Order Code RL33934
Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action
in the 110th Congress
Updated August 9, 2007
Renée Johnson, Coordinator,
Geoffrey S. Becker, Ralph M. Chite, Tadlock Cowan,
Ross W. Gorte, Charles E. Hanrahan, Remy Jurenas,
Jim Monke, Jean M. Rawson, Randy Schnepf, Jasper Womach,
and Jeffrey A. Zinn
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Joe Richardson
Domestic Social Policy Division

Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action in the
110th Congress
Summary
The farm bill, renewed about every five years, governs federal farm and food
policy. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) is the
most recent omnibus farm bill, covering a wide range of programs including
commodity price and income support, farm credit, agricultural conservation,
research, rural development, and foreign and domestic food programs, among others.
The current farm bill expires in 2007.
This report tracks the development of the 2007 farm bill and identifies major
issues of the debate. It also describes the major changes and provisions that are in
the House-passed 2007 farm bill (H.R. 2419). These include proposed changes to
commodity support and risk management policies and programs (such as direct
payments, payment limits, revenue and counter-cyclical payments, crop insurance
and disaster assistance, planting flexibility, and specialty crops), as well as provisions
affecting conservation, bioenergy, rural development, forestry, agricultural research,
competition, trade and food aid, agriculture credit, and domestic food programs and
nutrition.
The 2007 farm bill debate has differed from the 2002 debate in some important
ways. First, this farm bill faces potentially significant budgetary and spending
constraints. Second, current debate continues to be influenced by constraints due to
U.S. trade commitments and obligations under existing multilateral agreements.
Third, the Administration has submitted its own detailed proposal for the 2007 farm
bill, which Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns claims would achieve the goals of
being “equitable, predictable and beyond challenge.” In recent farm bills, the
Administration has not issued specific recommendations. Finally, many other
groups, including both traditional and non-agricultural interests, also have submitted
specific recommendations that range from maintaining the status quo to making
dramatic policy changes.
Early on, the chairmen of both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees
indicated their intention to complete work on a new farm bill prior to the August
2007 recess, with full congressional action by September. The House Agriculture
Committee conducted its markup of its version of the farm bill (H.R. 2419) from
May through July, and completed House floor action on July 27, 2007. In the Senate,
however, a crowded floor calendar and uncertainties about budget limit options have
delayed initial activity. The Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee has
indicated that he intends to complete full committee markup of its farm bill in
September. The 110th Congress is expected to adopt a new farm bill before the end
of 2007 or in early 2008.

Contents
Current Policy Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Budgetary Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Trade Negotiations and Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Administration’s Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Other Recommendations/Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Summary of the House-Passed Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) and Other Proposals . . . 10
Commodity Support and Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Grains, Oilseeds, and Cotton Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Dairy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Specialty Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Bioenergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Rural Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Agricultural Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Country-of-Origin Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Food Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Agricultural Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Farm Service Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Farm Credit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Domestic Food Programs and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A. Key Proposed Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
List of Tables
Table 1. 2002 Farm Bill Actual Spending (FY2002-FY2007 est.) and the
March 2007 CBO Baseline (FY2008-FY2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Key CRS Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
Telephone
Report Coordinator/Overview
Renée Johnson
7-9588
Jim Monke
7-9664
Food and Feed Grain Support
Jasper Womach
7-7237
Ralph M. Chite (dairy)
7-7296
Other Commodity Support Programs
Remy Jurenas (sugar)
7-7281
Randy Schnepf (cotton)
7-4277
Payment Limits
Planting Flexibility
Jim Monke
7-9664
Farm Credit
Crop Insurance
Ralph M. Chite
7-7296
Disaster Assistance
Conservation
Jeffrey A. Zinn
7-0248
Energy
Randy Schnepf
7-4277
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid
Charles E. Hanrahan
7-7235
Specialty Crops; also Agricultural
Jean M. Rawson
7-7283
Research, Extension, & Economics
Meat and Poultry Inspection,
Marketing and Regulatory Programs;
Geoffrey S. Becker
7-7287
also Competition
Rural Development
Tadlock Cowan
7-7600
Forestry
Ross Gorte
7-7266
Domestic Food Assistance and
Joe Richardson
7-7325
Nutrition Programs

Farm Bill Proposals and Legislative Action
in the 110th Congress
The farm bill, renewed about every five years, governs federal farm and food
policy. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) is the
most recent omnibus farm bill, covering a wide range of programs including
commodity price and income support, farm credit, agricultural conservation,
research, rural development, and foreign and domestic food programs, among others.
The current farm bill expires in 2007.
Early on, the chairmen of both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees
indicated their intention to complete work on a new farm bill prior to the August
2007 recess, with full congressional action by September. The House Agriculture
Committee conducted its markup of its version of the farm bill (H.R. 2419) from
May through July, and completed House floor action on July 27, 2007. In the Senate,
however, a crowded floor calendar and uncertainties about budget limit options have
delayed initial activity. The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee has
indicated that he intends to complete full committee markup of its farm bill in
September. The 110th Congress is expected to adopt a new farm bill before the end
of 2007 or in early 2008.
This report tracks the development of the 2007 farm bill and identifies major
issues of the debate. It also describes the major changes and provisions that are in
the House-passed 2007 farm bill (H.R. 2419). These include changes to commodity
support and risk management policies and programs (such as direct payments,
payment limits, revenue and counter-cyclical payments, crop insurance and disaster
assistance, planting flexibility, and specialty crops), as well as provisions affecting
conservation, bioenergy, rural development, forestry, agricultural research,
competition, trade and food aid, agriculture credit, and domestic food programs and
nutrition.
This report does not provide detailed information on the specific programs in the
2002 farm bill. CRS Report RL33037, Previewing a 2007 Farm Bill, offers a
comprehensive overview of each of the programs and issues under current farm
legislation. CRS Report RL34113, The House-Passed 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419)
at a Glance
, also provides a side-by-side comparison of how some of the major
provisions in the House bill provisions could change current law.
Current Policy Setting
The 2007 farm bill debate differs from the 2002 debate in some important ways.
First, this farm bill faces potentially significant budgetary and spending constraints,

CRS-2
while the 2002 farm bill was enacted during a period of surpluses. Second, current
debate continues to be influenced by constraints due to U.S. trade commitments and
obligations under existing multilateral agreements, and evolving negotiations for new
ones. Third, the Administration has submitted its own detailed proposal for the 2007
farm bill, which Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns claims will achieve the goals
of being “equitable, predictable and beyond challenge.” In recent farm bills, the
Administration has not issued specific recommendations. Finally, many other
groups, including both traditional and non-agricultural interests, also have submitted
specific recommendations that range from maintaining the status quo to making
dramatic policy changes.
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 budget for agriculture programs for the 2007 farm bill,
mainly because high commodity prices have caused projections of future farm
program spending to fall sharply if current law were continued in the future.
The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) March 2007 baseline budget serves
as the official benchmark for the FY2008 budget resolution and for scoring the
mandatory spending impacts of the 2007 farm bill.1 On May 17, 2007, Congress
approved the FY2008 budget resolution, which adopted the baseline budget as the
fiscal parameter for the next farm bill. It also includes a $20 billion reserve fund
(above baseline) for new farm bill spending over five years.2 However, any new
spending must be deficit-neutral, meaning that it would have to be offset with
equivalent reductions in other federal spending or by increasing taxes.
Large increases in the market prices of corn and other commodities since the
summer of 2006 have contributed to a lower March 2007 baseline for farm program
spending. The March 2007 baseline spending for commodity support 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 programs and the food
stamp program for the next six years are higher compared to the previous six years.
Spending for mandatory conservation programs under current law is estimated at
$26.5 billion and food and nutrition assistance is estimated at $225.8 billion, both for
FY2008-FY2013. For more information, see CRS Report RS22694, Farm Bill
Budget and Costs, 2002 vs. 2007
.
1 The CBO baseline assumes continuation of current farm bill policies under expected
economic conditions. It is the budget resolution that sets the actual spending constraints for
the House and Senate Agriculture Committees as they draft a new farm bill.
2 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, “Deficit-Neutral Reserve Fund
for the Farm Bill” (H.Rept. 110-153, conference report, Section 307).

CRS-3
Table 1. 2002 Farm Bill Actual Spending (FY2002-FY2007 est.)
and the March 2007 CBO Baseline (FY2008-FY2013)
Commodity
Food
Conservation
Exports
Total
Support
Stamps
Budget Category
(Outlays in Million $)
Baseline
(FY08-FY13 Total)
42,446
26,496
2,005
225,845
296,792
(Yearly Average)
7,074
4,491
334
37,641
49,465
Actual
(FY02-FY07 Total)
72,934
18,323
1,648
178,158
271,063
(Yearly Average)
12,156
3,054
275
29,693
45,177
Baseline vs. Actual
(6-Year Total)
-30,488
+8,173
357
+47,687
+25,729
(Yearly Average)
-5,075
+1,362
+60
+7,948
+4,288
Source: Compiled by CRS from various Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baselines.
Trade Negotiations and Commitments
The current debate continues to be influenced by obligations concerning the
design and size of farm subsidies under the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Agreement on Agriculture, as well as by the U.S. position in the Doha Round of
multilateral negotiations.
Agreement in the Doha Round was expected to converge in 2007 with the
expiration of the 2002 farm bill, and to occur well before the June 30, 2007,
expiration of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which provides for expedited
congressional consideration of trade agreements. Some policymakers wanted a Doha
Round agreement so that the next farm bill could be made consistent with new farm
trade rules; others argued that the United States should not unilaterally change its
own subsidy programs ahead of any multilateral trade agreement. However, progress
in the Doha Round stalled in 2006. Now, many in Congress are seeking to write a
new farm bill without regard to any future Doha Round agreement.
Nevertheless, criticisms and legal challenges by some WTO member countries
of current U.S. farm programs, and the backdrop of the ongoing negotiations, could
influence the choices U.S. lawmakers make in designing new farm policies.3 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.4
3 See CRS Report RL33144, WTO Doha Round: The Agricultural Negotiations; CRS Report
RS22522, Potential Challenges to U.S. Farm Subsidies in the WTO: A Brief Overview; and
CRS Report RL33853, U.S.-Canada WTO Corn Trade Dispute.
4 See, for example, “EU’s Disappointment with US Farm Bill,” Washington Trade Daily,
February 12, 2007.

