begun to reconcile the many differences between the two bills.
Some of the more contentious differences include Senate provisions that ban meat
packer ownership or control of livestock more than 14 days prior to slaughter, and
payment limits that are much more restrictive than prescribed by current law or by the
pending House bill. Other disparities confronting conferees are whether the bill
should be for 5 or 10 years; differing loan, direct payment, and counter-cyclical
payment rates for major crops; higher spending in the Senate bill over the next 5 years
than in the House version; and more expansive Senate conservation provisions
(although both versions call for conservation spending increases), among other things.
Finally, the Senate bill’s higher cost could further complicate conference; CBO in
early March raised, by more than $6 billion, its original 10-year estimate of $73.5
billion, after finding an error in its calculations.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Budgetary and Trade Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Administration Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Selected Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Farm Income and Commodity Price Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Conservation and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Foreign Trade and Food Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Farm Credit and Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Rural Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Food Stamps and TEFAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
List of Tables
Table 1. Farm Bill Cost Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. House and Senate Bills: Comparison of Loan Rates, Direct Payment Rates,
and Target Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

---

The 2002 Farm Bill: Overview and Status
Most Recent Developments
The Senate approved an omnibus 5-year (2002-2006) farm bill (reported as S.
1731 and passed as H.R. 2646) on February 13, 2002, by a vote of 58 to 40.
Approval came after a lengthy debate that began on December 5, 2001, continued
during the weeks of December 10 and December 17, and resumed again for several
days in February. During the debate, a number of amendments, some controversial,
were debated and adopted.
The full House, on October 5, 2001, had approved (by a vote of 291-120) its
new 10-year omnibus farm bill (H.R. 2646). The bill would extend major farm, food,
and related programs through 2011.
Conferees have been appointed to reconcile numerous differences between the
two bills. It will be a challenge to complete work before the Easter recess, a deadline
USDA officials say they need to implement the law for this year’s crops. A further
complication is that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found, in early March,
that it had underestimated the cost of the Senate-passed bill by more than $6 billion.
(A detailed comparison of the two bills – being updated to reflect final Senate
action – is in CRS Report RL31272, A New Farm Bill: Comparing the House and
Senate Proposals with Current Law. For more CRS products, see also the CRS
Agriculture Policy and Farm Bill Briefing Book.)
Overview
Federal farm support, food assistance, agricultural trade, marketing, and related
policies are governed by a variety of separate laws. Although these laws may be
considered and passed as free-standing legislation, many of them are evaluated
periodically, revised, and renewed through an omnibus, multi-year farm bill. The
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127)
was the most recent omnibus farm bill, and many of its provisions expire in 2002.
The heart of every omnibus farm bill is farm income and commodity price
support policy – namely the methods and levels of support that the federal
government provides to agricultural producers. However, farm bills also typically
include titles on agricultural trade and foreign food aid, conservation and
environment, domestic food assistance (primarily food stamps), agricultural credit,
rural development, agricultural research and education, and other programs.

---

CRS-2
Budgetary and Trade Constraints
Budget. Like most legislation, the farm bill is considered within federal budget
constraints. The congressional budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 83), completed in May
2001, reserves, for FY2002-2011, an extra $73.5 billion in direct spending in order
to accommodate the cost of legislative changes in farm and related programs. This
allowance is over and above the projected CBO baseline for such programs for the
same 10-year period. Subsequent re-estimates of the baseline showing shrinking
budget surpluses have created some uncertainty regarding available budgetary
resources. Proponents had argued that their bills will be consistent with the budget
resolution – and, in early 2002, there still appeared to be support within Congress and
the Administration to spend the full $73.5 billion.
Table 1 shows the CBO-estimated cost of the farm, food, and related programs
in the bill under a continuation of current law, unchanged (“Current Law, Baseline”);
and how costs would increase under the House and Senate bills, respectively. These
estimates cover both 5 years (FY2002-2006), the term of the Senate bill, and 10 years
(FY-2002-2011), the term of the House bill.
Table 1. Farm Bill Cost Comparisons
Budget Category
Current Law
House Bill
Senate Bill
Baseline
Budget Authority
Estimated Cost Above Baseline
5-Yr
10-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Million $
Commodity Support
44,065
69,868
25,077
48,785
30,463
45,974
Crop Insurance
16,996
37,243
0
0
-292
-1,901
Conservation
9,618
21,412
6,788
15,787
11,776
21,303
Credit
0
0
0
0
71
71
Forestry
3,292
5,674
108
268
259
326
Trade/Food Aid
1,995
3,990
636
1,436
1,116
2,110
Agricultural Research
360
360
435
1,160
1,068
1,068
Rural Development*
204
204
1,175
2,150
2,281
2,281
Food Stamps**
113,183
245,509
1,515
3,648
2,201
8,308
Other Programs/Agencies
0
0
109
224
83
97
Total
189,713
384,260
35,842
73,458
49,027
79,636
Source: CBO. Figures represent budget authority (not outlay) estimates for programs requiring direct
spending. Other programs in the bill are funded through annual appropriations, for which additional costs
will be incurred.
*Senate rural development figures include $570 million in new energy title program costs.
**Although a few domestic nutrition program costs outside of food stamps are included here, almost all child
nutrition costs are excluded. Child nutrition programs typically are not addressed in farm bills.
Not included in table 1 is $2.4 billion in new “disaster” assistance that was
approved as a Senate floor amendment in February 2002. This aid was designated as
emergency funding and therefore would not – if it survives conference – be counted,
for scoring purposes, toward the $73.5 billion budget limitation on new farm bill
mandatory spending.

---

CRS-3
As noted, CBO in early March had to adjust its projected cost of the Senate bill
upward by $6.1 billion after discovering an error in its earlier calculations. This now
puts the 10-year cost of the Senate bill about $6.1 billion above the budget resolution
allowance. (Table 1 reflects the adjustment.) At least theoretically, this issue might
be mitigated by the fact that the Senate bill is for 5 years only, during which it spends
a projected $49 billion. On the other hand, House negotiators and the Administration
already were highly critical of the Senate bill for spending more of the available $73.5
billion in the first 5 years, leaving (in their view) too little for new agriculture spending
in later years. How conferees view and deal with this issue remains to be seen.
Trade. The multilateral Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA)
poses another constraint by limiting, to no more than $19.1 billion per year, the value
of domestic farm supports most likely to distort production and trade (these are so-
called “amber box” programs). The agreement spells out rules for determining
whether a policy is market distorting or whether it is exempt from the annual subsidy
calculation. According to USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS):
The U.S. has so far met commitments under the URAA, but surges in direct
payments to producers after 1997 in response to low market prices have raised
concerns that domestic subsidy levels might eventually exceed the ceiling on
domestic supports established under the URAA. U.S. support is expected to
remain below its ceiling under current farm programs, but increases in support
under new programs could cause a compliance problem with the URAA
commitments...[and] could hamper efforts in the new multilateral trade talks to
accomplish U.S. goals for liberalizing international trade and getting other
countries to reduce domestic support to their agriculture sectors and increase
market access.1
Both the House and Senate bills continue a system of direct payments not tied
to current production or prices of specific commodities, which, proponents believe,
will not have to be counted as trade distorting and therefore are not subject to URAA
farm subsidy limits. They also believe that the bill’s conservation-related programs
are among those that are exempt from the limits. However, both bills continue crop
marketing loan benefits and the dairy price support program, which already have been
classified as trade-distorting (and thus are counted toward URAA annual limits);
further, the bills create new “countercyclical” programs that also are likely to be
subjected to such limits. (See “Farm Income and Commodity Price Support” later in
this report for an explanation of these programs.)
Whether these and other types of subsidies in the bills ultimately result in future
URAA compliance problems remains to be seen. Both the House and Senate bills
contain a provision authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to keep farm program
benefits within the annual WTO limit. The Senate version goes even further by
requiring annual USDA notifications to Congress on current and following marketing
years’ estimates of support to be reported to the WTO, and effectively requiring
Congress to consider amending (within 18 months) any programs that might cause the
URAA limits to be breached. Critics have questioned the feasibility of implementing
1 USDA, Economic Research Service. “Aligning U.S. Farm Policy With World Trade
Commitments,” Agricultural Outlook, January-February 2002, p. 12.

