Expiration and Possible Extension of the
2008 Farm Bill
Jim Monke
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy
November 16, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42442
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Summary
Farm bills, like many other pieces of legislation, are becoming more complicated and are taking
longer to enact than in previous decades. Generally speaking, the 2008 farm bill expired on
September 30, 2012, or is expiring with the 2012 crop year. Both the House and Senate have
moved on drafting a 2012 farm bill. The Senate passed its version (S. 3240) on June 21, 2012, by
a vote of 64-35. The House Committee on Agriculture reported its version (H.R. 6083) on July
11, 2012, by a vote of 35-11. But House floor action and/or reconciliation of the differences
between the chambers is pending. Concern over budgetary reductions and other policy
differences is complicating efforts to advance the bills. These dynamics and election-year issues
have delayed the farm bill.
Without a new farm bill or an extension, many discretionary programs do not appear to have
statutory authority to receive appropriations. However, the Government Accountability Office has
said that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that an appropriation must be preceded
by an act that authorizes the appropriation. Therefore, discretionarily funded programs are
continuing under the appropriations continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175).
Many of the farm bill’s nutrition programs rely on annual appropriations regardless of whether
they use mandatory or discretionary funds. Thus, appropriations action is sufficient to continue
most of the major nutrition programs’ operations. Exceptions include mandatory funding for a
farmers’ market nutrition program for seniors, and a few pilot or other small nutrition programs.
Other farm bill programs that rely on mandatory funding are more at risk for discontinuation,
since both their authorization and their funding depend on farm bill action. The last year of farm
commodity program support under the 2008 farm bill is the 2012 crop year, and is not tied to the
fiscal year. Passage of the farm bill is pressured by a set of essentially mothballed provisions for
the farm commodity programs that date from the 1930s and 1940s. Known as “permanent law,”
they would be reinstated if the current farm bill expires. This makes the effective deadline(s) for
enacting a new farm bill December 31, 2012, for dairy, and the first harvest of a supported
commodity in 2013 (e.g., wheat in May). The permanent law provisions are so radically different
from current policy—and inconsistent with today’s farming practices, marketing system, and
international trade agreements, as well as potentially costly to the federal government—that
Congress is unlikely to let permanent law take effect. Some see the existence of permanent law as
an assurance that the farm commodity programs will be revisited every time a farm bill expires.
Another motivating factor is the possible loss of baseline for some other mandatory programs if
they remain in an expired state when a new Congressional Budget Office baseline is released.
For many conservation programs, program authority is permanent but the authority to receive
mandatory funding expired at the end of FY2012. Without an extension of mandatory funding,
new contracts or agreements likely cannot be approved. But all existing contracts and agreements
(including long-term easements) would stay in force. Passing a new farm bill became less
imperative for several conservation programs that were extended by the FY2012 Agriculture
Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-55). It scored savings by limiting five conservation programs but
protected their long-term budget baseline by extending the expiration date to 2014.
Several agricultural trade and international food aid programs also have expired. Crop insurance
is permanently authorized and therefore does not expire with the farm bill.
Congressional Research Service

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Programs with Discretionary Funding ....................................................................................... 2
Programs with Mandatory Funding ........................................................................................... 3
Farm Bill Timelines and Extensions .......................................................................................... 4
Timelines ............................................................................................................................. 4
Extensions ........................................................................................................................... 5
Commodity Support Programs ........................................................................................................ 6
Possible Reversion to Permanent Law ...................................................................................... 6
Description of Permanent Law ............................................................................................ 6
Legislative Options Under Permanent Law ...................................................................... 10
Crop Insurance......................................................................................................................... 11
Conservation Programs .................................................................................................................. 11
Nutrition Programs ........................................................................................................................ 13
Trade and Foreign Food Aid Programs .......................................................................................... 15

Figures
Figure A-1. Time Line of Developing the 2008 Farm Bill ............................................................ 18

Tables
Table 1. Parity Prices and Supports for Farm Products Under Permanent Law .............................. 8
Table 2. Conservation Program Authorization ............................................................................... 12
Table A-1. Major Legislative Action on Farm Bills Since 1973 .................................................... 16

Appendixes
Appendix. Legislative Action on Previous Farm Bills .................................................................. 16

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 19
Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 19