CRS-4
The Administration’s Policy Recommendations
On January 31, 2007, the Administration released its recommendations for the
2007 farm bill, covering each title of the current bill.5 The Administration’s proposal
for the 2007 farm bill is unusually detailed compared with past Administrations’
proposals. These recommendations, if enacted, would alter some aspects of the
current commodity support system, as well as change other farm bill programs,
including conservation, rural development, trade, domestic food assistance,
agricultural credit, energy, and research. The Administration’s stated approach for
the 2007 farm bill is to take a “reform-minded and fiscally responsible approach to
making farm policy more equitable, predictable and protected from challenge.”6 In
part, this refers to the perceived need to more evenly distribute federal program
spending and benefits across a larger share of the U.S. farm community, as well as
the perceived need to modify current farm programs to better comply with WTO
obligations and limit future legal challenges from other countries. Some of these
same concerns have been voiced in recommendations and proposals by other
organizations and interest groups. For more information on the USDA proposal, see
CRS Report RL33916, Questions on the USDA 2007 Farm Bill Proposal.
The Administration’s farm bill review began in 2005 with 52 farm bill forums in
nearly all states.7 USDA accepted comments through its website and by mail, and
claims to have received more than 4,000 comments throughout this process.
Information and recommendations gathered have been summarized in 41 farm forum
and comment summary documents across a range of topics.8 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.9 The report
and related USDA materials are available at the department’s website.10 USDA also
has released proposed legislative text for some titles of its farm bill proposal.11
5 USDA, USDA’s 2007 Farm Bill Proposals, January 31, 2007, at [http://www.usda.gov/
documents/07finalfbp.pdf].
6 USDA, “Johanns Unveils 2007 Farm Bill Proposals,” Release No. 0020.07, January 31,
2007, at [http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome].
7 USDA conducted forums in 48 states in 2005. Forums were not conducted in Louisiana
and Mississippi due to Hurricane Katrina.
8 USDA’s Farm Bill Forum Comment Summary and Background documents are at
[http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdafarmbill?contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/03/0
106.xml].
9 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_1O B?navid=FARM_
BILL_FORUMS].
10 See [http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1UH?navid=FARM_ BILL_
FORUMS].
11 USDA, “Legislative Language for the Administration’s 2007 Farm Bill Proposals,” at
[http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1UH?parentnav=FARM_BILL_F
ORUMS&contentidonly=true&contentid=farm_bill_legislative_language.xml].

CRS-5
Other Recommendations/Proposals
In addition to the Administration proposal, several organizations and interest
groups have released their own 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. These policy recommendations represent a diverse range of interests
seeking a range of objectives from maintaining current programs to substantially
altering or eliminating them. A summary of some of these proposals is provided in
Appendix A. While not comprehensive, this summary does review most proposals
by national organizations. Other proposals are being offered by organizations
representing the interests of different regions of the country. The proposals described
in Appendix A are not listed in any particular order.
Some of these recommendations have been incorporated into legislation
introduced by some Members of Congress who are directly challenging the existing
farm programs and policies, including a number of comprehensive legislative
proposals that seek broad-based changes to existing farm legislation and programs.
Others in Congress may be reluctant to change current programs because they are
strongly supported by the long-time beneficiaries. Most commodity associations and
some national farm groups have expressed continued support for the current
programs or have expressed opposition to others’ recommendations, including
specific provisions in USDA’s proposal.
Several major issues are framing the current farm bill debate. For example, are
current commodity support and risk management programs equitable across all
producers of program crops and specialty crops? Should program payments be
limited per person? Is permanent disaster assistance needed in addition to crop
insurance programs? Given that many seek to increase funding and expand current
programs in the area of conservation, forestry, bioenergy, rural development,
agricultural research, farm credit, marketing and export promotion, foreign food aid,
and domestic food and nutrition, what would be the source of funding to expand
programs, given current budgetary constraints?
Congressional Action
In anticipation of 2007 farm bill, both the House and Senate Agriculture
Committees conducted hearings in Washington and across the country during 2006,
and continued to hold hearings early in 2007.12 The House Agriculture Committee
conducted its markup of its version of the farm bill (H.R. 2419) from May through
July, and completed House floor action on July 27, 2007. The chairman of the
Senate Agriculture Committee has indicated that he intends to complete full
committee markup of the Senate version of the farm bill in September. Congress is
expected to adopt a new farm bill before the end of 2007 or in early 2008. The text
12 Information on House and Senate Agriculture Committee hearings is at [http://agriculture.
house.gov/hearings/index.html] and [http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm].

CRS-6
box at the end of this report, “2007 Farm Bill Timeline,” provides a timeline of the
major actions that have occurred during the current farm bill debate.
House
Starting in May 2007, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee
distributed “discussion drafts” to each of the subcommittees, which began
deliberations and marked up legislation within their respective jurisdictions. During
the three-day period from July 17 to July 19, the full committee marked up its version
of a five-year farm bill and reported it as H.R. 2419.13 The House floor began debate
on H.R. 2419 on July 26, and approved a final bill on July 27, 2007.
By title, major provisions in the House-passed 2007 farm bill H.R. 2419 are as
follows:
! Title I, Commodity Programs: Changes payment limits, modifies
loan rates and target prices among commodities, and adds a revenue
counter-cyclical payment option, among other program changes.
! Title II, Conservation: Reauthorizes, expands, and/or modifies
existing programs, and creates new programs and initiatives.
! Title III, Agricultural Trade and Aid: Reauthorizes funding for
USDA’s food aid, export market development, and export credit
guarantee programs, and addresses barriers to U.S. agriculture
exports.
! Title IV, Nutrition: Increases food stamp benefits and modifies
food stamp eligibility rules, limits state food stamp “privatization”
initiatives, allows “geographic preference” when buying food for
schools, and adds money for fresh fruit and vegetable programs for
schools and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
! Title V, Agricultural Credit: Expands borrowing opportunities
under USDA’s Farm Service Agency loan programs, but does not
allow expansion of Farm Credit System lending, as originally
allowed in the House-reported bill.
! Title VI, Rural Development: Reauthorizes, expands, and/or
modifies existing programs, creates new programs, and allows some
to expire.
! Title VII, Research: Reorganizes the administration of USDA’s
research, extension, and economic agencies, requires the President
to submit a unified annual budget across agencies, and establishes a
new national institution to administer all competitive programs.
! Title VIII, Forestry: Proposes changes to existing forestry
provisions and allows one program to expire.
! Title IX, Energy: Reauthorizes, expands, and/or modifies existing
programs, and creates new programs and initiatives.
13 The chairman’s mark encompassed action taken by the panel’s six subcommittees and also
included a manager’s amendment with several additional provisions covering each title of
the fam bill. More information on the House Agriculture Committee bill is at
[http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/2007FarmBill.html].

CRS-7
! Title X, Horticulture and Organic Agriculture: Creates a new
farm bill title and provides mandatory funding over five years for
specialty crop block grants and additional mandatory funding in the
areas of pest and disease detection, purchases for nutrition programs,
direct producer-to-consumer marketing, and organic certification
cost-sharing.
! Title XI, Miscellaneous: Makes changes to crop insurance, animal
welfare and inspections, and country-of-origin labeling, among other
provisions.
! Titles XII/XIII, Revenue Provisions and Additional Offsets:
Adds revenue and other offsetting or cost-saving provisions to the
farm bill.
For a more detailed discussion of these provisions, see “Summary of the House-
Passed Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) and Other Proposals,” below.
The farm bill debated on the House floor included the reported House Agriculture
Committee bill, but also a Manager’s Amendment and an En Bloc Reserve Fund
Amendment.14 Prior to consideration of H.R. 2419 on the floor, these amendments
were adopted in the House Rules Committee under a rule (H.Res. 574) that allowed
for the addition of this package of provisions for consideration in H.R. 2419. In
addition to certain title-by-title provisions and changes, these added amendments
contained language authorizing budget offsets to compensate for additional spending
on programs in the nutrition and energy titles.15 The inclusion of some of the revenue
and other spending offsets were provided by other committees, including the House
Ways and Means Committee, and proved to be highly controversial.
The revenue and other spending offsets to the 2007 farm bill are included in the
bill under Titles XII and XIII. The bill’s revenue provisions amend the tax code
(Section 894 of the Internal Revenue Code) to limit certain benefits affecting foreign-
based firms. CBO estimates this provision would provide additional revenues of
$3.9 billion over five years (FY2008-FY2012). The bill’s spending offsets would
establish a conservation of resources fee for producing federal oil and gas leases in
the Gulf of Mexico; repeal existing provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-58) relating to incentives for natural gas production and royalty relief, among
other provisions; and revise certain provisions in the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-222). CBO estimates that these provisions
would reduce direct spending by $2.4 billion over five years.
H.R. 2419 also provides for other cost savings through changes to the federal
crop insurance program to help pay for language providing for new mandatory
spending for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program.
14 Text on the adopted amendments is available from the House Rules Committee at
[http://www.rules.house.gov/110/special_rules/hr2419/parta_2419.pdf].
15 Under the terms of the FY2008 Budget Resolution, a $20 billion reserve fund would
provide additional budget authority for the farm bill over five years to the extent that other
legislation is passed to offset the additional amount.

