Order Code RL33934
Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action
in the 110th Congress
March 22, 2007
Coordinated by Renée Johnson
Analyst in Agricultural Economics
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action in the
110th Congress
Summary
Many provisions of the current omnibus farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171), expire in 2007. Without new legislation,
notably in the area of farm commodity and income support programs, permanent
statutes will take effect. Most of these statutes were enacted decades ago and are no
longer compatible with current national economic objectives, global trading rules,
and federal budgetary or regulatory policies. The 110th Congress is expected to
consider legislation to reauthorize the farm bill.
The 2007 farm bill debate differs from the 2002 debate in some important ways.
First, the 2007 farm bill faces potentially significant budgetary and spending
constraints as well as constraints due to U.S. trade commitments and obligations
under continued multilateral negotiations. Second, the Bush Administration has
submitted its own detailed proposal for the 2007 farm bill, which seeks certain
changes to existing programs and provisions. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
has repeatedly stated that the Administration’s goals for a new farm bill are for it to
be “equitable, predictable and beyond challenge.” In past farm bills, the
Administration has not issued specific recommendations. Third, many other groups,
including both traditional and non-agricultural interests, have also submitted
recommendations for the 2007 farm bill. Each of these groups is seeking to exert
influence on the scope of U.S. farm policy and might also seek certain modifications
to current law. In addition, some non-traditional coalitions have emerged in pursuit
of specific farm bill policies or programs that would be of mutual interest. This report
provides a summary of some of the proposals and recommendations offered to
Congress for changes in the farm bill. These proposals could expand the scope of the
farm bill, which would allow other constituencies to benefit from farm programs
beyond the traditional base.
Congress initiated debate on a 2007 farm bill in the 109th Congress. Throughout
2006, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees conducted a series of hearings
reviewing federal farm policy. Both committees conducted hearings related to farm
bill programs early in the 110th Congress. In March 2007, two comprehensive bills
were introduced in the House of Representatives that seek broad-based changes to
existing farm legislation. Other bills have been or may soon be introduced that cover
specific programs and provisions and may later be added to other larger bills. Public
statements made by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Collin
Peterson, have indicated that he intends to complete work on a new farm bill prior
to the August 2007 recess, with full congressional action by the end of September.
This report will be updated as new major legislation relating to existing farm bill
statutes is introduced in the House and Senate in the 110th Congress.

---

Contents
Budget and Trade Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Budgetary Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Doha Round and WTO Trade Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Preliminary Hearings and Field Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
U.S. Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2007 Farm Bill Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Administration/USDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
National Farm Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
National Farmers Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
American Farm Bureau Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
American Farmland Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
National Commodity Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
National Corn Growers Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
National Association of Wheat Growers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Milk Producers Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Conservation and Rural Development Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Association of Conservation Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Defenders of Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group
(Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group / Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Center for Rural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Other Organizations and Interest Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
25x’25 Renewable Energy Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Renewable Fuel Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Chicago Council on Global Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Oxfam America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Tables
Table 1. 2002 Farm Bill Actual Spending for Major Programs
(FY2002-FY2007 est.) and the March 2007 CBO Baseline
(FY2008-FY2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

---

Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action in
the 110th Congress
Many provisions of the current omnibus farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171), expire in 2007. Without new legislation,
notably for farm commodities and income support programs, permanent statutes will
take effect. Most of these statutes were enacted decades ago and are no longer
compatible with current national economic objectives, global trading rules, and
federal budgetary or regulatory policies. The chairman of the House Agriculture
Committee, Collin Peterson, has indicated that he intends to complete work on a new
farm bill prior to the August 2007 recess, with full congressional action by the end
of September.
The 2007 farm bill debate differs from the 2002 debate in some important ways.
First, the 2007 farm bill faces potentially significant budgetary and spending
constraints as well as constraints due to U.S. trade commitments and obligations
under continued multilateral negotiations. Second, the Bush Administration has
submitted its own detailed proposal for the 2007 farm bill, which seeks certain
changes to existing programs and provisions. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
has repeatedly stated that the Administration’s goals for a new farm bill are for it be
“equitable, predictable and beyond challenge.” In recent farm bills, the
Administration has not issued specific recommendations. Third, many other groups,
including both traditional and non-agricultural interests, have also submitted
recommendations for the 2007 farm bill. Each of these groups seeks to exert
influence on the scope of U.S. farm policy and may also seek certain modifications
to current law. In addition, some non-traditional coalitions have emerged in pursuit
of specific farm bill policies or programs. This could expand on and shift the focus
of the types of issues raised during the debate.1
This paper tracks the development of the 2007 farm bill and provides a timeline
of events. It does not provide information on the specific programs in the 2002 farm
bill or information on how these programs might be modified under the 2007 farm
bill. CRS Report RL33037, Previewing a 2007 Farm Bill, coordinated by Jasper
Womach, offers a comprehensive overview of each of the programs and issues under
current farm legislation.
1 See, for example, "Crop of Proposals to Fill Out the Farm Bill," CQ Weekly, Jan. 8, 2007.