---

CRS-4
this provision. (For an explanation of the URAA rules, See Farm Support Programs
and World Trade Commitments, CRS Report RL30612; and Farm Program
Spending: What’s Permitted Under the Uruguay Round Agreements, CRS Report
RS20840.)
Administration Views
On October 3, 2001, as the House began to debate its bill, the White House
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Statement of Administration
Policy stating that it did not support H.R. 2646 because it would encourage
overproduction of commodities, fail to help farmers most in need, jeopardize global
markets, and boost federal spending at a time of economic uncertainty.
The OMB Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate bill, issued
December 5, 2001, argues that S. 1731 would: stimulate overproduction (partly
through higher crop loan rates); result in higher consumer milk prices; hurt U.S. farm
trade by among other things risking U.S. ability to meet current trade obligations and
undermining U.S. efforts to phase out worldwide export subsidies in the future;
authorize ineffective conservation programs; poorly direct farm aid by increasing
payments regardless of need; weaken accountability in domestic nutrition programs;
and result in unknown budget costs. The Administration expressed its support for the
so-called (and unsuccessful) Cochran-Roberts floor amendment which it said was
consistent with the President’s principles for sound farm policy.
Previously, on September 19, 2001, the Administration had released a 120-page
report, Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century, which
concludes, among other things, that farm policy should be tailored to reflect the wide
differences among U.S. farms and farming practices. Current programs tend to tilt
benefits most heavily toward highly efficient commercial farms (which enables them
to expand operations and lower costs even more), with no direct relationship between
benefits and a farm’s financial need. Landowners, not necessarily farm operators,
benefit the most through higher land values and higher farmland rental rates caused
by current support programs, the report states. Farm policy must promote “more
sustainable prosperity” for farmers, relying on the market and not government for
long-term support, although government could provide aid for “unexpected events”
beyond their control, according to the report.
The report also argues that trade policy not only must focus on more access to
foreign markets, but also be supported by domestic policies that meet U.S. trade
obligations and provide the latitude “to pursue ambitious goals in trade negotiations.”
Domestic farm policy must not reduce competitiveness, and seek to expand farm
export opportunities. The report suggests that future policy should shift emphasis
from traditional commodity price supports toward the demand side of agriculture –
focusing on marketing and consumption, particularly overseas. Conservation
programs, food safety and affordability, nutrition, and rural development also are
addressed.
In releasing the report, Agriculture Secretary Veneman commented that
“fundamental, far-reaching changes in policy, programs, procedures, and institutions

---

CRS-5
may be required.” She pointed out that current farm policy does not expire until later
in 2002, implying that Congress should take more time to debate and pass a new bill.
By late 2001 and early 2002, the Administration was no longer publicly
emphasizing the need to proceed more slowly. Moreover, top Administration officials
now have pledged their support for a “generous farm bill” and more specifically for
the $73.5 billion provided through last year’s congressional budget resolution. They
also have expressed preference for the House bill, at least partly because it would not
require as much spending during the first 5 years as the Senate version (see Table 1).
Despite periodic comments on farm policy in general and the farm bill in
particular, the Administration has not been viewed by congressional agricultural
leaders as a major player in the debate; whether it will be more active and influential
in the upcoming conference remains to be seen.
Selected Provisions
Farm Income and Commodity Price Support2
The 1996 farm bill significantly revised federal farm commodity policy. (See
CRS Report RS20848, Farm Commodity Programs: A Short Primer.) Title I, the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA), replaced production-based deficiency
payments (the difference between legislated target prices and lower market prices) for
wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, and rice with fixed “production flexibility contract”
(PFC) payments. These payments are made irrespective of market prices or current
planting choices. AMTA authorized $36 billion in PFC payments over the 7-year life
of the law to producers with a participation history in the previous commodity
programs. PFC contract payments are projected at $4.1 billion for FY2001. Previous
annual supply controls, including crop-specific acreage bases and cropland set-asides,
were ended by the 1996 law. (See CRS Report RS20271, Grains, Cotton, and
Oilseeds: Federal Commodity Support.)
In addition, AMTA maintained the price guarantees of the marketing assistance
loan program for contract commodities, soybeans and other oilseeds, and extra long
staple (ELS) cotton. This counter-cyclical program makes up the difference between
low market prices and specified commodity nonrecourse loan rates with direct
payments. CCC net outlays for marketing assistance loan gains and loan deficiency
payments (LDPs) were $6.4 billion in FY2000, an estimated $5.6 billion in FY2001,
and a projected $4.9 billion in FY2002 according to USDA.
AMTA continued the market price support programs for sugar and peanuts,
which operate through CCC loans and import quotas. The 1996 law also scheduled
the elimination of the longstanding dairy price support program, but Congress has
since continued it. Permanent tobacco price support authority was not modified in
1996.
2 CRS contacts: Jasper Womach, 7-7237; Geoffrey S. Becker, 7-7287; Remy Jurenas, 7-7281
(sugar and peanuts); Ralph Chite, 7-7296 (dairy).

---

CRS-6
Persistently low commodity prices stimulated four years of large ad hoc
emergency farm aid packages amounting to approximately $23 billion in non-disaster
related farm income assistance, over and above amounts already authorized by
AMTA. About $18 billion went to PFC contract holders. Much of the rest was for
special subsidies for producers of soybeans, peanuts, tobacco, milk, honey, wool, and
mohair. The most recent congressional “emergency” action was P.L. 107-25, which
provided $5.5 billion to be paid out in FY2001 as allowed for in the budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 83). (See Supplementary Farm Support Payments for 2001 in the CRS
Agriculture Policy and Farm Bill Briefing Book.)
Many policy makers and farm groups are now urging policy changes to provide
a more certain method of funding future counter-cyclical income support than ad hoc
laws. The options below, except as noted, mainly apply to policies for grains, cotton,
and oilseeds.
PFC Payments. Most (although not all) producer groups have called for
continuation of annual lump sum assistance like PFC payments. Some want PFC
eligibility expanded to include soybeans, and possibly even such commodities as
tobacco, peanuts, milk, wool, mohair, apples, cranberries, which all recently received
direct payments under the emergency assistance laws. Critics are concerned that such
payments are quickly capitalized into land prices and rents. Both the House and
Senate bills would continue direct payments that are similar in concept to PFC
payments, and both would add soybeans and other oilseeds as eligible crops..
Counter-Cyclical Assistance. There is strong interest in a new counter-
cyclical assistance program that is more generous than now provided through
marketing loans. Various proposals differ in detail but share a common objective of
providing more support when farm prices and/or incomes decline than provided under
current law. Both the House and Senate bills contain forms of new counter-cyclical
assistance, tying such support to per-bushel or per-pound target prices for individual
commodities – not revenue, income, or receipts. (See CRS Report RS20913, Farm
Counter-Cyclical Assistance.)
Marketing Loan Assistance. There is wide support to continue marketing
assistance loans (including loan deficiency payments, LDPs). However, several
groups have called for higher loan rates. Others have proposed “re-balancing” current
loan rates by raising them to a level equivalent to soybeans (which are not currently
a PFC commodity). Both the House and Senate bills continue marketing loan benefits
for grains, cotton, oilseeds, wool, and honey; the Senate also makes peas, lentils and
chickpeas newly eligible. (See CRS Report 98-744, Agricultural Marketing
Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments.)
Supply Management. Most major agricultural groups oppose any restoration
of production control or supply management tools. However, the National Farmers
Union and the National Farmers Organization proposed voluntary set-asides for crops
– with loan rates increasing as more acres are removed from production – and also
commodity reserve programs that (when prices are low) pay producers to store crops
on the farm until prices rise. Neither the House nor Senate bill would re-introduce
these policy tools.

---

CRS-7
Price-Supported Commodities. Support programs for tobacco, peanuts,
sugar, and milk maintain farm prices above what the market might otherwise dictate.
Nonrecourse price support loans and marketing quotas apply to virtually all U.S.
tobacco and to peanuts. Sugar utilizes nonrecourse loans and tariff rate quotas to
support prices and limit the entry of less expensive imports. Milk price support is
provided through: direct USDA purchases of dairy products at specified prices; milk
marketing orders (which pool receipts and set classified prices for most fluid grade
milk); and comparatively high duties on imported milk products.3 Critics, including
the WTO, consider these subsidies to be highly production and trade distorting.
Supporters contend that these programs are effective in maintaining farm incomes and
low cost to taxpayers. Some thought was given to direct payments as an alternative
or supplement to price support. Both the House and Senate bills continue the sugar
and dairy programs, and radically alter the peanut program to function similarly to the
grains and cotton programs. The Senate (but not the House) bill also adds a new
counter-cyclical direct payment for dairy producers.
“Green” Payments. Some contend that farmers’ incomes can be enhanced
through so-called green payments, which provide financial incentives based not on the
commodities they produce, but rather in exchange for practices that protect land,
water, air quality, and/or wildlife; or possibly offer scenic, recreational, or open space
amenities. Critics counter that good stewardship of the land should be a responsibility
and obligation of all farmers and not require government payments. (See the next
section, “Conservation and Environment.”)
Risk Management. Another proposed alternative would phase out all
supports tied to the production of specified commodities and replace them with
assistance designed to encourage producers to expand their use of various risk
management tools. The subsidized federal crop insurance program is an existing risk
management program. However, some argue for a broader approach that might
include a combination of whole farm revenue insurance, income stabilization accounts,
more use of futures markets, contracts with commodity buyers, and other options.
A comprehensive bill introduced by Senator Lugar (S. 1571) embraces such an
approach.
House Bill. The House bill (H.R. 2646) contains the following provisions for
grains, cotton, and oilseeds:
! Fixed, decoupled payments (like the current PFC contract payments)
at rates shown in the table 2 (page 10), with a per-person payment
limit of $50,000 per year. New counter-cyclical deficiency payments
that make up the difference between a crop’s average market price
plus the fixed decoupled payment, and its “target price.” Target
prices are shown in the accompanying table. The per-person
payment for this subsidy would be limited to $75,000 yearly.
3 Until October 1, 2001, when it expired, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact authorized
producers there to receive higher prices than the national level. For an explanation, see CRS
Issue Brief IB97011, Dairy Policy Issues.