CRS-8
Given these revenue and offsetting provisions, CBO estimates that the House-
passed farm bill, H.R. 2419, would result in no additional spending outlays over the
next five and ten years, relative to CBO’s March 2007 baseline projections.16
The House floor debate considered many amendments to the amended committee
bill, adopting some and rejecting others. One controversial amendment that was
defeated on the floor was a modified version of a House bill, H.R. 2720, introduced
by Representative Kind. The amendment sought to reduce payments for commodity
programs and to reallocate funding to nutrition, conservation, specialty crops and
healthy foods, rural development, and other programs.
Senate
Chairman Harkin has long 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. He has complimented provisions in House-passed bill but
has also indicated that the Senate version of the farm bill may expand upon
conservation, payment limits, and country-of-origin labeling requirements. He has
also indicated that he may consider writing a six- or seven-year farm bill that will
allow tapping of the baseline funds from the FY2013-FY2017 period.17 Senate
Agriculture Committee markup is expected in September.18
Among the priorities emphasized by Chairman Harkin are the need to expand
agricultural conservation, renewable energy, agriculture research and extension
programs, and rural development programs. He has also emphasized the importance
of continuing the value-added product development grants and encouraging new
venture capital programs. He 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.19 Some possible new programs that he
is considering include $500 million for a new Rural Collaborative Investment
Program to support regional economic development strategies.20 He has mentioned
the possibility of creating a new working lands program, the Comprehensive
Stewardship Incentives Program, which would combine the current CSP and the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.21
16 CBO estimates dated August 2, 2007.
17 “Harkin: 6-7 year farm bill may provide more dollars,” Agri-Pulse, July 11, 2007.
18 Crowley, B., “House Ag Lawmakers Vow to Fight Changes to Farm Bill,” CongressNow,
July 24, 2007.
19 Statements by Senator Tom Harkin, “National Security at Stake,” March 13, 2007, at
[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/national-security-at-stake-2007-03-13.html].
20 “Harkin continues calls for reform, rural development priorities,” Agri-Pulse, June 22,
2007.
21 “Harkin: 6-7 year farm bill may provide more dollars,” Agri-Pulse, July 11, 2007.

CRS-9
Legislation introduced by others in the Senate includes several comprehensive
proposals that seek broad-based changes to existing farm legislation and programs.
Some of these bills are summarized here, in order by date of introduction.
S. 541 (Feingold). The “Rural Opportunities Act of 2007” contains four major
components, including supporting local bioeconomies and food markets; encouraging
local renewable fuels and biobased products; expanding broadband Internet service
in rural areas; and supporting beginning farmers, ranchers and land managers. The
bill also would expand funding for existing USDA market development programs,
as well as domestic food programs, and also expand technical assistance for
bioenergy development, and expand funding for agriculture research and extension.
S. 919 (Menendez). The “Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007”
would expand investment in the development of renewable energy on American
farms, promote resource conservation, and expand food and nutrition programs.
Some specific provisions in this bill include increased funding for loan guarantees
to farmers for renewable energy development; assistance to farmers in transitioning
to organic production; more funding for farmers’ market programs and fresh fruit and
vegetable projects in schools and an increase in required purchases of specialty crops
for child nutrition program; increased incentives for farmers and ranchers to protect
drinking water supplies and make other environmental improvements; and additional
funding to restore wetlands and for farmland preservation. This bill is similar to
House bill H.R. 1551 (Kind).
S. 1160 (Stabenow). The “Specialty Crops Competition Act of 2007” would
strengthen the economic role of specialty crops by creating new specialty crop
provisions in the 2007 farm bill. The bill would assist specialty crop producers with
market development and trade promotion, provide research and administrative
funding for food safety and inspection, and expand school nutrition programs to
include more fruits and vegetables, among other provisions directed at specialty crop
producers.
S. 1422 (Lugar). The key feature of the “Farm Risk Management Act for the
21st Century” is a transition to farmer-held income stabilization accounts. Current
price-contingent programs, including all counter-cyclical payment programs, would
be phased out and eliminated after 2009, replaced with direct payments that would
be deposited in individual risk management accounts to be used to purchase crop
insurance, cover income losses, or invest in other on-farm improvements, such as
conservation. Loan deficiency payments would be replaced with a recourse loan
program.22 The bill also would decrease direct payments, remove the planting
restriction that prevent planting specialty crops, and eliminate the sugar program. It
would expand the food stamp and summer food service programs and provide added
funding for TEFAP and fresh fruit and vegetable programs in schools, as well as add
to funding for rural development, conservation, bioenergy, and international food aid
programs. This bill is similar to House bill H.R. 2720 (Kind).
22 Under this type of commodity program, a producer pledges commodity as security, but
in contrast to nonrecourse loans (see footnote 23), the borrower must repay the loan with
interest within a specified period.

CRS-10
S. 1872 (Durbin). The “Farm Safety Net Improvement Act of 2007” would
replace the current price-based counter-cyclical program with a revenue counter-
cyclical program.
Summary of the House-Passed Farm Bill (H.R. 2419)
and Other Proposals
The 2007 farm bill debate has focused on several major topics including
commodity support and risk management policies and programs (such as direct
payments, payment limits, counter-cyclical payments, crop insurance and disaster
assistance, planting flexibility, and specialty crops), as well as conservation,
bioenergy, rural development, forestry, agricultural research, competition, trade and
food aid, farm credit, and domestic food programs and nutrition. Following is a
discussion of these major topics and issues in the context of the House-passed 2007
farm bill (H.R. 2419, H.Rept. 110-256), the Administration’s proposal, and various
other legislative proposals.
More information is available in CRS Report RL34113, The House-Passed 2007
Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) at a Glance, which provides a side-by-side comparison of how
some of the major provisions in the House bill could change current law. For
background on some of these topics, as they pertain to the current farm bill, see CRS
Report RL33037, Previewing a 2007 Farm Bill.
Commodity Support and Risk Management
Grains, Oilseeds, and Cotton Support. The House-passed bill generally
continues the framework of the 2002 farm bill, revises payment limitations, offers a
one-time choice for a revenue counter-cyclical payment, and re-balances some target
prices and loan rates. The CBO estimate of all changes to Title I programs is a
reduction of $974 million over five years (-2.7% compared with the $36.5 billion
commodities baseline). But if changes to the timing of direct and counter-cyclical
payments are not counted, which affect fiscal year budgeting but not ultimate
payments to farmers, the House-passed changes to Title I would cost $223 million
over five years. For more background, see CRS Report RS21999, Farm Commodity
Policy: Programs and Issues for Congress
.
Payment Limits. Payment limits in current law set the maximum amount of
farm program payments that a person can receive at $360,000 per year. In addition,
an income test denies payments to households with adjusted gross income (AGI) over
$2.5 million, unless more than 75% comes from farming. The debate over payment
limits usually focuses on the size of farms that should be supported, whether
payments should be proportional to production or limited per individual, and the need
to reduce spending. For more background, see CRS Report RS21493, Payment
Limits for Farm Commodity Programs: Issues and Proposals
.
The House-passed bill makes several changes to payment limits, some tightening
the limits and others relaxing the limits. Limits are tightened by (1) reducing the AGI
limit to $1 million with no exceptions, and to $500,000 for individuals who do not

CRS-11
earn more than 67% of their income from farming, (2) eliminating the “3-entity rule,”
which allows individuals to double their payments by having multiple ownership
interests (doubling by having a spouse would continue), and (3) requiring “direct
attribution” of payments to a natural person instead of to a corporation, general
partnership, etc. Payment limits are relaxed by (1) raising the limit on direct
payments from $40,000 to $60,000, and (2) eliminating the $75,000 limit on the
marketing loan program. The latter change is in response to perceived abuse of
commodity certificates, which were unlimited and used to avoid the limit. CBO
scores these changes to save $227 million over five years.
The Administration’s farm bill proposal would preserve the $360,000 payment
limit, but deny all payments to households with more than $200,000 AGI. CBO has
scored this proposal saving $596 million over five years. H.R. 2720 and H.Amdt.
700 (Kind) would tighten the AGI limit to $200,000. S. 1486 (Dorgan/Grassley)
would lower the maximum government payment to $250,000 and apply limits to all
commodity payments, including the use of commodity certificates.
Counter-cyclical Payments. Counter-cyclical payments are one part of a
safety net for farm income. Counter-cyclical payments provide automatic payments
to farmers when market prices are below a target price set in statute. Historically,
farm commodity programs have focused on price, while crop insurance programs
have focused on yield. But producers cite insufficient government support during
drought years when yields are low and prices are high, because they have little to sell
and receive no counter-cyclical price support. The National Corn Growers
Association and the USDA, among others, propose shifting a portion of current farm
subsidies to a revenue-based policy.
The House-passed bill would offer farmers a one-time choice between the
existing price counter-cyclical payments and a new revenue counter-cyclical
payment. The revenue-based option is modeled largely on the Administration’s
proposal. The bill also eliminates advance counter-cyclical payments beginning with
the 2011 crop year, and delays final counter-cyclical payments for the 2008-2010
crop years. The House-passed bill also adjusts target prices for six commodities,
increasing supports for five commodities and reducing support for cotton. CBO says
these counter-cyclical program changes would save $652 million over five years.
Risk management also has been raised in various “farmer savings account”
proposals (H.R. 1882, Everett; S. 1422, Lugar/H.R. 2720, Kind). These special
purpose savings accounts would encourage farmers to set aside income during good
years for withdrawal during bad years. The government could encourage savings by
allowing tax deductions or making matching contributions.
Direct Payments. Direct payments are fixed annual payments based on
historical production. Recent high commodity prices and high farm incomes have
made it difficult for some to justify the annual $5 billion in direct payments. Thus,
direct payments are receiving increased scrutiny. The House-passed bill would
extend direct payments through the 2012 crop year. However, to score savings, the
House bill would eliminate the advanced installment of direct payments in the last
year of the farm bill (2012). According to CBO, this would shift about $1.1 billion
of payments into a later fiscal year without reducing total payments to farmers. The