Congressional Research Service

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Introduction
Congress periodically establishes agricultural and food policy in an omnibus farm bill. Provisions
in the most recent law—the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246, the 2008
farm bill—generally expired on September 30, 2012, or are expiring with the 2012 crop year.
What happens if Congress does not enact a new farm bill in 2012? How important was the end of
the fiscal year? Do some programs cease to operate? What is “permanent law” and what does it
affect? This report explores the effects if new legislation is not enacted, as summarized below.1
• Discretionary farm bill programs and the mandatory supplemental nutrition
assistance program (SNAP) can continue to operate via appropriations funding in
the continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175), even though their authorizations and/or
authorizations of appropriations technically are expired.
• Mandatory farm commodity programs (Title I of the farm bill) expire at the end
of the 2012 crop year. Payments for the 2012 crop will occur even if they are
paid after FY2012. However, without a new farm bill or further suspension of
“permanent law,” a set of non-expiring provisions from 1938 and 1949 would be
resurrected for dairy beginning on January 1, 2013, and upon the harvest of
supported field crops in 2013 (e.g., wheat, cotton, rice, and corn).
• Mandatory programs like the Conservation Reserve Program, Market Assistance
Program, Specialty Crop Block Grants, and others expired on September 30,
2012. Existing contracts and some prior-funded projects may continue, but
authorization for new activities ended with FY2012. Some of these programs risk
losing budgetary resources if they are not extended or reauthorized before the
next Congressional Budget Office baseline is released (as early as January 2013).
• Authorization and funding for another subset of mandatory programs, including
specialty crops research, bioenergy programs, beginning farmer and rancher
development, and others, expired on September 30, 2012.2
• Some mandatory conservation programs already have been extended to 2014.
Crop insurance does not expire.
Both the House and Senate have moved on drafting a 2012 farm bill. The Senate passed its
version (S. 3240) on June 21, 2012, by a vote of 64-35. The House Committee on Agriculture
reported its version (H.R. 6083) on July 11, 2012, by a vote of 35-11. House floor action and/or
reconciliation of the differences between the chambers is pending. Concern over budgetary
reductions—especially that nutrition reductions are too large for some and too small for others—
along with other policy differences are complicating efforts to advance the bills.
For more details on the scope and issues of the 2012 farm bill, see CRS Report R42552, The 2012
Farm Bill: A Comparison of Senate-Passed S. 3240 and the House Agriculture Committee’s H.R.
6083 with Current Law, and CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues Shaping a 2012 Farm Bill.

1 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), under similar conditions at the end of the 2002 farm bill, released a
2008 memorandum titled “The Effects of Failure to Enact a New Farm Bill: Permanent Law Support for Commodities
and Lapse of Other USDA Programs,” at http://www.usda.gov/documents/fbpaper022908.doc. The corresponding CRS
report was CRS Report RL34154, Possible Expiration (or Extension) of the 2002 Farm Bill.
2 CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Background
Farm bills include a wide range of authorities, some of which are funded in the farm bill
(mandatory spending), while others are authorized in the farm bill for their scope but wait for
appropriations acts to determine their funding (discretionary spending).
Programs with Discretionary Funding
Without a new farm bill, many programs would not appear to have statutory authority to receive
appropriations (an “authorization of appropriations”).3 However, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) says there is no constitutional or statutory requirement for an appropriation to have
a prior authorization.4 Congress makes a distinction between authorizations and appropriations,
but this is a construct of congressional rules and practice.5 GAO says that “the existence of a
statute (organic legislation) imposing substantive functions upon an agency that require funding
for their performance is itself sufficient legal authorization for the necessary appropriations.”6 For
expired authorizations, GAO says that “past appropriation of funds for a program whose funding
authorization has expired ... provides sufficient legal basis to continue the program.”7
Discretionary spending (subject to annual appropriations) is authorized for the majority of farm
bill programs in terms of number of programs, but not for the majority of outlays.8 Discretionary
programs include most rural development, credit, research, and education programs, and some
conservation and nutrition programs.9 The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—
a mandatory entitlement—also requires an annual appropriation.10 Some smaller research,
bioenergy, and rural development programs sometimes receive both mandatory and discretionary
funding, but most funding is usually discretionary.11 Most agency operations are financed with
discretionary funds.