---

CRS-8
! Continuation of marketing assistance loans (and LDPs) at current
rates, except that the soybean rate would be lowered to $4.92/bu.
(see table). A payment limit of $150,000 per year would be applied
to marketing loan benefits. As under current law, gains from
commodity certificates and forfeitures would not be subject to limits.
Fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments would
apply to 85% of each farm’s AMTA base or updated acres, and
AMTA crop yields.
! Continued flexibility to plant most crops (except fruits and
vegetables) on base acres, and no USDA annual acreage control
authority.
A new peanut program would be similar to other crop support, with fixed
decoupled payments of $36/ton, a target price of $480/ton, and loan rate of $350/ton;
marketing quotas would be ended, with compensation of $200/ton/year for 5 years
(a total of $1,000/ton) paid to quota holders for lost asset values. Also, sugar
support at 18¢/lb. raw cane and 22.9¢/lb. refined beet would continue with the no-
net-cost rule re-established, a payment-in-kind program and marketing allotments
authorized, and no marketing assessment. Dairy would continue at its current
support level of $9.90/cwt. Marketing loans and LDPs would be provided at rates
of $1/lb. for graded wool, 40¢/lb. for nongraded wool, $4.20/lb. for mohair, and
60¢/lb. for honey.
Senate Bill. The Senate bill (S. 1731, but adopted as H.R. 2646) would cover
5 years, the 2002 through 2006 crops. Title I, the commodity title, contains the
following provisions for grains, upland cotton and oilseeds:
! Direct fixed, decoupled payments (as with the House bill and like
current contract payments) at rates shown in table 2 (page 10). The
combined per-person annual limit for these payments and for
counter-cyclical payments (see next bullet) would be $75,000.
! New counter-cyclical deficiency payments that make up the
difference between a crop’s average market price plus the fixed,
decoupled payment, and its “target price,” as with the House bill.
Target prices are shown in the accompanying table.
! Continuation of marketing assistance loans (and LDPs) at higher
rates than the House bill (see table 2). A payment limit of $150,000
per year would apply. In contrast to the House bill, gains from
commodity certificates and forfeitures would count toward the limit.
! Fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments would
apply to 100% of each farm’s current AMTA base acres and crop
yields, or updated acres and yields.
! Continued flexibility to plant most crops (except fruits and
vegetables) on base acres, and no USDA annual acreage controls.
The peanut program is similar to the House bill, but the loan and target prices
are higher, and the quota payment is higher at $220/ton/year. Sugar support would
continue at the same levels as in the House bill, along with marketing allotments.
Dairy would continue at its current support level of $9.90/cwt., but with an added
feature of new counter-cyclical deficiency payments for northeastern states when

---

CRS-9
minimum fluid milk prices are below $16.94/cwt., and for other states, when quarterly
all-milk prices fall below the 5-year average for that quarter.
Marketing loans and LDPs would be provided at rates of $1/lb. for graded wool,
40¢/lb. for nongraded wool, no support is included for mohair, 60¢/lb. for honey,
$6.78/cwt. for dry peas, $12.79/cwt. for lentils, $17.44/cwt. for large chickpeas, and
$8.10/cwt. for and small chickpeas.
The Senate bill also mandates specialty crop purchases using CCC funds: $100
million in each of FY2002 and FY2003, $120 million in FY2004, $140 million in
FY2005, and $170 million in FY2006. Purchases of unspecified commodities are
mandated at an additional $30 million each year.
Other bills were introduced in the Senate that offered farm income or commodity
support. Among floor amendments of note were:
! The commodity title of S. 1571 (Lugar), a 5-year bill that would: a)
offer vouchers (based on each farm’s 5-year average gross revenue)
to farmers and ranchers for the purpose of purchasing whole farm
revenue insurance, depositing in an income stabilization account, or
acquiring other risk protection coverages; b) end direct AMTA
contract payments after the 2002 crop with farmers having complete
planting flexibility beginning in 2003; c) reduce marketing assistance
loans each year and terminate them after the 2006 crop year; and d)
decrease and phase out all other commodity support programs after
2005. The full Senate rejected a Lugar amendment with these
provisions. However, an income stabilization savings account pilot
program is included in the approved Senate bill.
! An amendment, offered unsuccessfully during markup by Senators
Cochran and Roberts and also defeated, 40-55, on the Senate floor
in December, to increase direct payments, keep loan rates at current
levels, and create a system of farm savings accounts. However, as
noted a farm savings account pilot program is included in the
approved Senate bill.
The additional 10-year cost (budget authority) of the House bill’s commodity
provisions were estimated by CBO to be $48.8 billion over and above a projected
current services baseline of $69.9 billion. Thus, total commodity spending under the
bill would be nearly $120 billion. CBO estimated the additional cost of the Senate
bill’s commodity provisions at $45.9 billion (10-year basis).
Conference Issues. The House bill puts more of the support benefit into
fixed, decoupled payments while the Senate bill puts more benefit into loan deficiency
payments. The fixed, decoupled payments are not tied to current production or prices
and so are not considered to be potentially trade distorting (i.e., “amber box”). In
contrast, higher loan rates generate increased benefits when market prices are low and
so serve as counter-cyclical assistance – thereby likely to fall into the amber box. The
cost of such varying payments also are difficult to predict in the future, making farm
spending budget projections uncertain at best.

---

CRS-10
Table 2. House and Senate Bills: Comparison of Loan Rates,
Direct Payment Rates, and Target Prices
Crop
Loan Rates
Direct Payment Rates*
Target Prices*
Senate***
House**
Senate
House
2002/03, 2004/05,
House
Senate
2006
Wheat, $/bu
2.58
2.9960
0.53
0.45, 0.225, 0.113
4.04
3.4460
Corn, $/bu
1.89
2.0772
0.30
0.27, 0.135, 0.068
2.78
2.3472
Sorghum, $/bu
1.89
2.0772
0.36
0.31/0.27, 0.135,
2.64
2.3472
0.068
Barley, $/bu
1.65
1.9973
0.25
0.20, 0.10, 0.05
2.39
2.1973
Oats, $/bu
1.21
1.4980
0.025
0.05, 0.025, 0.013
1.47
1.5480
Cotton, $/lb
0.5192
0.5493
0.0667
0.13, 0.065, 0.0325
0.736
0.6739
Rice, $/cwt
6.50
6.4914
2.35
2.45, 2.40, 2.40
10.82
9.2914
Soybeans, $/bu
4.92
5.1931
0.42
0.55, 0.275, 0.138
5.86
5.7431
Oilseeds, minor, $/lb
0.087
0.0949
0.007
0.01, 0.005, 0.0025
0.1036
0.1049
Peanuts, $/ton
350
400
36.00
36
480
520
(¢/lb)
(0.175)
(0.20)
(0.018)
(0.018)
(0.24)
(0.26)
ELS cotton, $/lb
0.7965
0.7965
Wool, graded, $/lb
1.00
1.00
Wool, nongraded,
0.40
0.40
$/lb
Mohair $/lb
4.20
2.00
Honey, $/lb
0.60
0.60
Sugar, raw cane, $/lb
0.180
0.1800
Sugar, beet, $/lb
0.229
0.229
Peas, dry, $/cwt
6.78
Lentils, $/cwt
12.79
Chickpeas, large,
17.44
$/cwt
Chickpeas, small,
8.10
$/cwt
Milk, $/cwt****
9.90
9.90
16.94
* Payment bases differ between the bills, except for peanuts.
** Loan rates are maximum allowable levels.
*** Reflects payment rates that begin at higher levels in 2002 and decline by 2006, except for peanuts.
**** $9.90 is the level of farm price support under the dairy product purchase program; it is not a loan rate. See
text for an explanation of milk target price program (i.e., counter-cyclical payments) which differs from that for
crops.