CRS-12
House-passed bill also would eliminate direct and counter-cyclical payments to
recipients entitled to less than $25, and permanently deny program participation to
people convicted of defrauding USDA.
Marketing Loans and Related Assistance. The House-passed bill
increases support prices for seven commodities and reduces support prices for two.
It also sets the loan repayment price for cotton at the Far East price. CBO scores
these changes as costing $615 million over five years. The bill creates a new
payment for domestic users of upland cotton to build or modernize buildings and
equipment. CBO scores this cotton users provision at $427 million over five years.
Planting Flexibility, Fruits and Vegetables, and the WTO. The direct
payments program gives producers the flexibility to make planting choices based on
actual market conditions instead of subsidy rules, but there are prohibitions on
planting fruits, vegetables, and wild rice on program crop base acres. The purpose
of the planting restriction is to protect growers of unsubsidized fruits and vegetables
from competing with production on subsidized cropland. As reasonable as this may
appear, problems have arisen with the policy. The WTO determined that the
restrictions are inconsistent with the rules of a minimally distorting subsidy. This
determination jeopardizes the “green box” classification for direct payments.
The House-passed bill does not change the fruit and vegetable planting
restriction, although it does create a pilot program allowing up to 10,000 acres of
tomatoes to be grown on base acres in Indiana with a corresponding one-year
reduction in payment acres. The program (similar to H.R. 1371/S.1188) aims to
address the concerns of midwestern fruit and vegetable processors who faced reduced
supplies once soybeans became a program crop. But the pilot program does not
address concerns over WTO compliance. USDA proposes to eliminate the fruit and
vegetable planting restriction completely. For more information, see CRS Report
RL34019, Eliminating the Planting Restrictions on Fruit and Vegetables in the Farm
Commodity Programs
.
Dairy. Two federal programs that support milk prices and dairy farm income are
expiring in 2007 — the dairy price support program (DPSP) and the Milk Income
Loss Contract (MILC) program. Most dairy farm groups and USDA view the DPSP
as a safety net in a market that is frequently characterized by volatile prices. Dairy
processors consider the price support and MILC programs to operate at cross-
purposes, which they say contributes to surplus milk production. Others are
concerned that dairy support might have to be modified in order to comply with U.S.
trade obligations in the WTO. H.R. 2419, as passed, would extended the dairy
support program for five years (through 2012), but would modify it to directly
support the prices of certain manufactured dairy products at mandated levels rather
than supporting the farm price of milk.
The MILC program is generally supported by milk producer groups in the
Northeast and the Upper Midwest. Large farmers, particularly in the West, contend
that its payment limit is biased against them. In order to achieve budget savings, the
MILC program was scheduled to expire one month before the end of FY2007
(August 31, 2007), but that meant the program subsequently was excluded from the
2007 farm bill baseline. To fix that problem, a provision in the FY2007 Iraq war

CRS-13
supplemental act (P.L. 110-28) funded the MILC program through the end of
FY2007, thus creating a budget baseline of $1.24 billion over the next five years.
H.R. 2419, as reported, extends the MILC program for five years (through FY2012)
at the current level of support. The Administration supports MILC program
extension, although at a lower level of support and with modifications that it says
would make the program more WTO compatible.
A number of federal milk marketing order issues have been brought to the
attention of Congress for the farm bill debate. Dairy processors are seeking a change
in statute to exempt them from paying the federal milk marketing order minimum
price whenever they forward contract prices with dairy farmers, a provision adopted
by H.R. 2419. The House-passed bill authorizes a temporary forward contract
program (through September 30, 2012) and contains safeguards designed to ensure
that dairy farmers are not compelled by processors to participate in the program.
H.R. 2419 also would authorize a commission to review and evaluate federal milk
marketing order policies and procedures and require the commission to report its
findings within two years of its first meeting. For more information, see CRS Report
RL34036, Dairy Policy and the 2007 Farm Bill.
Sugar. The sugar program is designed to guarantee the price received by
growers of sugarcane and sugar beets, but at no cost to the U.S. Treasury. To
accomplish this, USDA limits the amount of sugar that processors can sell
domestically under “marketing allotments” and restricts imports, in order to keep
market prices above support levels. This way, the incentive exists for sugar cane
processors and beet refiners to repay nonrecourse price support loans23 extended by
USDA rather than hand over processed sugar as payment. While the domestic sugar
producing industry emphasizes the importance of support to preserving farm and
processing jobs and income in rural areas, sugar-using food and beverage
manufacturers point out that because domestic sugar prices are two to three times
higher than the price of sugar traded internationally, some firms have laid off workers
and moved operations offshore. For more background, see CRS Report RL34103,
Sugar Policy and the 2007 Farm Bill.
Beginning in 2008, sugar imports from Mexico no longer will be restricted under
rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Also, additional amounts will
be allowed entry under other free trade agreements. Both CBO and USDA project
that, if the sugar program continues without change, the additional imports will bring
prices down below support levels and make it attractive for processors to default on
price support loans. The program is forecast to cost $1.4 billion over 10 years.
To address the potential for a U.S. sugar surplus caused by imports, H.R. 2419
as passed by the House, would mandate a sugar-for-ethanol provision. USDA would
23 A type of loan where farmers or processors pledge a commodity as collateral to obtain a
loan from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) at a commodity-specific, per-unit loan
rate. The borrower may repay the loan, with interest, within a specified period and regain
control of the commodity. Alternatively, the commodity can be forfeited to the CCC with
no penalty if market prices fall below the loan rate at the end of the term. The government
takes no recourse beyond accepting the commodity as full settlement of the loan.

CRS-14
be required to purchase U.S.-produced sugar if, and to the extent, necessary to
maintain market prices above support levels, for sale to bioenergy producers for
processing into ethanol. The Commodity Credit Corporation would provide open-
ended funding for this program. Other provisions would increase the raw sugar and
refined beet loan rates by almost 3%, and tighten the rules (i.e., remove discretionary
authority) that USDA follows to implement marketing allotments and administer
import quotas. The bill’s sugar provisions reflect recommendations made by sugar
crop producers and processors, who expressed appreciation that current sugar policy
was not “weakened.” Food and beverage manufacturers that use sugar opposed
these provisions, arguing that they would increase costs by $100 million annually to
consumers and restrict the amount of sugar for food supplied to the market. A floor
amendment to strike the committee-reported sugar provisions was defeated.
In Senate legislation introduced to date, S. 1422 (Lugar) would repeal the sugar
program, but make sugar beet and sugarcane producers eligible to take advantage of
a new approach to handle farming risk — tapping risk management accounts held by
producers to purchase crop insurance, cover income losses, or invest in other on-farm
improvements. S. 1872 (Durbin) would extend current sugar program provisions
through 2012.
Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance. The federal crop insurance
program is designed to protect crop producers from unavoidable risks associated with
adverse weather, weather-related plant diseases, and insect infestations. Although
the scope of the crop insurance program has widened significantly over the past 25
years, the anticipated goal that it would replace ad hoc disaster payments has not
been achieved.24
The crop insurance program is permanently authorized and hence does not
require consideration in the farm bill. Some policymakers have expressed interest in
expanding the crop insurance program in the context of the farm bill and/or
complementing it with a permanent disaster payment program. However, many view
the crop insurance program as a potential target for program cost reductions, where
savings could be used to fund new initiatives in various titles of the farm bill. The
Administration and others contend that the private companies should be required to
absorb more of the program losses, and that the reimbursement rate for their
operating expenses needs to be reduced as a means of reducing federal costs. The
insurance companies and many farm groups are concerned that significant reductions
in federal support will negatively impact the financial health of the crop insurance
industry and possibly jeopardize the delivery of crop insurance, particularly in high-
risk areas.
24 The most recent ad-hoc agricultural disaster assistance package was signed into law on
May 25, 2007, as part of the FY2007 Iraq war supplemental act (P.L. 110-28). It includes
an estimated $1.55 billion in crop disaster assistance for 2005, 2006, or 2007 crop losses.
For the first time in recent history, the act prohibits disaster payments from being made to
any producer who waived crop insurance in the year of the loss. For more information, see
CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by Ralph M. Chite.