---

CRS-2
Budget and Trade Constraints
Budgetary Considerations
As with all federal programs, the farm bill faces budgetary constraints imposed
by Congress. Recent federal deficits have raised concerns with respect to
reauthorization or expansion of current farm programs. Current budget projections
also show a lower baseline for agriculture programs for the 2007 farm bill, mainly
because projected high commodity prices have caused actual farm program spending
to be below budget projections.
The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) March 2007 budget baseline
provides the starting point for the next farm bill. This 10-year baseline estimate of
spending assumes the current farm bill continues under specific economic conditions.
Yet to be determined is whether the forthcoming FY2008 budget resolution will
allow more or less spending than baseline.
Rapid increases in the futures market prices of corn and other commodities since
the summer of 2006 have contributed to a lower March 2007 baseline for farm
program spending. Projected spending for government commodity payments under
current law is projected to be $42.4 billion for the FY2008-FY2013 period, which is
about $30 billion lower than actual spending in the previous six years (Table 1).
Baseline estimates for mandatory conservation and food stamps program for the next
six years are higher compared to the previous six years. Funding for mandatory
conservation programs under current law is estimated at $26.5 billion and food and
nutrition assistance is estimated at $225.8 billion for FY2008-FY2013.
Table 1. 2002 Farm Bill Actual Spending for
Major Programs (FY2002-FY2007 est.) and the
March 2007 CBO Baseline (FY2008-FY2013)
Farm
Food
Commodity
Conservation
Exports
Total
Stamps
Support
(outlays in $ millions)
Total Baseline
42,446
26,496
2,005
225,845
296,792
(FY08-FY13)
Actual
72,934
18,323
1,648
178,158
271,063
(FY02-FY07)
FY08-FY13
(30,488)
+8,173
+357
+47,687
+25,729
Baseline vs.
FY02-FY07
Actual
Source: Compiled by CRS from various Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baselines.
The House and Senate are in the process of completing an FY2008 budget
resolution, which will determine budget parameters for the 2007 farm bill. By April
2007, both chambers are expected to complete action on the resolution, which will

---

CRS-3
likely include a specific multi-year allocation to the Agriculture Committees for the
new farm bill. Once given the new allocation, the Agriculture Committees will craft
changes in policy to fit the new farm bill within the budget allocation. The Senate
version of the FY2008 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 21) contains a $15 billion
reserve fund for the farm bill (above baseline) but would require the spending to be
offset with reductions in other federal spending.
Doha Round and WTO Trade Disputes
In ongoing trade negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO), U.S.
trading partners have criticized U.S. farm programs as being potentially trade-
distorting. Some U.S. programs have been faced with legal challenges brought by
WTO member countries. These disputes and the ongoing negotiations could
influence Congress to devise new farm bill programs that would comply with WTO
obligations and limit future legal challenges. (See CRS Report RL33144, WTO Doha
Round: The Agricultural Negotiations, by Charles E. Hanrahan and Randy Schnepf.)
A high-profile case bought by Brazil resulted in changes to U.S. cotton support.
The WTO panel ruling in the cotton case also affected programs that the United
States had considered WTO-compliant, such as export credit guarantees and
restrictions on planting flexibility. In January 2007, Canada issued a WTO complaint
against the U.S. corn program, but the result will not likely be known anytime soon.
(See CRS Report RL33697, Potential Challenges to U.S. Farm Subsidies in the
WTO; and CRS Report RL33853, U.S.-Canada WTO Corn Trade Dispute, Randy
Schnepf.)
Initially, agreement in the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations was
expected to converge in 2007 with the expiration of the 2002 farm bill, well before
the expiration of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which provides for expedited
congressional consideration of trade agreements. Many policymakers wanted a Doha
Round agreement so that the next farm bill could be made consistent with new farm
trade rules. However, progress on the Doha Round negotiations stalled in 2006.
Now many in Congress are seeking to write a new farm bill without regard to any
future Doha Round agreement. Nevertheless, this backdrop of negotiations and the
potential for litigation could potentially influence the choices U.S. lawmakers have
in designing new farm policies. EU officials have publicly stated that changes to
U.S. domestic support programs suggested by the Bush Administration’s farm bill
proposal do not go far enough in meeting Doha Round objectives for farm trade
policy reform.2
Preliminary Hearings and Field Reviews
In anticipation of the farm bill, Congress began to consider options for the
renewed legislation starting in the 109th Congress. Both the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees conducted a series of hearings in Washington and across the
country during 2006, and continued to hold hearings early in 2007. The
Administration conducted its review and farm field hearings starting in 2005.
2 "EU's Disappointment with US Farm Bill," Washington Trade Daily, Feb. 12, 2007.