---

CRS-11
Another important difference is the Dorgan-Grassley floor amendment, which
will limit support payments more strictly than the House version, to $225,000 per
individual ($275,000 for a couple), including marketing loan benefits, fixed payments,
counter-cyclical payments, plus gains from commodity certificates and forfeitures.
The rules also make it more difficult to reorganize operations in order to legally
exceed this limit. (See CRS Report RS21138, Farm Commodity Payment Limits:
Comparison of Proposals.)
Finally, conference may be complicated by CBO’s announcement that it had
underestimated the commodity title’s new costs by more than $6 billion. CBO said
that it calculated the projected cost of the Senate’s fixed payment provisions by
assuming that only 85% of participants’ base acres would be eligible for coverage.
In fact, the Senate version would authorize payments on 100% of base acres.
(See: CRS Report RL31251, Commodity Support Provisions: Comparison of
Current Law with House and Senate Farm Bills; CRS Issue Brief IB97011, Dairy
Policy Issues; CRS Issue Brief IB95117, Sugar Policy Issues; CRS Report RL30924,
Peanut Program Policy Issues; CRS Report RS20896, Farm Commodity Programs:
Wool and Mohair; CRS Report RS20759, Farm Commodity Programs: Honey; and
Farm Income and Commodity Price Support Programs, House Farm Bill Policy for
Grains, Cotton, and Oilseeds, Sugar Program, Peanut Program.
Conservation and Environment4
The conservation title both amends existing programs and adds new ones to
protect or restore agricultural lands and provide resource and environmental benefits
to society.5 USDA agencies implement current conservation policies through a
combination of cost sharing payments and technical assistance, backed by education
and research for numerous land retirement and working land programs. Participation
in these programs is voluntary.
Starting with the omnibus farm bill in 1985, Congress expanded the conservation
mission significantly beyond its traditional focus on controlling soil erosion and
providing water to enhance production. The goals now include wetlands protection,
wildlife habitat protection and development, and air and water quality improvement,
among others. Since the 1996 farm bill was enacted, new issues have emerged,
including sequestering carbon and addressing global climate change, producing energy
from biomass, protecting and restoring grasslands, reducing non-point water pollution
caused by very large animal feeding operations, and addressing other “off-farm”
impacts.
Over the years, Congress has added new conservation tools, including controls
over environmentally fragile lands and wetlands for producers who want to receive
federal farm benefits, and easements to protect resource values while keeping the land
under the control of the farmer. The expanded conservation effort is reflected in
funding levels. Conservation activities at USDA received just over $1 billion in
4 CRS contact: Jeffrey Zinn, 7-7257.
5 Title II of both the House and Senate bills contains most but not all of the bill’s conservation
provisions; some can be found in other titles as well.

---

CRS-12
FY1985; they now receive more than $3 billion annually. However, most of this
growth has been for land retirement and easements (e.g., the Conservation Reserve
and Wetlands Reserve Programs, CRP and WRP), while the other activities have
grown little or not at all in real terms. In the 1996 farm bill, funding for five
conservation programs was moved from discretionary spending, subject to the annual
appropriations process, to mandatory funding through the CCC. Funding of
mandatory conservation programs totaled just over $2 billion in FY2001, according
to CBO. (See CRS Report RL30331, Conservation Spending in Agriculture: Trends
and Implications, for a tabulation of programs and review of spending over the past
20 years.)
Numerous programs are scheduled to expire by the end of FY2002. During
several days of hearings in 2001, the agriculture committees explored program and
policy options. Farm groups generally suggested increasing funds for existing
programs and reducing conservation impediments to farm operations. Other interest
groups, while supporting some of the farmer proposals, recommended more
substantial changes. One broader approach encompassing the idea of “green
payments” was introduced by Chairman Harkin in a freestanding bill (S. 932) before
being incorporated, as the Conservation Security Program, into the Senate-approved
farm bill.
House Bill. Final approval of H.R. 2646, including a conservation title, came
in the House after it adopted a manager’s amendment removing several controversial
conservation provisions from the committee-reported bill. For example, the
committee version would have transferred administration of some conservation
programs from USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to USDA’s
Farm Service Agency (FSA), and limited the penalties for farming wetlands
(“swampbuster”) only to the year in which the infraction occurred. After the
manager’s amendment was adopted, committee leaders led a successful effort to
defeat (200-226) the so-called Kind-Boehlert amendment, a bipartisan alternative
conservation title endorsed by many environmental organizations. This amendment,
a revised version of the Work Lands Stewardship Act (H.R. 2375), would have
shifted $1.9 billion annually from support for grains, cotton, and oilseeds in H.R. 2646
to the conservation title, to fund a variety of expanded conservation activities.
The conservation provisions in Title II of the House-passed bill would provide
about $15.8 billion in new budget authority by the end of FY2011, an increase of 80%
over current levels, according to CBO. Major changes would:
! Increase the CRP enrollment ceiling from 36.4 million acres to 39.2
million acres, and expand the small wetlands pilot program from six
states to all states;
! Allow 150,000 acres to be enrolled into the WRP annually;
! Increase annual funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) gradually from $200 million in FY2002 to $1.5
billion in FY2010 and FY2011, create a new cost-sharing program
for ground and surface water protection that starts at $30 million and
grows to $60 million annually, allow EQIP contracts with
participants to be as short as 1 year, and increase individual contracts
to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in total;

---

CRS-13
! Allow certified third parties to provide technical assistance, and issue
rules for a certification program within 6 months of enactment;
! Increase funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
from $25 million in FY2002 to $50 million in FY2010;
! Increase funding for the Farmland Protection Program (FPP) to no
more than $50 million annually, and make certain non-profits eligible
to participate;
! Permanently reauthorize the Resource Conservation and
Development (RC&D) Program;
! Establish a new 2 million acre grassland reserve, with a spending cap
of $254 million in mandatory funding over 10 years;
! Establish a new Farmland Stewardship Program to better coordinate
conservation programs on eligible lands, with all spending to come
through other programs;
! Provide $15 million annually for rehabilitation of aging small
watershed projects; and
! Repeal several programs that are not being actively implemented.
Senate Bill. Title II of the Senate bill amends and reauthorizes many of the
same programs as H.R. 2646, but only through FY2006. CBO estimated that the
Senate bill would increase budget authority for conservation by about $11.8 billion
through FY2006 and about $21.3 billion through FY2011, doubling the current
baseline.
! Authorize new water conservation programs to allow the
Department to purchase water rights from willing sellers, temporarily
or permanently. One program would allow easements to be
purchased on up to 500,000 acres under the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program, with priority given to protecting endangered
species, among other specified purposes (to be in accord with all
applicable state laws). Second, a new water benefits program would
provide funds to eligible states to improve instream flows, promote
water conservation, or purchase water rights, funded at $25 million
in FY2002 and increasing to $100 million annually in FY2004-2006;
! Create a new Conservation Security Program to provide payments
to all producers who practice conservation, with payment levels, up
to specified limits, dependent upon which of three levels of
conservation they practice;
! Authorize payments for technical assistance in support of all
mandatory conservation programs;
! Allow certified third parties to provide technical assistance under
standards to be developed by USDA;
! Protect the privacy of personal information related to conservation
programs;
! Require the Secretary to examine the opportunities to consolidate
and coordinate conservation programs, and to implement the Soil
and Water Resources Conservation Act by April 30, 2005;
! Increase the CRP enrollment ceiling from 36.4 million acres to 41.1
million acres, expand the small wetlands pilot program from six
states to all states, allow certain economic uses of CRP lands (with
reduced payments), provide longer terms for new hardwood tree

---

CRS-14
contracts, require a USDA study of the economic and social effects
of the CRP, and remove the continuous enrollment option from the
county enrollment ceiling of 25% of cropland;
! Allow 250,000 acres to be enrolled into the WRP annually (with up
to 25,000 of these acres to be enrolled in a new Wetlands Reserve
Enhancement Program), and limit total WRP enrollment to 2.225
million acres;
! Fund EQIP starting at $500 million in FY2002 and gradually
increasing to $1.5 billion in FY2006, provide enhanced assistance to
beginning and limited resource producers, expand eligible practices
to include comprehensive nutrient management plans, allow contracts
with participants to be as short as 3 years, limit payments an
individual or entity can receive to $30,000 a year or $150,000 per
contract longer than 4 years, and use a portion of EQIP monies to
fund programs for competitive grants for innovative conservation
practices, water conservation in the Southern Plains, and a pilot
program for drinking water supplies;
! Prevent farm program benefits on land converted to agricultural
production unless it meets specified requirements;
! Create a new partnership program to assist producers to address
environmental issues or to address conservation issues on a
watershed basis, using 5% of the funding provided for EQIP;
! Make the RC&D Program a permanent authorization;
! Increase funding for WHIP from $50 million in FY2002 to $355
million in FY2006, use at least 15% of the funds for projects related
to threatened and endangered species, and not more than 15% of the
funds to enroll lands for at least 15 years to protect “essential plant
and animal habitat”;
! Authorize new programs to purchase flood plain easements
(Watershed Risk Reduction Program), to support organic farming
research, to establish a retirement program for wetlands and
adjoining areas where cranberries are grown (Cranberry Acreage
Reserve), to develop a water management plan for the Klamath River
basin; to initiate a source water protection program, and to initiate a
Great Lakes Basin Erosion Control Program;
! Authorize a grazing lands conservation program to replace one
authorized in Sec. 386 of the 1996 farm bill, and provide $60 million
annually for it;
! Reauthorize the FPP, providing $150 million in FY2002 and
increasing to $500 million in FY2006, make certain non-profits
eligible to participate, and use up to $10 million of the funds made
available annually to initiate a new market viability program;
! Set a minimum annual overall conservation funding level at $12
million per state;
! Expand state market programs, funded through the CCC;
! Establish a new 2 million acre grasslands reserve, and allow
easements to be held by certain private organizations; and
! Restate the provisions creating State Technical Committees to
specify membership and responsibilities.