CRS-15
H.R. 2419, as passed by the House, contains several revisions to the crop
insurance program. Virtually all of these changes are cost-saving measures, which
CBO has estimated at $4.0 billion in reduced federal outlays over five years
(FY2008-FY2012). Nearly $2.7 billion of this estimated savings is attributable to
changes in the timing of premium receipts from farmers, and payments to the
companies, neither of which directly affects participating farmers or insurers.
However, $1 billion of the five-year savings is realized by requiring insurance
companies and farmers to share more in program costs and risks. Farmers would be
required to pay higher fees for catastrophic coverage and some plans would provide
somewhat lower premium subsidies. Participating insurers would see smaller
reimbursements for their operating expenses and would be required to share more of
their underwriting gains with the government. The House-passed bill does not
contain a committee provision that would have allowed insured farmers to opt for
additional coverage on the deductible portion of their policies.
For general information on crop insurance and disaster assistance, see CRS
Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
Specialty Crops. Sales of specialty crops, such as fruits, vegetables, and tree
nuts, account for nearly one-third of U.S. crop cash receipts and one-fifth of U.S.
agricultural exports, according to USDA. When floriculture, greenhouse, and nursery
crop sales are included, total specialty crops account for nearly 50% of all U.S. farm
crop cash receipts. However, specialty crop producers are not eligible for mandatory
commodity support programs, nor do other provisions in the farm bill’s conservation,
trade, research, and nutrition titles take the unique characteristics of the specialty crop
industry into account. For more information, see CRS Report RL33520, Specialty
Crops: 2007 Farm Bill Issues
.
The Horticulture and Organic Agriculture title (Title X) of the House-passed
2007 farm bill marks the first time that a farm bill has included a title specifically
devoted to specialty crop and organic programs. The first key provision of the title
is the reauthorization of the specialty crop block grant program established by the
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465). Under this program,
each state receives a grant to support marketing research and promotion to enhance
the competitiveness of specialty crops grown in the state. H.R. 2419 provides $365
million in mandatory funding for the program over five years. Under the authority
of the 2004 act, Congress appropriated $7 million for the specialty crop block grant
program in FY2006 and again in FY2007.
The second key provision of Title X is reauthorization of the National Organic
Cost-share Program. Congress established this program in the 2002 farm bill and
provided a one-time transfer of $5 million in mandatory funds to help defray farmers’
costs for obtaining certification under the new National Organic Program. H.R. 2419
provides a one-time transfer of $22 million in FY2008 (available until expended),
and the amount that an individual farmer can receive in cost-share assistance would
rise from $500 to $750. Title X also authorizes appropriations of $50 million over
five years to provide technical assistance and cost-sharing grants to farmers seeking
to convert from conventional to organic production.

CRS-16
Other major provisions of the title include (1) authority for larger disaster
payments to tree fruit producers who suffer weather-related losses; (2) an
approximately $200 million increase in annual purchases of fruits, vegetables, and
nuts for USDA nutrition programs; (3) a new cooperative program with state
departments of agriculture to share the costs of state pest and disease early detection
and surveillance programs, with $10 million in mandatory funding provided for
FY2008, increasing to $100,000 for FY2012; (4) $200 million in mandatory funding
for pest and disease control programs; and (5) $32 million in mandatory funding to
expand the existing Farmers’ Market Promotion Program into a Farmers Marketing
Assistance Program. The expanded program would provide grants to support a wider
range of direct producer-to-consumer marketing opportunities.
The title as reported out by the full committee originally contained a provision
that would have returned to USDA the border inspection functions for imported
agricultural products that were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) when it was established in 2002. This provision was not contained in the
chairman’s amendment that was adopted on the House floor and passed as part of
H.R. 2419.
Conservation
H.R. 2419, as passed, shares two characteristics with other proposals for
conservation. First, it would increase overall funding, although it would emphasize
programs and increase funding at rates that differ from other proposals. It would
increase funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), and the renamed Farm and Ranchland Protection
Program (FRPP), and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), but these increases
would be partially offset by eliminating additional signups for the Conservation
Security Program (CSP) until FY2012. Second, it would expand the range of
problems and activities that are encompassed by conservation. Topics receiving new
or additional emphasis in the title include forestry, endangered species, invasive
species, cooperative conservation among multiple land owners, location-specific
programs for places like the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and the development of a
structure to support the use of market-based approaches in conservation.
Other proposals set different priorities. For example, the Administration would
increase conservation spending by $7.8 billion above the current 10-year OMB
budget baseline, simplify the current suite of programs by combining similar ones,
and authorize a new market-based initiative to facilitate the development of emerging
environmental services markets. Two bills that are most often mentioned as
alternatives to H.R. 2419 are H.R. 1600 (Cardoza) and H.R. 1551 (Kind)/S. 919
(Menendez). Both bills have many similar or identical conservation provisions,
including greatly increased funding for certain programs, such as the FRPP and the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). They both also give increased
attention in conservation programs to wildlife habitat, rare and endangered species,
and invasive species. H.R. 2144 addresses many topics of interest to the Northeast
states and emphasizes a large program for cooperative conservation planning and an
expanded farmland protection effort. Several other bills are more limited, such as
H.R. 1766 (Van Hollen), which would increase conservation efforts related to the

CRS-17
Chesapeake Bay recovery program, and H.R. 1152 (Gerlach), which would create a
grant program to promote farmland protection.
H.R. 2419 contains a number of additional conservation provisions. It would
increase the enrollment ceiling for the WRP from 2,275,000 acres to 3,605,000 acres;
allow more coordination between programs (for example, allowing land meeting
certain characteristics and enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program to be
enrolled instead in the Grasslands Reserve Program, where the term of contracts is
longer); add a new regional water quality enhancement program to EQIP; add new
provisions to assist beginning limited resource, and socially-disadvantaged farmers;
provide additional direction on technical assistance; and set an overall fiscal year
payment limit of $60,000 for any single conservation program and $125,000 for all
programs (three programs are excluded — WRP, FRPP, and GRP). For more
information, see CRS Report RL34060, Conservation and the 2007 Farm Bill.
Bioenergy
Interest in renewable energy has grown rapidly since late 2005 due, in large part,
to a strong rise in domestic and international fuel prices and a dramatic acceleration
in domestic biofuel production (mostly ethanol). However, emerging concerns
related to corn-based ethanol production are generating greater policy interest in the
potential for cellulosic ethanol production which appears to offer many
environmental benefits over corn-based ethanol. Many of the federal programs that
currently support renewable energy production in general, and agriculture-based
energy production in particular, are outside the purview of USDA and have
legislative origins outside of the farm bill. Renewable energy’s role in the 2002 farm
bill is concentrated on grants, loan, and loan guarantees to foster research on
agriculture-based renewable energy, to share development risk, and to promote the
adoption of renewable energy systems. USDA’s Bioenergy Program (Sec. 9006 of
P.L. 107-171) — whose funding expired in FY2006 — has been the primary
exception in that it provided incentives to expand actual production of bioenergy.
Many policymakers view agriculture-based biofuels as both a catalyst for rural
economic development and a response to growing energy import dependence.
Renewable energy policy initiatives are now included in almost every farm bill
proposal. In most cases, legislative proposals involve expanding and/or extending
bioenergy provisions from the 2002 farm bill. The Administration’s 2007 farm bill
proposal offers a prime example of the direction that new bioenergy policy initiatives
could take within a farm bill context. In Congress, farm-policy related bills with
important energy components include H.R. 1551 (Kind)/S. 919 (Menendez), H.R.
2144 (DeLauro), H.R. 1600 (Cardoza), S. 541 (Feingold), S. 828 (Baucus), H.R. 80
(Bartlett), H.R. 2038 (Kind), H.R. 2218 (Kaptur), H.R. 2261 (Lucas), and H.R. 2154
(Sandlin). Both Chairman Peterson of the House Agriculture Committee and Senator
Salazar have introduced resolutions that “express the sense of Congress” that U.S.
agricultural, forestry, and working lands should provide from renewable resources
25% of the total U.S. energy consumption by 2025 (H.Con.Res. 25/S.Con.Res. 3).
The energy title (Title IX) of the House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2419) is similar
to the Administration’s proposal in that it expands and extends several provisions
from the 2002 farm bill with substantial increases in funding and a heightened focus

CRS-18
on developing cellulosic ethanol production. As passed, H.R. 2419 doubles funding
for the biobased product designation program, provides mandatory funding for up to
$2 billion in loan guarantees for biorefineries and biofuel production plants, adds
mandatory funding for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency
improvements, increases mandatory funding for Biomass Research and Development,
increases funding for the USDA bioenergy program, reauthorizes and funds the
Biodiesel Fuel Education Program, and establishes the Biomass Energy Reserve and
Forest Biomass for Energy program. Many of these provisions were included as part
of the House Agriculture Committee’s En Bloc Reserve Fund Amendment.25
Additional funding for these provisions would be made available through the revenue
and other offsetting or cost-saving provisions provided for in the House-passed bill.
CBO estimates that these provisions would raise spending in energy programs by
$2.5 billion over five years (FY2008-FY2012).
For more information, see CRS Report RL32712, Agriculture-based Renewable
Energy Production; CRS Report RL33290, Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public
Policy Issues
; and CRS Report RL33928, Ethanol and Biofuels: Agriculture,
Infrastructure, and Market Constraints Related to Expanded Production
. Also see
CRS Report RL33572, Biofuels Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs.
Legislative proposals focused on renewable energy are in CRS Report RL33831,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 110th Congress.
Rural Development
More than 88 programs administered by 16 different federal agencies target rural
economic development. The Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-355),
however, named USDA as the lead federal agency for rural development. USDA
administers most of the existing rural development programs and has the highest
average of program funds going directly to rural counties (approximately 50%).
More information is in CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural
Development Programs
.
The rural development title (Title VI) of the House-reported bill (H.R. 2419)
reauthorizes existing rural development loan and grant programs and creates several
new provisions. These new provisions include grants to improve technical
infrastructure and quality of rural health care facilities; a Rural Entrepreneur and
Microenterprise Assistance program; and a Community Connect Broadband Grant
program.
Broadband development in rural areas is a prominent feature of the rural
development title. In addition to the Community Connect provision noted above and
the reauthorization of the Distance Learning and Telemedicine program, the House-
passed bill reauthorizes and amends the Access to Broadband Telecommunications
Service in Rural Areas, a program originally authorized in the 2002 farm bill. With
this reauthorization, H.R. 2419 also includes a new provision authorizing a National
Center for Rural Telecommunications Assessment and directs the Secretary to
25 House Rules Committee, “Summary of Reserve Fund en bloc,” available at
[http://www.rules.house.gov/SpecialRules_details.aspx?NewsID=2793].