---

CRS-4
U.S. Congress
House. In the 109th Congress, the House Committee on Agriculture conducted
a series of 25 hearings reviewing federal farm policy in 2006, and hearings are
continuing in 2007. Field hearings on farm commodities and risk management were
held in Valdosta, GA (March 28, 2006), Coolidge, AZ (May 1, 2006), and Wall, SD
(July 31, 2006).3 A hearing on U.S. dairy programs was held in Fresno, CA
(September 16, 2006);4 hearings on livestock and horticulture were held in Sioux
City, IA (July 31, 2006), Springfield, MO (August 28, 2006), and Washington, DC
(September 26, 2006).5 Washington-based hearings were held in September 2006
that reviewed farm commodity and risk management programs.6
Hearings on conservation, credit, rural development, and research were
conducted in Harrisburg, PA (May 1, 2006), El Reno, OK (September 18, 2006), and
Washington, DC (July 27, 2006).7 Other general field hearings took place in
Fayetteville, NC (February 6, 2006), Auburn, AL (February 7, 2006), Stockton, CA
(March 3, 2006), Nebraska City, NE (March 4, 2006), Greeley, CO (May 8, 2006),
San Angelo, TX (May 9, 2006), Yakima, WA (June 10, 2006), Canandaigua, NY
(June 26, 2006), Staunton, VA (July 17, 2006), Marshall, MN (July 22, 2006), and
Scottsburg, IN (July 24, 2006).8
In the 110th Congress, the House Agriculture Committee began hearings on farm
bill reauthorization, including a review of the Bush Administration’s proposal.
Recent hearings have covered commodity programs and risk management, renewable
energy, feed costs in livestock production, specialty crops and organic agriculture,
and food stamps and child nutrition programs.
Senate. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
conducted eight regional hearings in 2006.9 Locations and dates of these hearings
were as follows: Albany, GA (June 23, 2006), Cape Girardeau, MO (July 17, 2006),
Harrisburg, PA (July 21, 2006), Ankeny, IA (June 24, 2006), Redmond, OR (August
3 House Agriculture Committee, Review of Federal Farm Policy, Serial No. 109-28, at
[http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/109/10928.pdf].
4 House Agriculture Committee, Review of Federal Farm Policy, Serial No. 109-39, at
[http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/109/10939.pdf].
5 House Agriculture Committee, Review of Federal Farm Policy, Serial No. 109-37, at
[http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/109/10937.pdf].
6 House Agriculture Committee, Review of Federal Farm Policy, Serial Nos. 109-38 and
109-28, at [http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/109/10938.pdf] and [http://agriculture.
house.gov/hearings/109/10928.pdf]. Hearings were held Sept. 13-14 and 20-21, 2006.
7 House Agriculture Committee, Review of Federal Farm Policy, Serial No. 109-31, at
[http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/109/10928.pdf].
8 House Agriculture Committee, Review of Federal Farm Policy, Serial No. 109-25,
[http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/109/10925.pdf].
9 Senate Agriculture Committee, Regional Hearings, at [http://agriculture.senate.gov/
ag/fbfield.htm].

---

CRS-5
15, 2006), Grand Island, NE (August 16, 2006), Great Falls, MT (August 17, 2006),
and Lubbock, TX (September 8, 2006).
In the 110th Congress, the Senate Agriculture Committee farm bill hearings
began with a review of the Administration’s proposal as well as a review of issues
pertaining to conservation, bio-energy, rural development, agricultural research, trade
and food aid, and domestic food assistance and nutrition programs. In March 2007,
the committee also conducted additional reviews on farm bill opportunities within
certain states and regions, including the Northeast, Vermont, and Colorado.
Administration
USDA conducted its review of current farm programs starting in 2005. This
review consisted of 52 farm bill forums in nearly all states.10 USDA also accepted
comments through its website and by mail. USDA claims to have received more than
4,000 comments throughout this process. Information and recommendations gathered
during this time period are summarized in 41 farm forum and comment summary
documents across a range of topics.11 From these summary documents, USDA
released five farm bill analysis papers between May and September 2006. These five
analysis papers address risk management, energy, rural development, conservation
and environment, and marketing strategies.12
2007 Farm Bill Proposals
As of March 2007, several organizations had released recommendations for the
2007 farm bill. These include state organizations, national farm groups, commodity
associations, conservation and rural development organizations, and several non-
traditional interest groups. The Bush Administration also released its own detailed
set of recommendations for the farm bill, covering each title of the bill. These policy
recommendations vary widely and span the range from broad policy shifts to detailed
program changes. To date, only a few commodity associations and some national
farm groups have released formal recommendations; several commodity groups have
expressed continued support for maintaining the status quo. However, many have
voiced support for maintaining current programs or have expressed opposition to
others’ recommendations including provisions in USDA’s proposal.
The proposals described in this section may not be a comprehensive list of all
recommendations offered to Congress for changes in farm policy. This section
reviews only proposals by national organizations; other proposals are being offered
by organizations representing the interests of different regions of the country, such
as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. The proposals described in this section are not
listed in any particular order.
10 USDA conducted forums in 48 states, excluding LA and MS due to Hurricane Katrina.
11 USDA’s Farm Bill Forum Comment Summary and Background documents are at [http://
www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdafarmbill?contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/03/0106.xml].
12 USDA, USDA Analysis Papers, at [http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal?navid=FARM_
BILL_ANALYSIS&parentnav=FARM_BILL_FORUMS&navtype=RT]. USDA’s theme
papers are at [http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=FARM_
BILL_FORUMS].