---

CRS-15
Conference Issues. The conference committee will have to resolve a number
of issues, including: differing funding levels for most programs; which (if any) of the
numerous new programs that appear in one or the other version should be adopted;
whether to retain the Senate-approved water conservation provisions; whether to
require minimum funding levels for conservation in all states; how to certify third-
party providers and determine what they can do; how to fund technical assistance to
support mandatory programs; and whether to protect the privacy of resource
information provided by producers.
(For more information see: CRS Report RL31255, Resource Conservation Title:
Comparison of Current Law with House and Senate Farm Bills; CRS Issue Brief
IB96030, Soil and Water Conservation Issues; and CRS Report RL31131, Selected
Conservation Proposals for the Next Farm Bill. A short discussion of conservation
with links to other documents can be found in Conservation and Environment in the
CRS Agriculture Policy and Farm Bill Briefing Book.)
Foreign Trade and Food Aid6
Exports are viewed by most U.S. agricultural groups as critical to farm
prosperity. Thus, trade titles in omnibus farm bills are important vehicles for
addressing agricultural trade problems, export assistance, and foreign food aid
programs. Other policy venues also are important. For example, negotiations are
under way in the World Trade Organization (WTO) to strengthen multilateral
agricultural trade rules. Regional and bilateral trade negotiations also will affect
conditions of competition for U.S. farm products.
Provisions of the 1996 Law. Title II of the 1996 farm bill extended and
amended the major U.S. foreign food aid and agricultural export programs. It
reauthorized through FY2002 Titles I, II, and III of P.L. 480 (the Food for Peace
program), which respectively provide concessional financing of U.S. agricultural
exports, commodity donations for humanitarian and development activities, and
bilateral development grants of food. The farm bill extended to FY2002, at
previously authorized funding levels, export credit guarantees for agricultural sales
(the so-called GSM programs). It also extended, at reduced spending levels, the
Export Enhancement Program (EEP, an export subsidy program) and the Market
Access Program (MAP, which assists in the export promotion of U.S. farm products),
as well as the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMDP).
Selected Issues. In renewing the food aid and export assistance programs,
the 107th Congress again is confronted with questions of policy direction and funding.
Levels of spending and volumes of product subsidized under EEP and the Dairy
Export Incentive Program (DEIP) are subject to limitations under the Uruguay Round
Agreement on Agriculture (URAA). In practice, EEP has been used very little in
recent years; DEIP has been used to the limits of the URAA. Market promotion
programs like MAP, the food aid programs, and export credits (GSM) are not
considered to be trade distorting under the current URAA, and therefore are not
subject to spending disciplines. Foreign trading partners challenge this assertion,
6 CRS contact: Geoffrey S. Becker, 7-7287.

---

CRS-16
countering that the United States has utilized food aid and export credits as ways to
dispose of heavily subsidized farm surpluses, thereby distorting trade.
Some have questioned whether export subsidy and promotion support actually
increases overseas sales or simply displaces what would have occurred anyway. Even
if sales increase, there are questions about whether they lead to substantially higher
farm prices and incomes – or whether direct farm subsidies might be more cost-
effective. Some critics claim that these programs benefit primarily large food and
export companies (who can afford to pay for promotion activities themselves) or
foreign buyers more than U.S. producers. Defenders cite studies claiming positive
outcomes from such spending. Similar questions arise with regard to foreign food
aid.
One issue has been whether to mandate the Global Food for Education Initiative,
launched as a $300 million pilot program by the Clinton Administration to help
establish school and pre-school food programs in developing countries. The farm bill
also could be a vehicle for further congressional guidance on objectives and strategy
in multilateral and/or bilateral trade negotiations. U.S. agricultural groups generally
expect trade negotiations to open new markets. However, some segments of
agriculture – e.g., dairy, peanut, sugar, and certain fruit and vegetable producers – are
concerned about the potentially negative impacts of increased competition under trade
agreements that reduce barriers to imports of such products into the United States.
House Bill. Title III of H.R. 2646 would reauthorize MAP, FMDP, P.L. 480
(Food for Peace), Food for Progress (FFP), export credit guarantees, and EEP
through 2011, with some spending increases. For example, MAP funding immediately
would be more than doubled, to $200 million per year (from a current $90 million),
and FMDP funding increased to $37 million per year; FFP transportation and
administrative funding also would be increased. DEIP also would be renewed
through 2011 under the dairy provisions of Title I of the bill.
The bill adds international conflict prevention as a new P.L. 480 program
objective and increases the minimum level of Title II commodities from 2.025 MMT
to 2.25 MMT annually. The measure explicitly permits (but does not require) the
President to operate an international food for education and child nutrition program,
authorizing such sums as necessary through 2011. Other provisions: require
preparation of a comprehensive agricultural trade strategy; and, authorize $3 million
annually in CCC funds to establish a program aimed at removing sanitary,
phytosanitary (SPS), and related barriers to trade in specialty crops, among other
things. During floor consideration, an amendment was approved to require retailers
to provide country-of-origin information to consumers of fruits and vegetables (by a
vote of 296-121).
Senate Bill. Title III of the Senate bill would reauthorize MAP, FMDP, P.L.
480, FFP, export credit guarantees, and EEP through 2006. Compared with the
House, the Senate version: provides for a more gradual increase in annual MAP
funding, from the current $90 million to $200 million by FY2006; increases annual
FMDP funding to $42.5 million by FY2004; and gives priority for the increased
portion of both MAP and FMDP to new eligible trade organizations and emerging
markets. Also, the Senate: requires the Secretary to provide a minimum of 400,000
metric tons of commodities annually for FFP; strikes the current statutory restriction

---

CRS-17
against private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba; funds a new biotechnology
outreach and education program aimed at foreign customers with funding authorized
at $15 million yearly; authorizes a “rapid response” initiative to help exporters
affected by unreasonable SPS-related trade barriers; and expresses the sense of
Congress regarding trade negotiating objectives for agriculture. DEIP would be
renewed through 2006, under the dairy provisions of Title I of the bill.
With regard to food aid, the Title II minimum levels would be increased
gradually to 2.5MMT by FY2006 and the annual spending cap doubled, to $2 billion.
Conflict prevention would be added as a policy objective. Among the administrative
and operational changes, a number are aimed at enhancing the private voluntary
organizations’ role in the delivery of aid. The Senate trade title also requires the
international food for education program at no more than $150 million per year for
4 years (FY2002-2005).
The Senate bill also would require retailers to provide country-of-origin
information to consumers of perishable agricultural commodities (i.e., fresh and
frozen fruits and vegetables), muscle cuts and ground beef, pork, and lamb, wild and
farm-raised fish, and peanuts. The Senate (but not the House) bill would prohibit
USDA quality grades on imported meats.
Conference Issues. Although both versions’ trade provisions are somewhat
similar, a number of differences are at issue during the House-Senate conference.
These include: the Senate-proposed easing of sanctions on agricultural sales to Cuba;
whether to mandate (Senate) or simply permit (House) the operation of a global food
for education program; and how far-reaching to make mandatory country–of-origin
labeling (the Senate bill covers more types of foods).
Total additional 10-year cost (budget authority, above baseline) of the House
trade title was estimated by CBO to be about $1.4 billion. The CBO estimate for the
Senate trade title is about $2.1 billion above baseline over 10 years (although it is just
a 5-year renewal).
(See CRS Issue Brief IB10077, Agricultural Trade Issues in the 107th Congress;
CRS Report RS20997, Farm Bill Trade and Food Aid Provisions, and Agricultural
Trade and Foreign Food Aid in the CRS Agriculture Policy and Farm Bill Briefing
Book. A memorandum with a more detailed comparison of the House and Senate
trade provisions with current law is available from Geoff Becker at 7-7287.)
Farm Credit and Finance7
Omnibus farm bills commonly contain a credit title that makes policy changes to
USDA agricultural credit programs and addresses issues that relate to commercial
lenders, such as the Farm Credit System (FCS, a confederation of federally chartered,
member owned banks and associations) and commercial banks. Credit is an important
production input for many farmers. Long-term credit is used to finance purchases of
real estate, and shorter-term loans finance production input expenses such as
livestock, seed, feed, fuel, and fertilizer.
7 CRS contacts: Jerry Heykoop, 7-0248; Ralph Chite, 7-7296.