CRS-19
conduct a comprehensive rural broadband strategy. Other provisions in H.R. 2419
reauthorize and amend several programs that were originally authorized in the 2002
farm bill, including the Rural Firefighters and Emergency Medical Service
Assistance program, the Rural Strategic Investment program, and the Value-Added
Products Grants program. Also, there are provisions for socially disadvantaged
farms, rural food enterprise entrepreneurs, and rural public television stations.
As with the conservation and energy titles, most of the provisions in the rural
development title amend and/or extend existing provisions in the 2002 farm bill, as
well as long-standing loan and grant programs administered by USDA Rural
Development. In some cases, there may be overlap between the rural development
and the bioenergy or conservation, though the individual provisions are often
intended to target development or assistance to rural communities. Various
provisions in the energy title, for example, would support construction of bioenergy
facilities in rural areas. Such projects could have a positive effect on local
economies.
Forestry
Farm bills typically deal with forestry both directly, usually in a forestry title, and
indirectly (such as including forests and forestry practices in more general
conservation programs). For a description of programs, see CRS Report RL31065,
Forestry Assistance Programs.
The House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2419) includes a forestry title (Title VIII) with
several sections addressing statewide forest resource planning. The first section
would establish “national private forest conservation priorities” as (1) conserving and
managing working forest landscapes for multiple values and uses; (2) protecting
forests from threats and restoring appropriate forest types; and (3) enhancing public
benefits from private forests. Other sections would require statewide assessments
and strategies for forest resources (with periodic revision), create a new Forest
Resource Coordinating Committee, require the competitive allocation of a portion
of state assistance funding, based on how the statewide assessments and strategies
fulfill the national priorities, and allow up to 5% of state assistance funding for
competitively allocated innovative projects to address the national priorities. Also,
the bill would extend, through 2012, the authorization for the Office of International
Forestry and for Healthy Forest Reserves established under the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148, 16 U.S.C. §§6501, et seq.). It includes an
Emergency Forest Restoration Program to provide assistance for restoration efforts
for forests damaged by natural factors. Finally, it provides a competitive grant
program to Hispanic-serving institutions to increase diversity in forestry and related
fields.
The House-passed bill is substantially different than the Administration’s farm
bill proposal. The Administration would direct comprehensive statewide forest
planning, create competitive landscape-scale forestry grants, initiate a 10-year, $150-
million wood energy development and use program, and establish a community
working forests program. In Congress, several of the introduced bills include forests
and forestry practices in the conservation programs they would authorize: for
example, H.R. 1551 (Kind)/S. 919 (Menendez) and H.R. 2144 (DeLauro). Forestry

CRS-20
titles generally address the forestry assistance programs administered by the State and
Private Forestry branch of the Forest Service. H.R. 2144 includes a forestry title, and
would authorize national and state forest priorities and planning; extend the Healthy
Forests Reserve Program (created in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003,
P.L. 108-148). H.R. 2144 also would establish a community forest and open space
conservation program, akin to the Administration’s proposed community working
forests program. Neither the Administration nor any introduced bill would extend
or replace direct assistance to forest landowners currently authorized under the Forest
Land Enhancement Program.
A description of these proposals and relevant issues is in CRS Report RL33917,
Forestry in the 2007 Farm Bill. Forestry practices and wood energy are also
addressed in other sections of the 2007 farm bill; see the preceding sections on
“Conservation” and “Bioenergy.”
Agricultural Research
The mandate to conduct research of direct benefit to U.S. agriculture was part
of the mission of USDA when it was first established in 1862. The agricultural
research, education, and outreach (extension) system now comprises several agencies
within the Department. These include a research agency with more than 100 labs
nationwide and overseas; economic data-gathering and analysis agencies; and an
agency that administers a number of block grants to all states and U.S. territories for
cooperative research and extension, as well as competitive grant programs open to
a wide range of institutions and individuals. For more information on these agencies’
activities, see CRS Report RL33327, Agricultural Research, Education, and
Extension: Issues and Background
.
Title VII of the House-passed H.R. 2419 contains provisions making major
changes in the USDA research, extension, and economics mission area, and
represents an amalgamation of reorganizaton proposals put forth by a 2002 farm bill
task force and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges (NASULGC).26 First, it establishes a National Agricultural Research
Program Office within USDA to coordinate the intramural research programs of the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Economic Research Service (ERS), and the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) with the programs of the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) that
support the core programs at the land grant colleges of agriculture (referred to as the
“capacity” programs). Second, it groups all the existing CSREES competitive grant
programs under a new National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Third, it
merges the two largest competitive grant programs — the National Research
Initiative (NRI) and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS)
— into one program. This merger makes available approximately $200 million
26 The task force recommended the establishment of a National Institute for Food and
Agriculture; this proposal was introduced as H.R. 2118 (C. Peterson)/S. 971 (Bond). The
NASULGC proposal, called CREATE-21, called for reorganizing all the research mission
area agencies into one and having one budget line item for the “capacity” programs and one
for the competitive programs. It is reflected in H.R. 2398 (Barrow)/S. 1094 (Stabenow).

CRS-21
annually in mandatory funds for competitive grants (provided originally for the
IFAFS program in 1998, in P.L. 105-185) beginning in FY2010; additional
appropriations of $500 million annually also are authorized for the combined
programs. Fourth, it requires the President’s annual budget submission to present a
single budget line item reflecting the total amount requested for the “capacity”
programs and a single budget line item reflecting the total amount requested for the
competitive programs.
In addition to making major reforms, Title VII extends a large number of existing
research, education, and extension programs and reauthorizes annual appropriations
through FY2012, largely at levels set in the 2002 farm bill. The Organic Research
and Extension Initiative is reauthorized to continue with $25 million provided
annually in mandatory funds. The title also establishes an endowment fund to
increase funding for Hispanic-serving educational institutions that offer four-year
degrees in agriculture, as well as an academic capacity-building program and a
competitive research program for these institutions. It would expand a Biobased
Products Research program established by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-185) into an initiative that would
additionally focus research on improving bioenergy production. It creates a Specialty
Crop Research Initiative and provides $215 million over five years in mandatory
funds to support it, as well as authority for additional appropriations.
Competition
Rapid changes have occurred in recent decades in the structure and business
methods of agriculture in general and of animal agriculture in particular. Production
and marketing have been moving toward fewer and larger operations (sometimes
referred to as consolidation or concentration), and toward vertical integration,
although the pace of these changes has varied widely across the sectors. Debate has
revolved around the impacts of such changes on farm prices, on the traditional
system of independent, family-based agriculture, on consumers, and on global
competitiveness. Inherent in these questions is the role government should play in
monitoring and regulating agricultural markets. For more information see CRS
Report RL33958, Animal Agriculture: 2007 Farm Bill Issues.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Harkin has introduced a wide-ranging
bill (S. 622) that, he said, could be the basis for a new “competition” title in the next
farm bill. S. 622 contains provisions establishing a new Office of Special Counsel
at USDA to investigate and prosecute violations of competition laws; making it
easier for producers to prove unfair treatment under the Packers and Stockyards
(P&S) Act; strengthening P&S Act enforcement in the poultry industry; and rewriting
the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide many crop producers with P&S Act-
type protections and to set new requirements for contracts between producers and
processors. The House-passed bill, H.R. 2419, does not contain a competition title
or comparable language. Representative Boswell, chairman of the House Agriculture
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, has introduced a companion bill
(H.R. 2135). Other pending bills to address various “competition” concerns include
S. 221, S. 305, S. 786, and S. 1759 (Grassley) and also S. 1017 (Enzi) and H.R. 2213
(Herseth Sandlin).

CRS-22
Representative Boswell, chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on
Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, did not offer his competition measure (H.R. 2135)
when the panel marked up portions of a 2007 farm bill on May 24, 2007. The
subcommittee did adopt a Boswell amendment on the use of arbitration to resolve a
livestock or poultry contract dispute. Under the amendment, arbitration could be
used only if both contract parties agree to it in writing, and after the dispute arises,
not before.27 However, this amendment was replaced during full committee action.
By a 26-17 vote, the committee adopted new language that instead would require
USDA to issue regulations on what arbitration provisions are to be permitted in
contracts; the rules must enable a producer to seek relief in small claims court in
some situations.
In a separate provision in the House-passed bill, H.R. 2419, affecting meat and
poultry industries, USDA is authorized to approve the eligibility of state-inspected
meat and poultry products for interstate shipment, so long as the state program
enforces all of the mandatory requirements in place for the federal program, among
other stipulations. Currently, state-inspected products may only be sold in-state.
Country-of-Origin Labeling
The 2002 farm bill (§10816 of P.L. 107-171) required retailers to provide
country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for fresh produce, red meats, peanuts, and seafood
by September 30, 2004. Congress has twice postponed implementation for all but
seafood; COOL now must be implemented by September 30, 2008. COOL does not
apply to processed versions of these products, to poultry, a competing meat, or to
dining-out establishments. Vigorous debate has continued over whether this new
program is desirable and necessary, its purposes, and its likely impacts on farmers,
processors, retailers and consumers. Opponents of mandatory COOL prefer a
voluntary or market-driven program or at least some relaxation of the COOL law’s
compliance language. Supporters continue to seek Congress’s and USDA’s
assurance that the mandatory program will be implemented expeditiously. For a
more detailed description of the law, requirements and issues see CRS Report 97-
508, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods.
When the full committee marked up the farm bill during the week of July 16,
2007, it adopted a compromise amendment by Representative Goodlatte that would
continue to require the mandatory program to be implemented on current schedule.
However, for red meats, the amendment creates several new types of label categories
that are intended to facilitate and simplify compliance in specifying the country or
countries of the products. For all covered commodities, the bill also would ease
recordkeeping and verification requirements, and lower noncompliance penalties.
Another committee change would extend COOL to goat meat. These provisions
were generally retained in the version of H.R. 2419 passed by the full House.
27 A Senate bill (S. 221) containing the same requirement as the Boswell amendment was
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 17, 2007.