3 A program may have permanent or long-term authority, but have an expiring authorization for appropriations. An
“authorization of appropriations” is essentially a recommendation to the appropriations committee. It is not binding and
has no bearing on budget enforcement for an authorizing bill. Appropriators may choose to not fund a program, or may
choose to exceed the authorization. Authorization amounts may be specific or indefinite (“such sums as necessary”).
4 Government Accountability Office, Office of the General Counsel, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (also
known as the GAO Red Book), Volume I (3d ed. 2004), p. 2-41, at http://www.gao.gov/legal/redbook/redbook.html.
5 CRS Report R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues.
6 GAO Red Book, p. 2-41.
7 Ibid, p. 2-69.
8 About 80% of USDA spending is mandatory spending and 20% is discretionary spending. See CRS Report R42596,
Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations.
9 For nutrition funding, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and administrative funds for the Emergency Food
Assistance Program are discretionary, as are some aspects of other nutrition programs. The Special Supplemental
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) also is discretionary, but is not considered a farm bill program.
10 SNAP, a mandatory program, is referred to as an “appropriated entitlement,” See CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements
and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process.
11 For example, see §7311 of P.L. 110-246 having mandatory funding language and an authorization for appropriation:
“(h) Funding. (1) In general. Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, ... $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2012 ... (2) Authorization of appropriations. In addition to funds made available under paragraph (1),
there is authorized to be appropriated ... $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.”
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) compiles a list of programs with expired authorizations
of appropriations. Eighteen agricultural programs received more than $37 million in FY2012
under expired authorizations of appropriations.12 More than 100 farm bill programs lost their
authorization for appropriations at the end of FY2012; they received $2.3 billion in FY2012, and
generally are being continued in FY2013 under the continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175).13
Programs with Mandatory Funding
Most mandatory programs in the farm bill need to be reauthorized. These include the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), farm commodity programs, some
conservation programs, agricultural trade programs, and foreign food aid programs. Without
reauthorization, these programs cease to operate or undertake new activities. An exception is
SNAP, which is continued via funding under the appropriations continuing resolution even
though its authorization has expired. The primary exceptions to mandatory programs that do not
need reauthorization include crop insurance, which is permanently authorized, and some
conservation programs, which have been extended to 2014.
Mandatory spending in the farm bill is used primarily for the farm commodity programs, crop
insurance, nutrition assistance programs, and some conservation and trade programs. Some
smaller research, bioenergy, and rural development programs sometimes receive mandatory
funding, but their combined share—however important to their own operations—is less than 1%
of the total. Nutrition assistance is the largest category, with 78% of mandatory funding available
to write the next farm bill ($772 billion in the 10-year CBO March 2012 baseline for FY2013-
FY2022). Other primary programs with mandatory funding are crop insurance (9%, or $90
billion), conservation (6%, or $65 billion), and farm commodity programs (6%, or $63 billion).14
Programs relying on mandatory funding are perhaps the most at risk for discontinuation, since
both their authorization and their funding depend on farm bill action. Yet, unlike discretionary
appropriations, many farm bill programs with mandatory funding have their own source of
funding for reauthorization via the CBO baseline. Therefore an extension or a new farm bill can
allow them to continue.
However, without an extension or reauthorization, some mandatory programs could lose their
budgetary resources if they are not extended before the next CBO baseline is released (as early as
January 2013).15 CBO baselines reflect the law that exists when the projection is issued. If
programs remain in an expired state, then their baseline could disappear upon the next update.