---

CRS-18
USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) serves as a lender of last resort to eligible
family-sized farmers whose financial condition is too weak to permit them to obtain
commercial credit. FSA provides direct loans to farmers and also guarantees the
timely repayment of principal and interest on certain loans made by commercial
lenders. FSA makes and guarantees real estate and operating loans, and also makes
direct emergency disaster loans. These loan programs have permanent authority
under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, and unlike the farm
commodity programs, do not require periodic reauthorization. However, Congress
frequently uses the farm bill to make changes to loan program terms, conditions, and
eligibility requirements.
House Bill. Title V, the credit title of H.R. 2646, requires some program
operational and administrative changes, and alters or expands certain eligibility and
benefit provisions for FSA farm loans. Among the major provisions are: a removal
(through the end of 2006) of the requirement that an FSA borrower has to “graduate”
to a commercial lender; an extension of a requirement, through 2011, that USDA
earmark a certain portion of FSA loans for beginning farmers; and, offering an
interest-rate buydown program on certain loans. Title V also would respond to
several recent occurrences by authorizing FSA emergency disaster loans to mitigate
the effects of increased energy costs and USDA imposed animal quarantines, and
allow loans to horse breeders experiencing losses from mare reproductive loss
syndrome.
Senate Bill. The Senate bill also requires a number of operational and
administrative changes in FSA farm lending programs. Among other things, the bill
would alter certain eligibility and benefit provisions, including provisions to make
loans more available to beginning farmers. Another provision would allow borrowers
with shared appreciation agreements (SAAs) to enter into 25-year easements for
agricultural and conservation purposes. The Senate credit title also would enable
CoBank (an FCS arm) to finance facilities for storage and handling in foreign
countries that purchase U.S. farm products, by allowing CoBank to finance equipment
and facilities off the farm. CBO scored mandatory budget authority under the Senate
bill at $66 million (over 10 years) due to reduced receipts under the new SAA
provision; the House bill would not increase current mandatory budget authority.
Rural Development8
The 1980 Rural Policy Act (P.L.96-355) designates USDA as the lead federal
agency for coordinating rural development. The stated mission of the rural
development agencies within USDA is to enhance rural communities by targeting
financial and technical resources in areas of greatest need. Four agencies in USDA
are responsible for the mission area: the Rural Housing Service (RHS), the Rural
Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), and the
Office of Community Development, which provides community development support
through Rural Development’s field offices. The mission area also administers the
rural portion of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Initiative and
the National Rural Development Partnership.
8 CRS contact: Tadlock Cowan, 7-7600.

---

CRS-19
The rural development title of past farm bills has supported local business
development and expansion and the physical infrastructure of rural areas, e.g.,
subsidies for housing, electricity, telephones, water and waste disposal, and
community facilities. More recently, policymakers have pushed for programs that
support innovative and alternative industry development, enhanced
telecommunications access, as well as new funding mechanisms. Pressure for such
alternatives has continued as policymakers recognize the changing structure of
agriculture and the diversity of rural communities. Some rural areas have grown and
prospered during the last decade, particularly those within commuting distances of
metro areas. Other rural areas are falling further behind as their primary industries
(including agriculture) either decline or adapt to a global marketplace and economy
that often means fewer employment opportunities and lost population, especially in
farm-dependent areas.
Local investment strategies, notably value-added agriculture – e.g., regional food
processing plants, cooperatives, organic farming – are being promoted by many in the
farm sector. While holding promise for agriculture and surrounding communities,
there are limits on how many yogurt plants, small dairy processors, or food processors
can be supported by these local economies, especially with increasingly global
competition in these sectors.
Thus, the kinds of rural entrepreneurship seen in the past (e.g., in the above types
of value-added enterprises) may give way to future forms of rural entrepreneurship
that build around new, or previously ignored resources. Among the possibilities are
investment in environmental entrepreneurship or environmental capital, public-private
development of carbon emission markets and sustainable land management
innovations tied to national (clean water) and international agreements (carbon
emissions), and environmentally sensitive land use for non-agricultural purposes (e.g.,
recreation). New forms of agricultural production and marketing, particularly
agriculture within metro regions, also suggest future possibilities for enhancing rural
opportunities. (See Rural Development in the CRS Agriculture Policy and Farm Bill
Briefing Book.)
House Bill. Funding authorization for rural development programs in recent
farm bills has consisted almost entirely of discretionary funding. The Fund for Rural
America (Section 793 of the 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127) was an exception. Title
VI of H.R.2646 would provide $3.6 billion in estimated budget authority for rural
development in FY2002-2011, of which $1.45 billion is discretionary authorization
(subject to annual appropriation) and $2.15 billion is direct (mandatory) authorization.
Mandatory Funding
! Authorizes $20 million per fiscal year for new local television
broadcast signal loan guarantees to rural areas under the Launching
Our Communities’ Access to Local Television Act of 2000.Amends
the 2000 Agricultural Risk Protection Act (P.L.106-224) to
authorize $50 million annually FY2002-2011 from the CCC for new
value-added agricultural market development grants. Not less than
$5 million of this funding for FY2002 and not less than $10 million
for FY2003-2004 is provided for grants to establish Agriculture

---

CRS-20
Innovation Centers for technical assistance to value-added
agricultural businesses.
! Authorizes $15 million from the CCC for each fiscal year through
2011 for a new Pilot Program for Strategic Regional Development
Plans and Implementation in ten rural communities in states with a
large proportion of rural residents.
! Authorizes $30 million per year from the CCC to extend Community
Water Assistance Grants through FY2011.
! Provides for $100 million annually in additional mandatory rural
development spending from the CCC. The additional funding is to
be allocated as follows: $45 million for the Program for Strategic
Regional Development Plans and Implementation; $45 million for
Community Water Assistance Grants; $10 million for value-added
agricultural market development grants. This provision was adopted
during House floor debate, by a vote of 235 to 183; funds are to be
transferred from grains, cotton and oilseeds support in the bill to pay
for it.
Discretionary Funding
! Creates a USDA Rural Water Grassroots Source Water Protection
Program and authorizes funding at $5 million per fiscal year.
! Provides authorization for rural water and waste facility grants in
amounts deemed necessary rather than being limited to 75% of the
cost of developing a facility.
! Increases loan limits from $25 million to $100 million for certain
other rural development loan programs; and loans and guarantees for
renewable energy systems are also revised.
! Provides grants to non-profit organizations to construct or refurbish
individually-owned household water well systems for low and
moderate-income households.
! Extends various RBS and RUS loan and grant program authorization
to 2011.
Senate Bill. The rural development title (Title VI) of the Senate bill would
provide an estimated $3.4 billion in rural development authorization for FY2002-
2006, of which about $1.71 billion is direct (mandatory) budget authority and $1.69
billion is discretionary (subject to annual appropriations). As with H.R.2646, the
Senate bill would include mandatory funding for several new initiatives and
discretionary funding authorization to support new loan and grant programs and a
range of existing loan and grant programs.
Mandatory Funding
! Authorizes a new Rural America Infrastructure Account for a one-
time expenditure (estimated cost is $700 million) to close the backlog
of pending rural development loans and grants.
! Provides $100 million per year for new grants and loans at 4% or
market rate for broadband access and targets grants to communities
of 20,000 or fewer.

---

CRS-21
! Authorizes $82 million for FY2002-2003 and such sums as necessary
in FY2004-2006 for a new Rural Endowment Program to develop
long-term planning in economically depressed communities.
! Authorizes $75 million annually for new value-added agriculture
market development grants with a 5% set-aside for organic products
and priority given to grant proposals under $200,000.Authorizes
$130 million for a new program to train firefighters and emergency
medical personnel.
! Creates two venture equity capital mechanisms for rural areas (1) the
National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund. The Fund
would match the first $150 million provided by private investors; $50
million of the private funds would be guaranteed up to $300 million;
(2) the Rural Business Investment Corporations (RBICs). Private
equity firms could apply to USDA to form Rural Business
Investment firms that may receive leverage equal to 300% of its
private capital. The provision authorizes $120 million in loan
subsidies and grants. A Senate floor amendment limits to 10%
investments in areas containing a city with a population greater than
100,000. Both funds are to be administered through the Small
Business Administration.
Discretionary Funding
! Extends, modifies, and/or increases various RBS and RUS loan and
grant program authorization to 2006.
! Provides $5 million each year FY2002-2006 for grants to
broadcasting systems.
! Establishes a new Rural Entrepreneurs and Microenterprise
Assistance Program with appropriations authority of $10 million per
fiscal year for 5 years.
! Authorizes an increase in water and waste disposal funding from
$590 million to $1.5 billion per year.
! Authorizes $30 million per year to regional development
organizations.
! Creates a new Rural Telework Centers program and provides $30
million annually.
! Authorizes $25 million annually for a new Barn Preservation
Program.
! Provides $25 million annually for grants to senior citizen programs.
! Authorizes of $51 million for new SEARCH grants to provide
technical assistance to very small communities in meeting
environmental goals.
! Establishes the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority and
provides $30 million in authorization for each year fiscal year, 2002-
2006.
Both the Senate and House bills authorize the National Rural Development
Partnership.