CRS-23
Agricultural Trade and Food Aid
Farm bills have included a trade title with legislative authority for programs that
subsidize or promote commercial agricultural exports and that provide international
food assistance. Title III of the 2002 farm bill currently provides authorization for
these two kinds of programs. For the most part, a new Title III in the House-passed
farm bill (H.R. 2419) extends authorization for these programs through 2012, with
increased funding for selected export and food aid programs. The House-passed bill
also authorizes increased funding for humanitarian food aid donations. For one of
the food aid programs, the House-passed bill changes the funding basis from
discretionary to mandatory and substantially increases its funding.
Trade.
Provisions of the trade title of H.R. 2419, as passed by the House,
extend USDA’s export market development programs through 2012 and increase
funding for export promotion in the Market Access Program by $125 million over
five years. A provision of the committee-reported bill that would have restored
promotion of leaf tobacco exports in MAP was stripped from the bill by amendment.
MAP promotion of tobacco and tobacco product exports has been prohibited since
1993. The bill revises the Export Credit Guarantee programs to bring them into
compliance with a WTO dispute settlement decision in the U.S.-Brazil cotton case
which the United States lost. The bill eliminates the 1% cap on origination fees for
export credit guarantees and repeals legislative authority for an intermediate export
credit guarantee program (3-10 years), as requested by the Administration, to help to
remove the subsidy elements from the guarantee programs in line with the WTO
decision in the cotton case. H.R. 2419 also eliminates authority for the Supplier
Credit Guarantee Program (SCGP). SCGP guarantees open account financing of
U.S. agricultural exports and had been plagued by instances of fraudulent activity and
defaults on loans. However, contrary to the Administration’s proposal, the House-
passed bill does not eliminate, but extends, authority for export subsidies under the
Export Enhancement Program (EEP) through 2012.

The House-passed version of the trade title increases funding for the Technical
Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program which focuses on eliminating
sanitary and phytosanitary (food safety) barriers to U.S. agricultural exports. TASC
funding would increase by $28 million over five years from levels authorized in the
2002 farm bill. Appropriations also are authorized to strengthen U.S. representation
in international standard setting bodies and also to assist limited-resources persons
and organizations to address unfair trade practices and reduce foreign trade barriers.
Food Aid. The United States is the world’s largest provider of food aid,
accounting for about 60% of total global food aid over the last decade. Most U.S.
food aid is provided via P.L. 480 Title II which authorizes the donation of U.S.
agricultural commodities for emergency relief or for use in development projects.
H.R. 2419 extends P.L. 480 food aid programs through 2012, and authorizes
appropriations for P.L. 480 Title II humanitarian donations of $2.5 billion annually.
If appropriated, that amount would represent a very substantial increase over the $1.2
billion appropriated annually in recent years. An increase in appropriations for P.L.
480 Title II was originally a provision in H.R. 2488, the House Foreign Affairs
Committee reported version of the farm bill’s trade title. The House-passed bill also
increases the amount of cash that could be allocated to private voluntary

CRS-24
organizations to pay for project related expenses. In addition, the House-passed bill
stipulates that of the amounts made available for Title II, not less than $450 million
annually be made available for nonemergency (development) food aid. This
minimum level of non-emergency assistance could not be waived unless requested
by the Administrator of USAID, followed by enactment of a law approving the
Administrator’s request. In its Statement of Administration Policy,28 the Office of
Management and Budget said that it strongly opposed this provision because it
deprives the Administration of the ability to quickly waive it in an emergency. OMB
estimated that this provision would result in a $100 million decrease in emergency
food aid.
Other, smaller programs provide food aid to countries that are promoting the
development of market-oriented agricultural sectors (Food for Progress) or for school
feeding and nutrition programs (the McGovern-Dole International School Feeding
and Child Nutrition Program). H.R. 2419 reauthorizes, without change, the Food for
Progress program through 2012. In reauthorizing the McGovern-Dole program,
however, the House-passed bill changes its funding basis from discretionary to
mandatory and increases spending from $140 million in FY2009 to $300 million in
FY2012. These provisions for the McGovern-Dole program are similar to those
proposed in H.R. 1616 (McGovern) and S. 946 (Durbin) introduced earlier in the
110th Congress.
The Administration’s sole farm bill food aid proposal was for legislative
authority to allocate up to 25% of funds for humanitarian food aid (through P.L. 480
Title II) to local or regional purchase of commodities for emergency relief. Local or
regional purchases, the Administration maintained, would make the U.S. response
to emergencies more timely and cost-effective. Opponents of the proposal, however,
maintain that it would undermine the coalition of producers, shippers, and charitable
organizations that support U.S. food aid and result in less U.S. food aid being
provided. H.R. 2419 did not include the Administration’s proposal for local/regional
purchase, but did increase the authorized funding, by $40 million, for the
International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA) program, administered by the
U.S. Agency for International Development. IDFA funds can be used for local or
regional purchases of agricultural commodities in emergency situations.
For more information on farm bill trade and food aid programs, see CRS Report
RL33553, Agricultural Export and Food Aid Programs.
Agricultural Credit
Statutes for two farm lenders typically are revised in farm bills. First, the USDA
Farm Service Agency (FSA) is a lender of last resort that makes direct loans or
guarantees loans to farmers who cannot qualify at other lenders. Second, the Farm
Credit System (FCS) is a private lender with a statutory requirement, and limitation,
to lend to farmers and certain farm-related businesses. For more information, see
CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Farm Bill Issues.
28 Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr2419sap-r.pdf]

CRS-25
Farm Service Agency. The House-passed farm bill would (1) further
prioritize Farm Service Agency lending for beginning and socially disadvantaged
farmers, (2) increase lending limits per individual to $300,000 for direct farm
ownership loans and direct operating loans, up from $200,000, (3) create a special
loan guarantee program for conservation projects, (4) extend, but only until January
1, 2008, the suspension of the enforcement of “term limits,” which are set in statute
to require farmers to graduate from FSA credit to commercial lenders, and (5) extend
and expand the guarantee program for seller-financed land loans, among other
changes.
Farm Credit System. In recent years, FCS has sought to expand its lending
authority beyond traditional farm loans and into more rural housing and non-farm
businesses. In early 2006, FCS released a report titled Horizons, which highlighted
perceived needs for greater lending authority to serve a changing rural America.
Commercial banks oppose expanding FCS lending authority, saying that the
availability of commercial credit in rural areas is not constrained, and that FCS’s
government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) status provides an unfair competitive
advantage.
The House-passed bill does not contain any expansion of Farm Credit System
lending authority. A floor amendment by Financial Services Committee chairman
and ranking member removed by voice vote the Agriculture Committee’s provisions
that would have (1) expanded the population cutoff for rural housing loans from
2,500 population to 6,000 population (but not 50,000 as requested by FCS), (2) added
a general agribusiness category to the list of eligible borrowers, but limited to
renewable energy projects only, and (3) replaced the borrower stock-holding
requirement with the discretion of the institution.
Committee jurisdiction had been called into question by letters from the House
Financial Services committee to the Agriculture Committee, in which Financial
Services asserted their jurisdiction for nonfarm lending and their specific opposition
to Horizons. The Administration came out against FCS expansion in a Statement of
Administration Policy. The past chairman of the Farm Credit Administration, the
federal regulator, also voiced opposition.
Domestic Food Programs and Nutrition
The farm bill’s nutrition title accounts for more than half of all spending on
programs/activities covered by the farm bill. Most of this money finances the Food
Stamp program.
The most significant issues that have been raised are those surrounding the Food
Stamp program and fruit and vegetable support policies. Proposals to significantly
change rules governing food stamp eligibility and benefit levels and how the program
is administered by states have been advanced by the Administration and in a number
of comprehensive bills, as have calls for program revisions and grant initiatives
aimed at easing access to food stamp benefits. In addition, major boosts in funding
and other support for increasing the availability of fruits and vegetables in nutrition
programs have been proposed by the Administration and others.

CRS-26
Major reauthorization bills with substantial nutrition title proposals include H.R.
1551 (Kind)/S. 919 (Menendez); H.R. 1600 (Cardoza); H.R. 2129 (McGovern); H.R.
2144 (DeLauro); H.R. 2401 (Baca); H.R. 2720 (Kind)/S. 1422 (Lugar); S. 1160
(Stabenow); S. 1424 (Schumer); and S. 1529 (Harkin).
The nutrition title (Title IV) of the House-passed version of the 2007 farm bill
(H.R. 2419) would loosen some eligibility rules and significantly add to food stamp
benefits. It would loosen eligibility rules for food stamps by indexing the dollar limit
on allowable assets and disregarding, as assets, all retirement savings/plans and
education savings. It would increase benefits by boosting the minimum disregard of
income (the “standard deduction”), lifting caps on the disregard for dependent-care
expenses, and increasing the minimum benefit guarantee. The bill also imposes
substantial limits on states’ ability to “privatize” administration of the Food Stamp
program, and allows the exercise of geographic preference when procuring food for
child nutrition programs. Further, the House bill significantly adds support for The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and a program offering free fruits and
vegetables in schools. Many of these provisions (those with a cost attached) were
included as part of the House Agriculture Committee’s En Bloc Reserve Fund
Amendment.29 Additional funding for these provisions would be made available
through the revenue and other offsetting or cost-saving provisions provided for in the
House-passed bill. CBO estimates that these provisions would raise spending in
nutrition programs by $4.2 billion over five years (FY2008-FY2012).
For more information, see CRS Report RL33829, Domestic Food Assistance: The
2007 Farm Bill and Other Legislation in the 110th Congress.
29 House Rules Committee, “Summary of Reserve Fund en bloc,” available at
[http://www.rules.house.gov/SpecialRules_details.aspx?NewsID=2793].