---

CRS-6
Administration/USDA
On January 31, 2007, the Administration released its recommendations for the
2007 farm bill.13 The Administration’s proposal for the 2007 farm bill is unusually
detailed compared with past Administration proposals. The stated goals, according
to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns, take a “reform-minded and fiscally responsible
approach to making farm policy more equitable, predictable and protected from
challenge.”14 The report and related USDA materials are available at the
Department’s website. For more information on the USDA proposal, see CRS
Report RL33916, Questions on the USDA 2007 Farm Bill Proposal, coordinated by
Jasper Womach.
For the farm commodity support programs, the Administration’s plan would
reduce marketing loan rates and link benefits to the sale of the commodity (to reduce
speculative gains), raise direct payments for some crops, create a revenue-based
counter-cyclical program, eliminate the fruit and vegetable planting restriction, and
offer extra benefits for beginning farmers. Highly controversial is USDA’s proposed
tightening of payment limits and the eligibility cap, which would deny payments to
households with over $200,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) and cap total
payments at $360,000. The Administration’s plan also would increase funding for
conservation and bioenergy initiatives but would consolidate some existing programs
to streamline operations. The Administration’s plan would expand some domestic
food and nutrition programs, but would cap administrative costs and tighten
requirements under some programs. It also would eliminate current planting
restrictions that do not allow recipients of direct and counter-cyclical payments to
plant fruit, vegetables, and wild rice on their base acres.
For all areas in the farm bill, the Administration requests $5 billion more than
the 10-year Office of Management and Budget (OMB) baseline, according to its own
estimates. Commodity programs would receive $4.5 billion less than the $74 billion
10-year baseline, and conservation would receive $7.8 billion more than the $49
billion baseline. CBO estimates that these proposals would increase spending by $9.9
billion for the FY2008-FY2017 period relative to CBO’s March 2007 baseline
budget.15 This is twice the Administration’s $5.0 billion estimate over the same 10-
year period.
13 USDA, USDA’s 2007 Farm Bill Proposals, Jan. 31, 2007, at [http://www.usda.gov/
documents/07finalfbp.pdf].
14 USDA, “Johanns Unveils 2007 Farm Bill Proposals,” Release No. 0020.07, Jan. 31, 2007,
at [http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome].
15 Letter to Senator Robert Byrd, Appropriations Committee, from Peter Orszag, CBO, Mar.
2, 2007, at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7836/03-02-Prelim_Analysis.pdf].

---

CRS-7
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture16
In September 2006, NASDA released its formal recommendations, addressing
most farm bill titles and provisions.17 Its recommendations include (1) establishing
a producer safety net, including maintaining marketing loans and counter-cyclical
payments, expanding crop insurance options, and enacting a permanently authorized
disaster assistance program; (2) international market access for U.S. agricultural
products, including U.S. biotech crops, by continuing trade promotion authority and
funding for export market promotion; (3) support for specialty crop producers
through block grants to states; (4) enhancement of existing USDA conservation
programs; (5) support for rural development through farm/ranch profitability grants;
(6) support for domestic food programs by expanding existing pilot programs and
enhancing food safety programs; (7) support for bio-energy development, including
the 25x’25 agriculture energy initiative, tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel,
permanent, on-farm incentives for other types of renewable energy, and cellulosic/
energy feedstock development; (8) enhancement of programs to address invasive
species concerns; (9) expanded state emergency and bio-security programs; (10)
support for research and information collection; and (11) the creation of a federal
biotechnology office, among other issues. A cost estimate was not developed by
NASDA.
National Farm Groups
National Farmers Union.18 As outlined in its March 2007 press release, NFU
supports (1) a farm income safety net using counter-cyclical payments indexed to
production costs; (2) a farmer-owned strategic renewable energy reserve; (3) a
renewable energy title, including provisions for ethanol, bio-diesel, and farmer and
community-owned wind energy; (4) the addition of a competition title in the farm bill
that addresses antitrust practices, including competition and market concentration;19
(5) a permanent disaster payment program; (6) a conservation title with full funding
for the Conservation Security Program and increases in funding for the National
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) technical services; (7) an enhanced
nutrition title; (8) dairy programs with a supply management system that reflects cost
of production shifts for producers; (9) an enhanced rural development title.20
16 NASDA represents the state departments of agriculture.
17 NASDA, NASDA 2007 Farm Bill Recommendations, Sept. 18, 2006, at [http://www.
nasda.org/fb2007/].
18 NFU represents farmers and ranchers in all states, and its stated mission is to protect and
enhance the economic well-being and quality of life for family farmers and their rural
communities.
19 See also NFU, “NFU Urges Congress to Address Competition and Concentration in New
Farm Bill,” Jan. 18, 2007, at [http://www.nfu.org/news/2007/01/18/nfu-urges-congress-
to-address-competition-and-concentration-in-new-farm-bill.html].
20 NFU, “NFU Members Lay Out 2007 Farm Bill Priorities,” Mar. 5, 2007, at [http://www.
nfu.org/news/2007/03/05/nfu-members-lay-out-2007-farm-bill-priorities.html].