---

CRS-22
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education9
1996 Farm Bill. Title VIII of the 1996 farm bill authorized USDA’s
agricultural research, extension, and education programs and modified public
agricultural research policy. Also, a research-related provision in the rural
development title of the 1996 Act authorized a competitive grants program (the Fund
for Rural America) to support rural development projects and rural-focus research
projects. Although not subsequently fully funded by appropriators, the Fund marked
a significant change in that federal money for the program ($100 million annually for
3 years, of which roughly one-third was for research grants) was to be transferred
directly to USDA from the U.S. Treasury instead of being appropriated.
1998 Research Legislation. In 1998 Congress passed separate legislation
superseding Title VIII of the 1996 farm bill, making several significant reforms and
reauthorizing USDA’s research, extension, and education programs through 2002.
The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-
185) extended the new provisions contained in the 1996 farm bill (including the Fund
for Rural America) and adopted additional policy changes to: (1) require greater
accountability for program relevance and merit on the part of institutions receiving
federal funds; (2) increase the funding authority for multi-state research projects; (3)
phase in a matching funds requirement for the 1890 (historically black) colleges; and,
(4) authorize several new research programs. Of the latter, the most significant is a
5-year, $600 million Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, a competitive
grants program intended to promote cutting-edge research in the areas of genomics,
biotechnology, food safety, new uses for agricultural products, natural resource
management, and farm profitability. Congress authorized funding for the program –
$120 million annually – to come directly from savings in mandatory spending
stemming from reforms made in the food stamp program in 1997.
Selected Issues. In part because of difficulties in obtaining consistent
financing for the innovative funding mechanisms authorized in the 1996 farm bill and
the 1998 research reform law (the Fund for Rural America and the Initiative for
Future Agriculture and Food Systems), a primary research policy issue in the current
farm bill debate is funding. In June 2001, a bipartisan group of 49 House members,
including 24 from the House Agriculture Committee, wrote to Agriculture and
Appropriations Committee leaders urging that a portion of the budget increase set
aside for agriculture be used to double funding for research programs over the next
5 years, including $500 million in the coming year. In addition, the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks have prompted many lawmakers to call for additional security
for federal and state research facilities, and for increased research on agriculture and
food protection.
House Bill. Title VII (Research and Related Matters) of H.R. 2646 would:
! Reauthorize research programs through 2011; this includes the
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, which would be
funded through the CCC (instead of U.S. Treasury transfers) at a
9 CRS contact: Jean Rawson, 7-7283.

---

CRS-23
total of $1.16 billion to be distributed in equal amounts over a 7-year
period;
! Seek to increase funding for the 1890 colleges by gradually
increasing the matching funds requirement from its current level of
50%, to 60% in 2003 and to 100% in 2007 (rising in 10% increments
from 2003);
! Initiate a 50% matching funds requirement for the land grant colleges
in the “insular areas,” (redefined to include Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, N. Mariana Islands, Micronesia,
the Marshall Islands, and Palau), and establish a competitive grants
program to strengthen the teaching programs at those colleges;
! For the tribally controlled land grant colleges (the 1994 Institutions),
(1) authorize direct appropriations to take the place of the
endowment fund established by the 1994 law; (2) double the
authority for annual federal payments to each institution to $100,000;
and (3) make the 1994 schools eligible to receive formula funds for
research and extension under the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts;
! Create a new subtitle that amends the Research Facilities Act (7
U.S.C. 390 et seq.) to permit the assessment of civil penalties to
cover damage from violence against agricultural research facilities.
Senate Bill. The research title (also Title VII) among other things would:
! Increase annual appropriations authority for ARS research from $850
million to $1.5 billion and for state extension programs from $420
million to $500 million for 2002 to 2006;
! Raise mandatory funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and
Food Systems from $120 million to $225 million annually, and
expresses the sense of Congress that federal investments in food and
agricultural research should double over the next 5 years;
! Similarly to H.R. 2646, mandate greater support for research at the
insular area institutions (those in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other U.S.
territories) by requiring increases in state matching funds, and
authorizing an appropriation of $4 million per year for a distance
education program for those institutions;
! Increases the matching funds requirement for the 1890 (historically
black) land grant colleges and mandate annual appropriations that are
at least 15% of the amount appropriated for the 1862 institutions;
! Create a competitive grants program for the construction and
modernization of food and agricultural research facilities;
! Permit higher federal reimbursements for indirect costs associated
with research grants (these had been capped at 19%, well below the
35% average for most federally supported research);
! Establish a training and technical assistance program on risk
management for beginning farmers and ranchers;
! Create a 5-year, $60 million extension grant program to promote the
development of electronic commerce enterprises in rural areas;
! Make grants to youth organizations (e.g., Girl and Boy Scouts, 4-H,
Future Farmers of America) for expanding programs in rural areas;
! Include a biosecurity subtitle to: (1) establish an Agriculture
Infrastructure Security Fund that would be used to support science

---

CRS-24
to protect animal and plant health and the food supply; (2) establish
a 15-member commission to advise the Secretary on use of the fund;
and (3) authorize a total of $300 million over 3 years for biosecurity
planning and response programs, including the modernization and
construction of research facilities.
Food Stamps and TEFAP10
Among the domestic food assistance programs administered by the USDA, two
are noteworthy in the context of the farm bill. Authorization of appropriations, and
other authorities related to the Food Stamp program and The Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP), expire at the end of FY2002.
Food Stamp Issues. Although food stamp enrollment is now increasing, it
is about one-third below its peak in the spring of 1994 and only a little higher than the
all-time low. Over half of this decline came from a sharp drop in the rate at which
those who are eligible actually participate. And participation rates appear to be
notably low among working poor families with children and the elderly.
State officials, program advocates, and supporters of the 1996 welfare reform
law (with its goal of moving families from welfare to work) maintain that various
aspects of food stamp eligibility, benefit, and administrative rules thwart participation
and effective administration, especially in the case of working poor families and the
elderly. They point to overly complex policies and food stamp rules that differ too
greatly from those applied by states in administering Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) programs and Medicaid. They assert that the food stamp “quality
control” system penalizes too many states too harshly for erroneous benefit/eligibility
determinations (pressuring them to “over-administer” the program). Finally, some
believe that benefit levels (especially for working families with children) are not high
enough to merit the effort involved in applying and maintaining eligibility.
The continued ineligibility of many legally resident noncitizens and the confusion
engendered by the rules governing their eligibility also have sparked reform proposals.
Over 500,000 legally resident noncitizens remain ineligible for food stamps, although
1998 amendments had restored eligibility to some who were made ineligible for food
stamps by the 1996 welfare reform law, and several states are funding food stamps
for others. Moreover, participation by eligible citizen children with legally resident
noncitizen parents and eligible noncitizens has declined greatly since 1996.
Food Stamp Reform Agendas. There is not a unified reform agenda, and
most alternatives would impose significant new costs. Many states call for simplified
federal food stamp rules, much greater state control over program policies, and more
standardized benefit/eligibility rules that will make it easier on both administrators and
applicants/recipients. They also want major revision of the quality control system.
Program advocates emphasize the inadequacy of benefits and the need to restore
eligibility to noncitizens. Although they support reform of the quality control system
and selective changes to make eligibility/benefit determinations simpler for applicants,
they resist vesting much more decision-making with states and tampering with what
10 CRS contact: Joe Richardson, 7-7325.