CRS-27
2007 Farm Bill Timeline

May 2005 — One of the first comprehensive sets of recommendations for the next farm
bill is released by a major agricultural trade association, followed by proposal by other
major interest groups and organizations (both traditional farm and other nonfarm groups).

July 7, 2005 — U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) begins its series of 52 farm bill
forums starting in Nashville, TN, and covering nearly all states (excluding Louisiana and
Mississippi due to Hurricane Katrina.).

February 6, 2006 — House Committee on Agriculture begins farm bill listening field
hearings in Fayetteville, NC, and other hearings to review federal farm policy.

June 23, 2006 — Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee begins regional
farm bill hearings in Albany, GA, and other hearings to review federal farm policy.

January 2007 — House and Senate Agriculture Committees begin to hold hearings on
selected topics in the farm bill.

January 31, 2007 — USDA releases its recommendations for the 2007 farm bill, covering
each title of the current law.

February 2007 — One of the first comprehensive bills recommending broad changes to
current law is introduced in the Senate, followed by other broad-based bill introduced by
others in the House and Senate.

March 21, 2007 — Congressional Budget Office (CBO) releases its multi-year March
baseline estimate of spending, providing the starting point for the budget allocation for the
2007 farm bill.

May 17, 2007 — Congress approves the FY2008 budget resolution, adopting the baseline
budget as the fiscal parameters and including a $20 billion reserve for the 2007 farm bill.

March 22, 2007 — House Committee on Agriculture begins subcommittee markup on
individual titles of the farm bill, proceeding through June 19, 2007.

July 17, 2007 — House Committee on Agriculture begins full committee markup on
individual titles of the farm bill (H.R. 2419), proceeding through July 19, 2007.
July 26-27, 2007 — Floor debate and passage of H.R. 2419 in the House.
September 2007 — Senate Agriculture Committee anticipates full committee markup of
its 2007 farm bill, to be followed by debate and action on the Senate floor.
Year-end 2007/Early 2008 — House and Senate conferees are expected to settle
differences between the two farm bills.

CRS-28
Appendix A. Key Proposed Recommendations
Organization
Key Recommendations
25x’25 Renewable
Oct. 2006 proposal — Supports renewable energy policies [http://www.25x25.
Energy Alliance
org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=148].
Agriculture and
Feb. 2007 proposal — Supports expanding conservation/forestry programs; new
Wildlife Working
grant programs; and a sodsaver provision to disallow federal farm benefits on
Group
grasslands [http://www.defenders.org/releases/pr2007/pr020107.html].
American Corn
Feb. 2006 press release — Support a 2-year non-recourse loan program for corn,
Growers
decoupling price supports from production, farmer-owned reserve program, resource
Association
management, and bioenergy [http://www.acga.org/policy/default.htm].
American Farm
Apr. 2007 proposal — Supports continuation of current law; opposes payment limits
Bureau Federation
[http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.farmbill2007].
American
May 2006 proposal — Supports new “integrated farm revenue program,”
Farmland
transitioning from farm to green payments, expanded conservation support/grants
Trust
[http://www.farmland.org/programs/campaign/newpolicyrecommendations.asp].
American Public
2007 proposal — Coalition of groups supports increased food stamp benefits and
Human Services
loosening of food stamp eligibility standards (e.g., for noncitizens). Would limit
Assoc.; America’s
the degree to which states can “privatize” food stamp administration. Improve
Second Harvest;
access to food stamp benefits. Boost funding for TEFAP commodities. Reform
Food Research and
nutrition education initiatives for low-income individuals and families.
Action Center; and
[http://www.aphsa.org/Policy/Doc/Farm_Bill_Joint_Statement-070226.pdf].
Center on Budget
and Policy
Priorities

American Soybean
Mar. 2007 press release — Supports raising target price of soybeans
Association
[http://www.soygrowers.com/newsroom/releases/2007_releases/r032807.htm].
American Sugar
2007 press release — Supports continuing current sugar program[http://
Alliance
www.sugar alliance.org/library/site/FarmBillFactSheet-FoodSecurity-1-07.pdf].
American Wildlife
Apr. 2007 testimony — Supports expanding existing and creating new conservation
Conservation
programs; supports sod-saver, biofuels, and performance measures provisions
Partners
[http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h70419/Nomsen.doc].
Bread for
2007 press release — Supports commodity program reform; expanded conservation/
the World
rural development, increased food stamps/emergency food assistance [http://www.
bread.org/take-action/letters-campaign/how-to-improve-the-farm-bill.html].
Cato Institute
Apr. 2007 paper — Upfront buyout program [http://www.freetrade.org/node/609].
Center for
Jan. 2007 report — Proposes incentives to develop cellosic biofuels and energy
American Progress
crops [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/farm_economy.html].
Center for Rural
Feb. 2007 hearing — Supports rural business and micro-enterprise loans [http://
Affairs
agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?hearingid=2539&witness Id=6064].
Chicago Council
Sept. 2007 proposal — Supports reform of commodity program, redefining the farm
on Global Affairs
safety net, transforming the food stamp program, and other changes
[http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/taskforce_details.php?taskforce_id=1].

CRS-29
Organization
Key Recommendations
Citigroup
2007 proposal — Voluntary buyout farmers’ direct and counter-cyclical payments,
providing a fixed settlement for foregone payments [http://www.citigroup.com].
Defenders of
Feb. 2007 proposal — Supports expanding conservation programs, and adding a
Wildlife
new sodsaver provision [http://www.defenders.org/releases/pr2007/pr020107.html].
Environmental
Jan. 2007 proposal — Supports expanding conservation/environmental stewardship
Defense
programs, farmland preservation, renewable energy development, and changes to
nutrition programs [http://www.environmentaldefense.org/go/farms/].
Forests on the
2007 proposal — Supports conservation of private forest lands, program funding,
Farm Bill
outreach, education, bioenergy, and creating environmental systems services
Coalition
program [http://www.wflccenter.org/ts_dynamic/edu_outreach/35_file.pdf]
Institute for
Mar. 2007 proposals — Outlines concerns about U.S. farm programs on world food
Agriculture and
policies and markets, including WTO policies, food aid, market concentration and
Trade Policy
public health [http://www.agobservatory.org/issue_farmbill2007.cfm].
National Assoc.
2007 press release — Supports increased funding/technical assistance for
Conservation
conservation and technical assistance; supports renewable energy, forestry programs
Districts
[http://www.nacdnet.org/FB07/FarmBillPrinciples.htm].
National Assoc. of
2007 proposal — Supports increasing research funding to strengthen the land-grant
State Land Grant
system and creating National Institutes for Food and Agriculture within USDA,
Universities / Land
integrating the research, education, and extension programs [http://create-21.org/].
Grant Colleges
National Assoc.
Sept. 2006 proposal — Supports a comprehensive suite of recommendations,
State Departments
addressing most farm bill titles and provisions [http://www.nasda.org/fb2007/].
of Agriculture
National Assoc. of
2007 proposal — Supports higher direct payments and target prices, maintaining
Wheat Growers
marketing loan program [http://www.wheatworld.org/html/info.cfm?ID=20].
National Corn
Mar. 2007 proposal — Supports creation of a farm safety net that provides
Growers
integrates a county level revenue counter-cyclical program with federal crop
Association
insurance program [http://ncga.com/news/notd/2007/march/030807.asp].
National
Mar. 2007 proposal — Supports indexing payments to costs; permanent disaster
Farmers
program; expanding conservation, rural development, energy, and nutrition
Union
programs; adding a new Competition Title [http://www.nfu.org/news/2007/03/05/
nfu-members-lay-out-2007-farm-bill-priorities.html].
National Milk
Apr. 2007 proposal — Supports a new direct payment program and other new or
Producers Fed.
expanded programs [http://www.nmpf.org/files/NMPF_Policy_Direction.pdf].
Organic Farming
June 2006 proposal — Supports programs for organic production: research,
Research
extension, conservation, tax incentives, and reduced crop insurance fees [http://
Foundation
ofrf.org/policy/federal_legislation/farm_bill/farmbill07_initialconcepts.html].
Oxfam America
2007 paper — Supports commodity program reforms to expand rural development
[http://www.oxfamamerica.org/resources/files/OA-Fairness_in_the_Fields.pdf].

CRS-30
Organization
Key Recommendations
Specialty Crop
May 2005 proposal — Comprehensive package to expand support for specialty
Farm Bill Alliance
crops; supports planting restrictions
[http://www.unitedfresh.org/newsviews/farm_bill].
Sustainable
Oct. 2006 proposal — Supports more benefits for mid-sized, new and organic
Agriculture
farmers, adding a Competition Title, and rural business and micro-enterprise loans
Coalition
[http://www.msawg.org/farmbill/PressRelease-FarmBillPlatform.pdf].
Sweetener Users
2007 press release — Support reforms to sugar program [http://www.sweetener
Association
users.org/Congress%20Should%20Reform%20Sugar%20Program.pdf].
USA Rice
Jan. Press release — Maintain marketing loans, direct and countercyclical
Federation
payments; raise loan rates [http://www.usarice.com/news/news_popup.cgi/287].
Source: Compiled by CRS based on available information as of July 2007.