---

CRS-8
American Farm Bureau Federation.21 AFBF has not submitted formal
recommendations for the 2007 farm bill, but it has stated that the new farm bill
should be modeled after the current law and should provide a reliable safety net for
farmers. AFBF has stated that the Administration’s farm bill proposal includes many
of the Farm Bureau’s priority issues on conservation, renewable energy, and
incentives for new farmers. However, AFBF has publicly criticized USDA’s proposal
to tighten eligibility and payment limits for farm commodity programs.22
American Farmland Trust.23 In May 2006, AFT released its formal
recommendations outlining broad policies for the farm bill, but it continues to
develop specific program recommendations.24 Among its main proposals is the
creation of an “integrated farm revenue program” that would provide revenue
deficiency payments along with a risk management program.25 AFT also recommends
transitioning farm payments to green payments that reward farmers for environmental
stewardship, as well as competitive grants to address certain natural resource
concerns. Other recommendations include a new farm profitability grants program
to enhance rural and agricultural business opportunities, including renewable energy
and environmental services.
National Commodity Associations
National Corn Growers Association.26 As outlined in testimony before the
House Agriculture Committee in September 2006, NCGA supports a proposal that
blends the farm commodity programs and crop insurance to provide a revenue-based
safety net.27 In March 2007, their original proposal was modified toward a more
formal commodity title proposal, called the National Farm Security Act. This would
create a farm safety net that provides for a county-level revenue counter-cyclical
program integrated with the current federal crop insurance program.28 Compared to
current law, NCGA’s proposal would provide a farm safety net based on crop
revenue, rather than commodity prices. NCGA believes its plan could eliminate the
need for ad hoc disaster aid.
21 AFBF represents U.S. farmers and agribusinesses, along with state/local farm bureaus.
22 AFBF, “Current Farm Bill Should Be Model for New Law,” Mar. 2, 2007, at [http://
www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.newsfocus&year=2007&file=nr0302.html].
23 AFT’s mission is focused on farmland preservation and protecting agricultural resources.
24 AFT, Agenda 2007: A New Framework and Direction for U.S. Farm Policy, May 8, 2006,
at [http://www.farmland.org/programs/campaign/newpolicyrecommendations.asp].
25 AFT, “Integrated Farm Revenue Program,” at [http://www.farmland.org/programs/
campaign/documents/AFT_RevProtectionbriefing_overview_webNov2006.pdf]; statements
by Ralph Grossi at USDA’s 2007 Outlook Forum, March 2, Arlington, VA.
26 NCGA represents U.S. corn growers.
27 NCGA, “Forging a New Direction for Farm Policy,” Oct. 16, 2006, at [http://ncga.com/
news/notd/pdfs/10_23_06NFSA.pdf].
28 NCGA, “NCGA Refines 2007 Farm Bill Proposal,” Mar. 8, 2007, at [http://ncga.com/
news/notd/2007/march/030807.asp].

---

CRS-9
National Association of Wheat Growers.29 In late 2006, NAWG released
formal recommendations addressing most farm bill titles and provisions.30 Regarding
farm commodity programs, NAWG recommends increases in the direct payment and
the target price for wheat, but maintaining the current marketing loan program.
NAWG supports reauthorization of most other programs in other farm bill titles.
National Milk Producers Federation.31 As outlined in its March 2007 press
release, NMPF is proposing a new direct payment program called the Milk Producer
Security Program in place of the current Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC)
program.32 Its proposal also would revise the Dairy Price Support Program so that
USDA would support the price of specific dairy products, rather than the farm price
of milk. NMPF also supports new or expanded programs to address energy,
environment, conservation, animal health, nutrition, trade, and risk management,
among other issues.
Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance. The specialty crop groups started
promoting recommendations for the 2007 farm bill in May 2005, initially through the
efforts of the United Fresh Produce Association.33 These efforts were expanded and
include 85 specialty crop organizations nationwide. The Alliance’s goal is to enhance
the competitiveness of U.S. fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and other specialty crops by
adding specific programs and provisions to the 2007 farm bill.34 It supports proposals
that were first introduced in the 109th Congress and later reintroduced in the 110th
Congress under the “Equitable Agriculture Today (EAT) for a Healthy America Act.”
The Alliance opposes changes to current planting restrictions that prevent recipients
of direct and counter-cyclical payments from planting fruit, vegetables, and wild rice
on their base acres.
Conservation and Rural Development Groups
National Association of Conservation Districts.35 According to NACD,
its guiding principles for the 2007 farm bill focus on increased funding and improved
technical assistance for USDA’s Conservation Technical Assistance Program and
29 NMPF represents U.S. dairy farmers and their cooperatives.
30 NAWG, “Road Map to the 2007 Farm Bill, Policy Recommendations” [no date], at
[http://www.wheatworld.org/html/info.cfm?ID=20].
31 NMPF represents U.S. dairy farmers and their cooperatives.
32 NMPF, “2007 Farm Bill, A New Path for Dairy: A National Perspective,” Mar. 9, 2007,
at [http://www.nmpf.org/newsFlash/index.cfm?sectionsCode=PR&nfID=321].
33 United represents the produce industry, and resulted under a 2006 merger of the United
Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association and the International Fresh-Cut Association.
34 The United Fresh Produce Association, Priorities for the 2007 Farm Bill, Specialty Crop
Farm Bill Alliance, at [http://www.unitedfresh.org/newsviews/farm_bill].
35 NACD represents the nation’s 3,000 conservation districts, carrying out local natural
resource management programs, working with landowners and operators.