---

CRS-25
they see as a food stamp “safety net.” Welfare reform supporters also agree with
quality control reforms, but stress the need to ensure that the food stamp program
fulfills a major role in supporting the working poor as its first priority.
The Administration announced its food stamp reform agenda as part of its
FY2003 budget package. The Administration estimates its reforms would cost $4.2
billion in new food stamp spending over the next 10 years. They include increasing
benefits modestly for larger households (similar to what is proposed in the House and
Senate farm bills, see below), standardizing or giving states control over several rules
to ease administrative burdens on program operators and applicants/recipients,
excluding the value of one vehicle per adult in judging eligibility, making eligible all
noncitizens who have resided in the U.S. legally for 5 years (similar to part of the
Senate farm bill’s proposal, see below), restructuring and reducing spending for
employment and training programs for food stamp recipients (similar to the Senate
farm bill, see below), ending automatic eligibility for some beneficiaries of Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and substantially reforming the food stamp
quality control system to penalize fewer states and give bonuses to states performing
well (although in a different way than the House and Senate farm bills, see below).
However, with the House and Senate farm bills in conference, it is unclear how
the Administration’s reform package will be taken up – perhaps in the welfare reform
reauthorization debate later this year.
TEFAP Issues. Federal food donations under TEFAP have recently increased,
and private-sector donations to emergency feeding organizations are on the rise. But
many contend that federal help has not kept pace with growing demand and is well
below what is required in a serious economic downturn. Perhaps more important,
they argue that the costs of storing and distributing food given out by state/local
providers (whether privately or federally donated) are seriously underfunded.
House Bill. The House bill would reauthorize all expiring food stamp program
and appropriation authorities through FY2011. It also includes four significant
structural changes intended to increase benefits to families with children and ease
burdens on administrators and applicants/recipients:
! Benefits to larger households are raised modestly by disregarding
more of their income;
! Administrative burdens are lightened by allowing states to conform
the way they count income for food stamp purposes to the methods
they use in their TANF or Medicaid programs;
! States are allowed to provide “transitional food stamp benefits” for
6 months to families leaving TANF for work; and
! The quality control system is substantially revamped, easing
pressures on states and giving them new bonuses for high
performance.
For TEFAP, the House bill reauthorizes, and significantly increases funding for,
food purchases and distribution costs through FY2011.

---

CRS-26
The 10-year CBO cost estimate for the food stamp and TEFAP provisions of the
House bill is $3.64 billion (budget authority/outlays above baseline). Additional
spending for a Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program totals $150 million.
Senate Bill. The Senate bill would reauthorize all expiring food stamp
program and appropriation authorities through FY2006. It also includes amendments
that – much like the House bill – raise benefits to larger households, allow states to
conform rules to TANF and Medicaid and grant transitional food stamps, ease quality
control penalties, and institute new bonus payments. However, it goes well beyond
the House measure, primarily by:
! Expanding eligibility for noncitizens (more extensively than
proposed by the Administration);
! Setting up state options to: establish when eligibility will be
redetermined, reduce recipient reporting requirements, simplify
benefit calculations, and conform asset eligibility rules with TANF
and Medicaid standards;
! Increasing benefits for recipients with very high shelter costs;
! Liberalizing and simplifying work requirements for able-bodied adults
without dependents;
! Ending limits on spending of work/training funds and changing the
federal share of this spending; and
! Permitting use of food stamp benefits to buy dietary supplements.
The Senate measure also extends TEFAP authorizations through FY2006 and,
as with the House bill, increases funding for food purchases and distribution costs.
Overall, the CBO estimate for the 10-year increase in food stamp and TEFAP
spending engendered by the Senate bill is $8.32 billion (budget authority above the
baseline) or $8.89 billion (outlays above the baseline) – although, as noted, the bill is
a 5-year extension. Additional spending for commodity purchases for child nutrition
programs and farmers’ market and other initiatives totals $440 million. Costs are
included in both Title I and Title IV of the bill.
(See Food Stamps and TEFAP in the CRS Agriculture Policy and Farm Bill
Briefing Book.)
Other Provisions
Competition Issues.11 Provisions in Title IX of the House bill would create
an Interagency Task Force on Agricultural Competition, and authorize appropriations
to enhance the capability of USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration (GIPSA) to review competitive implications of structural change in
the meat packing industry, with sums specifically earmarked to hire attorneys. The
Senate bill contains provisions that would:
11 CRS contact: Jerry Heykoop, 7-0248.

---

CRS-27
! Remove mandatory arbitration clauses from livestock contracts and
allow for dispute settlement through other legal means in addition to
arbitration;
! Ban packer ownership or control (to such an extent that the producer
is no longer “materially participating” in the production) of livestock
for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. The ban – likely to be
among the more contentiously conference issues – would not apply
to producer-owned cooperatives, or to producer-owned packers that
annually slaughter less than 2% of livestock slaughtered in the United
States;
! Extend GIPSA authority to include livestock production contracts.
Currently, GIPSA protects broiler farmers who grow under contract
and livestock producers who sell directly to packers, but it does not
have authority over livestock producers who grow under contract;
! Allow contract producers to discuss the contract with advisors and
enforcement agencies even if the contract contains a confidentiality
clause.
Forestry.12 The House and Senate bills both contain forestry titles (Title VIII
in each). Both would reauthorize the Forest Service’s Office of International Forestry
and the Renewable Resources Extension Act; and would double the authorized
funding for forestry extension. Both bills would authorize “stewardship end result
contracts,” where the Forest Service could require timber purchasers to reduce
wildfire fuel levels, essentially trading goods (timber) for services (fuel reduction);
authorize the Agriculture and Interior Secretaries to make grants to biomass-to-
energy facility operators “to offset the costs incurred to purchase” potentially
hazardous wildfire fuels; and authorize a new program to assist local governments
fight fires.
The House bill would replace the existing Forestry Incentives and Stewardship
Incentives Programs with a new coordinated Forest Land Enhancement Program to
provide cost-sharing to private landowners for planning and implementing sustainable
forestry practices, with $20 million annually in mandatory appropriations. The Senate
bill would reauthorize the Forestry Incentives Program (the Stewardship Incentives
Program is permanently authorized), and would create a new sustainable forest
management program, with $48 million annually in mandatory appropriations. The
Senate bill also would: create a new forestry cooperatives grant program (with $2
million annually in mandatory spending); a new program to help states with watershed
issues on nonfederal lands; a new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Program; a
new Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative; a new Office of
Tribal Relations and Assistance to Tribal Governments; a new research and treatment
program for Sudden Oak Death Syndrome; and a new Adaptive Ecosystem
Restoration Program for Arizona and New Mexico. (See CRS Report RL31065,
Forestry Assistance Programs.)
Energy.13 The Senate approved a new energy title creating a variety of
competitive grant and/or loan programs targeted at conversion of biomass to fuels and
12 CRS contact: Ross Gorte, 7-7266.
13 CRS contact: Brent Yacobucci, 7-9662.

---

CRS-28
chemicals, development of renewable energy, improvements in agricultural energy
efficiency, and development of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies for farm
applications. In addition, the title would require the federal government to purchase
of bio-based products, if available. Total mandatory spending would increase by $110
million annually. The title also includes authorizations for the following
appropriations: $55 million annually for various research, development, and
demonstration projects on carbon sequestration; $5 million annually for biofuels. In
addition, the title eliminates a $49 million annual authorization for biomass research
and development. The House bill includes some comparable energy-related
provisions, but in other titles.
Miscellaneous. Both the House and Senate bills provide for an increase in
authorized funding for the outreach program for socially disadvantaged farms, from
$10 million to $25 million per year. Both also make it illegal to buy, sell, transfer, or
drag non-ambulatory (“downer”) animals, and make it illegal to transport animals
across state lines for participation in animal fighting or for export.
Other sections in Title IX (the miscellaneous title) of the House bill include:
explicit authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to provide economic and disaster
assistance to livestock and dairy producers, subject to appropriations; and an increase
in Section 32 carryover authority from $300 million to $500 million annually.
During floor action, the full Senate approved an amendment to the commodities
title (Title I) by Senator Baucus that would provide $2.4 billion in new “disaster”
assistance, including $1.8 billion for 2001 crop losses, $500 million for livestock
producers for calendar year 2001 losses in a county that receives an emergency
designation, and $100 million in 2000 crop market loss assistance for apple producers.
This aid was designated as emergency funding and therefore would not be counted,
for scoring purposes, toward the $73.5 budget limitation on new farm bill mandatory
spending. Also, the livestock funding is in addition to a provision authorizing the
appropriation of $500 million annually for disaster feed assistance for livestock
producers. Examples of the many other miscellaneous provisions in the Senate bill,
most located in Title X, include:
! An overhaul of virtually all animal health protection laws
administered by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, in order to consolidate and update them;
! Creation of both a national organic certification cost-share program
and authority for a generic research and promotion program funded
through industry assessments;
! An expansion of various agricultural marketing programs, including
mandated funding reaching $10 million per year by FY2005 for state
agriculture department marketing programs, and a new farmers
market promotion program;
! Creation of a new Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights;
! Amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) to increase registration fees, and to create a new School
Environmental Protection Program for elementary and secondary
schools (requiring development of state and local school pest
management plans);
! Establishment of a Food Safety Commission;

---

CRS-29
! Authorization of $10 million in annual appropriations for an
assistance program for “geographically disadvantaged” farmers and
ranchers, defined as those who are in an insular area – e.g., Puerto
Rico and the U.S. territories.
Most of the above provisions were added by a nearly 392-page managers floor
amendment adopted by the Senate just prior to final passage.

---