---

CRS-10
farm conservation programs, focused on local priorities and concerns.36 NACD
supports continued funding for conservation programs, balancing programs that set
aside land and those that provide incentives and cost-share. It also supports
streamlining and improving the efficiency of current programs. NACD also proposes
the development of alternative energy from woody biomass, forest byproducts, new
and traditional crops, and agricultural waste materials while protecting the natural
resources of the land and providing conservation and wildlife benefits.
Defenders of Wildlife.37 In February 2007, the Defenders released its formal
farm bill recommendations. These recommendations focus on increasing funding and
modifying certain provisions in farm bill conservation programs, especially programs
that address wildlife concerns: the Grasslands Reserve Program, the Wetlands
Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Conservation Security
Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The group also wants
a “sodsaver” provision that would disallow federal farm benefits on newly broken
grasslands. It supports the development of U.S. biofuels production capacity, given
the preservation of wildlife needs and environmental quality, and opposes use of
biofuels crops grown on environmentally sensitive lands enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program, or native prairie lands.38
Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group (Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership).39 In February 2007, AWWG released its formal
farm bill recommendations, which seek to expand most conservation and forestry
programs in the conservation title of the farm bill, especially the Conservation
Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program,
and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. The group also seeks provisions that
would identify measures and track the performance of conservation programs.
Similar to the Defenders’ proposal, AWWG’s recommendations support the
development of U.S. biofuels production capacity, given the preservation of wildlife
needs and environmental quality. AWWG also supports a “sodsaver” provision for
land converted from non-cropland status, which it would make ineligible for any
federal benefits. It also would require that sodbuster/swampbuster compliance be
linked to all federal farm program benefits, including crop insurance and disaster
36 NACD, “NACD Farm Bill Principles,” August 2006, at [http://www.nacdnet.org/FB07/
FarmBillPrinciples.htm].
37 The Defenders of Wildlife’s mission is to protect native wild animals and plants in their
natural communities.
38 Defenders of Wildlife, “Bush Administration Farm Bill Conservation Program
Recommendation a Mixed Bag,” Feb. 1, 2007, at [http://www.defenders.org/releases/
pr2007/pr020107.html].
39 AWWG (TRCP) represents America’s leading hunting, angling, conservation, and
wildlife organizations. Member groups include the National Wildlife Federation, Ducks
Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Izaak Walton
League of America, The Wildlife Society, The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, North
American Grouse Partnership, and American Sportfishing Association.

---

CRS-11
programs.40 AWWG also supports a provision based on proposed “Open Fields”
legislation that would provide grants to fund state-managed, voluntary-access
programs that enhance wildlife management and improve recreational opportunities
on land enrolled in conservation programs.41
Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group / Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition.42 In October 2006, the Coalition released its 2007 farm bill
recommendations, which include (1) enacting a comprehensive initiative for new
farmers and ranchers; (2) modifying the Conservation Security Program; (3)
expanding the scope and funding of USDA’s Value-Added Producers Grant program
to include a new grant component for mid-sized farms; (4) investing in a new Farm,
Food, and Rural Transitions Competitive Grants program to provide funding for
research, education and extension; (5) creating a Rural Entrepreneurs and Micro-
Enterprise Program to provide grants to qualified organizations to assist in
developing training, services, and credit for rural micro-enterprises; (6) increasing
funding for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program and creating a
transition support program; (7) supporting a new competition title that strengthens
the Packers & Stockyards Act and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act; and (8)
developing a new Sustainable Agricultural Energy Innovation Grants Program.43
Center for Rural Affairs.44 At a February 2007 hearing before the Senate
Agriculture Committee, the Center outlined some of its recommendations for rural
development programs in the farm bill. Among its key legislative efforts is promoting
the Rural Entrepreneur and Micro-Enterprise Assistance Act (S. 566), which would
provide loans to small businesses and promote rural job creation.45
40 AWWG, “Coalition Releases Blueprint for Growing Conservation,” Feb. 21, 2007, at
[http://trcp.brandspringsolutions.com/documents/releaseoffbr.pdf].
41 Similar to the Voluntary Public Access and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Act of
2005 (S. 548, Conrad / H.R. 1351, Pomeroy), which were introduced in the 109th Congress.
42 MSAWG and SAC represents the American Natural Heritage Foundation, the Center for
Rural Affairs, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Izaak Walton League of
America, the Land Stewardship Project, the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, the
National Catholic Rural Life, the Sierra Club, and various state and local farmer groups,
conservation districts, rural development organizations, and organic research foundations.
43 Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, “Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Issues Platform
Calling for Farm Bill Overhaul to Strengthen Agriculture, the Environment and Rural
Communities,” Oct. 11, 2006, at [http://www.msawg.org/farmbill/PressRelease-
FarmBillPlatform.pdf].
44 The Center represents small businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities.
45 Testimony of Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs before the Senate Agriculture
Committee, Feb. 13, 2007, at [http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?
hearingid=2539&witness Id=6064].

---

CRS-12
Other Organizations and Interest Groups
The 2007 farm bill is seeing the addition of several other non-traditional groups
that are attempting to influence the congressional debate. These include biofuel and
bioenergy groups, academic organizations, and international development groups that
seek broader changes to current farm programs.
25x’25 Renewable Energy Alliance.46 In October 2006, the 25x’25 group
released its recommendations for the 2007 farm bill. Its proposal is part of the
group’s broader objectives under its so-called “25x’25 goal,” whereby America’s
farms, ranches, and forests would provide the source for 25% of the total energy
consumed in the United States by the year 2025.47 Its proposals would provide
supportive policies across five areas: increase production of renewable energy,
deliver renewable energy to markets, expand renewable energy markets, improve
energy efficiency and productivity, and strengthen conservation of natural resources
and the environment. Resolutions were introduced in both the House and Senate
expressing the sense of both chambers to meet the 25x’25 goal (H.Con.Res. 25,
introduced by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson,
and S.Con.Res. 3, introduced by Senator Salazar)
Renewable Fuel Association.48 RFA has not released recommendations
on the 2007 farm bill, but it has been active in the recent biofuel and bioenergy push
in the U.S. agriculture sector. It also has expressed support for many of the biofuel
and bioenergy proposals in the Administration’s farm bill proposal, including funding
for several initiatives: a bio-energy and bio-based product research initiative; a
renewable energy systems and efficiency improvements grants program; and loan
guarantees for cellulosic ethanol projects in rural areas.
Chicago Council on Global Affairs.49 In September 2007, the Council
released the findings of its independent Task Force on U.S. Agriculture Policy. The
Task Force report calls for an end to trade-distorting subsidies, redefining the farm
safety net, transforming the food stamp program, and reinvesting in U.S. agriculture.
Among its key recommendations for U.S. farm programs are (1) direct payments that
are delinked from production and market conditions, and fully comply with “green
box” standards under the WTO; (2) a revenue insurance program covering all
commodities on a multiproduct basis that allows farmers to purchase coverage at
46 Along with other bio-energy business interests, many U.S. agriculture and farm
commodity organizations have endorsed the 25x’25 goals, including the National Rural
Electric Cooperatives Association, AFBF, AFT, NACD, NCGA, NMPF, and many
environmental groups.
47 25x’25 Renewable Energy Alliance, 25x’25 Action Plan: Charting America’s Energy
Future, October 2006, at [http://www.25x25.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=
view&id=58&Itemid=148].
48 RFA is national trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry, and promotes research and
development initiatives to increase production and use of fuel ethanol.
49 The Council was founded in 1922 as a forum for world affairs. The Agriculture Task
Force was convened in September 2005, assembling thirty prominent leaders and agriculture
policy specialists, mostly from Chicago and the Midwest.

---

CRS-13
subsidized rates to protect against losses in price and production; (3) a new land
stewardship program that recognizes and rewards environmental contributions made
by farmers and environmental goods and services they provide; (4) farmer savings
accounts, similar to 401(k) accounts, that are backed by government matching
contributions; (5) investment in public goods that benefit the farm sector, including
research and infrastructure projects; and (6) transition measures to protect farmers
and owners of rented farmland against investment losses (such as declining land
values), as a result of the proposed changes to the support program.50
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges.51 At a March 2007 hearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee,
NASULGC outlined some of its recommendations for agricultural research in the
farm bill. In addition to increasing research funding to strengthen the land-grant
system, it proposes to create National Institutes for Food and Agriculture within
USDA, integrating the research, education, and extension programs.52
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.53 In March 2007, IATP
released two documents outlining issues concerning U.S. farmers and also the farm
bill’s influence on world food policies and markets, such as the WTO, food aid,
market concentration, and public health.54 Among its key policy initiatives is support
of efforts to create a new competition title in the farm bill to address the market
concentration issues in U.S. agribusiness.
Oxfam America.55 Oxfam’s principal farm policy recommendation is to
reduce funding for trade-distorting commodity subsidies and shift resources to
alternative investments in rural America.56 Other recommendations cover land
conservation, support for a broad variety of farm products, assistance for poor and
minority farmers, food and nutrition programs, and infrastructure and small business
investment.
50 Chicago Council on Global Affairs, “Modernizing America’s Farm and Food Policy:
Vision for a New Direction,” Task Force on U.S. Agriculture Policy, Sept. 27, 2006, at
[http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/taskforce_details.php?taskforce_id=1].
51 NASULGC consists of representatives from America’s land-grant and related universities.
52 NASULGC, Creating Research, Extension, and Teaching Excellence for the 21st Century
(CREATE-21) [no date], at [http://create-21.org/proposal/proposal.htm].
53 IATP’s key issues include food safety, bioeconomy, market concentration, fair trade and
alternative agriculture.
54 IATP, A Farm Bill for America and A Farm Bill for the World, March 2007, at
[http://www.agobservatory.org/issue_farmbill2007.cfm].
55 Oxfam America is an affiliate of Oxfam International, and supports efforts to end global
poverty, strengthening communities, and campaigning for change.
56 Oxfam America, Fairness in the Fields [no date], at [http://www.oxfamamerica.org/
resources/files/OA-Fairness_in_the_Fields.pdf].

---

CRS-14
Congressional Action
Two comprehensive legislative proposals have been introduced in the House
that seek broad-based changes to existing farm legislation. Other legislation relating
to existing farm bill statutes has also been introduced in the House and Senate. The
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, has indicated that
he intends to complete work on a new farm bill prior to the August 2007 recess, with
full congressional action by the end of September.57
Chairman Peterson has indicated that he does not anticipate broad changes to
the existing farm programs, and that he plans to move forward on a new farm bill
independent of the Doha negotiations.58 Among his stated top priorities are
expanding development, use, and research of agriculture-based energy, and adding
a permanent disaster assistance program in the farm bill. Chairman Peterson also has
stated that he agrees with some of USDA’s proposed recommendations, including the
need to increase funding for conservation programs such as the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
However, he opposes USDA’s proposal to tighten eligibility and payment limits for
farm commodity programs.59
The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Tom Harkin, has stated that
there may be a need to rewrite current farm programs to address changes in the food
and agriculture sectors, as well as a need to make U.S. farm programs less
production- and trade-distorting to avoid potential international challenges.
Chairman Harkin has voiced continued support for two programs he developed in the
2002 farm bill, the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and school fruit and
vegetable snack initiatives.60 He also has emphasized the need to expand agricultural
conservation, renewable energy, and agriculture research and extension programs.
In the House, two comprehensive legislative proposals have been introduced
that seek broad-based changes to existing farm legislation.
H.R. 1551, Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007. H.R. 1551 was
introduced on March 15, 2007, by Representatives Kind and Gerlach. A companion
bill is expected to be offered in the Senate by Senator Menendez. The bill would
expand investment in the development of renewable energy on American farms,
57 American Farm Bureau Federation, “Peterson: Farm Bill Will Be the Same, But
Different,” Jan. 8, 2007, at [http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.
newsfocus&year=2007&file=nr0108k.html].
58 Western Farm Press, “Peterson: Doha Had Better Be Good,” Feb. 10, 2007, at
[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_doha_better_good/]; Southwest Farm Press,
“Texas Producers Urge Ag Committee to ‘Stay Course’ on Farm Bill,” May 10, 2006, at
[http://southwestfarmpress.com/news/051006farm-bill-hearing/].
59 Statements by Representative Collin Peterson, “Change for the Better,” Mar. 13, 2007,
at [http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/change-for-the-better-2007-03-13.html].
60 Statements by Senator Tom Harkin, “National Security at Stake,” Mar. 13, 2007, at
[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/national-security-at-stake-2007-03-13.html].

---

CRS-15
promote resource conservation, and expand food and nutrition programs. Some
specific provisions in this bill are:
! increased funding for loan guarantees to farmers for renewable
energy development,
! assistance to farmers in transitioning to organic production,
! expansion of the types of foods offered in school food programs,
! increased incentives for farmers and ranchers to protect drinking
water supplies and make other environmental improvements,
! additional funding to restore wetlands and for farmland preservation.
Equitable Agriculture Today for a Healthy America Act (EAT Healthy
Act); bill number not yet available. The EAT Healthy Act was introduced on
March 20, 2007, by Representatives Cardoza and Putnam. This bill focuses on the
concerns of growers of fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and other specialty crops, as well
as an expansion of farm conservation programs. The four components of the bill
address:
! increased funding for the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
program, the Market Access Program, and the Specialty Crop Block
Grant program,
! inclusion of more fruits and vegetables in domestic food and
nutrition programs, including the school lunch and school breakfast
programs, the fruit and vegetable snack program in schools, and new
nutrition promotion programs,
! higher priority for specialty crops in USDA-funded agriculture
research, and
! increased opportunities for specialty crop producers to participate in
agriculture conservation programs.
This report will be updated as other major legislation relating to existing farm
bill statutes is introduced in the House and Senate in the 110th Congress.

---