12 Congressional Budget Office, Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations, January 2012, at http://
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/01-13-UAEA_Appropriations.pdf. See Table 1, “Summary of
Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations with Expired Authorizations, by House Authorizing Committee” (and Table 2, by
Senate Authorizing Committee; and Table 3, by Appropriations Subcommittee), pp. 9-11; and Appendix A, “List of
Programs Funded in Fiscal Year 2012 With Expired Authorizations of Appropriations,” pp. 1-2.
13 Ibid. See Appendix B, “List of Authorizations of Appropriations Expiring During Fiscal Year 2012,” pp. 1-9, and
Table 4, “Summary of Authorizations of Appropriations Expiring on or Before September 30, 2012, by House
Authorizing Committee” (and Table 5, by Senate Authorizing Committee), pp. 12-13.
14 See CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues Shaping a 2012 Farm Bill, “Figure 1. Ten-Year Mandatory Baseline for
Farm Bill Titles.”
15 Craig Jagger (Legis Consulting; former House Agriculture Committee economist), “What the 2012 Elections Mean
for Agriculture, Food and Rural Policies: Budget Issues,” at http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/1850-
Jagger_FarmFound_11-14-12_Webinar.pdf, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Examples include the Market Access Program, Milk Income Loss Contract, Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Program, Specialty Crop Block Grants, and Plant Pest and Disease Management.
This report generally discusses programs with baseline in future years. However, another subset
of mandatory programs exists for provisions in the 2008 farm bill that do not have baseline
beyond FY2012. These mandatory programs not only expired at the end of FY2012, but they lack
built-in budgetary resources to be continued. An extension of program authority does not provide
new budgetary resources; offsets from other programs are needed. The House and Senate versions
of the 2012 farm bill would provide money to continue some of the programs without baseline.16
Farm Bill Timelines and Extensions
Farm bills, like other legislation, are becoming more complicated and generally taking longer to
enact than in previous decades. For example, the 1973 farm bill was enacted less than two months
after being introduced. In contrast, the 2008 farm bill took more than a year from the time it was
introduced; see Appendix Table A-1.17 It was complicated by revenue provisions that involved
other committees of jurisdiction, temporary extensions, and presidential vetoes (Figure A-1).
The 2002 farm bill was expired for nearly three months in 2007 before a short-term extension was
enacted. This is an analogous situation to the current expiration in 2012—the fiscal year began
under a continuing resolution and the farm bill had yet to be extended.
Timelines
Enacting farm bills after the end of the fiscal year that a prior farm bill expired is not uncommon.
In the past 40 years, only the 1973 and 1977 farm bills were enacted before September 30. Farm
bills in 1981, 1985, and 1990 were enacted by December 31, a few months after the end of the
fiscal year but still before spring-planted crops covered by the new law were planted. The most
recent three farm bills have been have been enacted later, in April (1996), May (2002), and June
(2008), prior to the first crop harvested and covered by the farm bill.
The House and Senate have taken turns as the first chamber to take action on a farm bill. The
Senate was first to mark up a farm bill in 1973, 1977, 1981, and 2012. The House was first to
mark up farm bills in 1985, 1990, 1995 (and 1996), 2001, and 2007.
Since 1973, seven out of nine farm bills have been introduced in the first session of a two-year
Congress (the odd-numbered year); the exceptions are the 1990 and 2012 farm bills. The 2012
farm bill has the latest introduction date during a two-year Congress. Enactment of the past four
farm bills (1990-2008) has been during the second session (the even-numbered year), although
except for the 1990 farm bill, some action had occurred in the prior year. Only the 1990 farm bill
was enacted after an election in a lame-duck Congress. No farm bill has started in one Congress
and needed to be reintroduced in a subsequent Congress.

16 CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
17 These dates include span only the official introduction of a bill marked up by committee until the bill was signed by
the President. They do not include background hearings before committee markup, which would extend the time line.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Extensions
Extensions of a prior farm bill are not common. Since 1973, only the 2002 farm bill required an
extension during 2007-2008. Even though the 1996 and 2002 farm bills may appear to have been
delayed, they did not require extensions. The 2002 farm bill was enacted earlier than necessary18
and the 1996 farm bill was early in part because original expiration dates had been extended.19
Extensions are rare in part because appropriations can continue discretionary programs. So the
primary concern regarding extension becomes the expiration of mandatory programs. Most
provisions can be continued by temporary extensions. However, those that expire before the end
of the farm bill and those that do not have funding in the baseline budget beyond FY2012 cannot
be as easily extended unless budgetary offsets are included, complicating extension.20
When the 2002 farm bill expired in 2007, the extension process began under appropriations and
continuing resolutions that were used to begin FY2008. Appropriations for food stamps
specifically were provided, and other governmental activities were continued at prior-year
appropriated levels (P.L. 110-92, §§101, 111). Portions of the 2002 farm bill itself were extended
six times, beginning in December 2007 before the dairy program would have reverted to
permanent law (see the right side of Appendix Figure A-1). The first of those extensions, in
December 2007, continued authority for many expiring programs for about three months.21
Because final agreement was pending, five more month- or week-long extensions were needed.
The temporary extensions during 2007-2008 stated that, unless otherwise excepted, 2002 farm
bill provisions in effect on September 30, 2007, shall continue until the new expiration date. The
extensions funded three conservation programs at specific levels. For the commodity title, the
dairy and sugar programs were included in the extension, as were price support loan programs for
wool and mohair.22 Programs that specifically were not extended were the direct, counter-cyclical,
and marketing loan programs for the 2008 crop year for all other supported commodities (i.e., the
primary supported commodities such as feed grains, oilseeds, wheat, rice, cotton, and peanuts).23
The first extension in December 2007 did not address permanent law, but the second and
subsequent extensions in 2008 extended the 2002 farm bill’s suspension of permanent law.24

18 The 1996 farm bill was to be effective until September 30, 2002, and through the 2002 crop year. The 2002 farm bill
even superseded the last year of the 1996 farm bill by beginning with the 2002 crop year.
19 The 1996 farm bill was not pressured by the 1990 farm bill’s original expiration date of the 1995 crop year. Budget
reconciliation in 1993 extended the farm commodity programs through at least 1996 and in some cases the 1997 crops.
20 An example of a program without budget baseline beyond FY2012 is the Wetlands Reserve Program. An example of
an expired provision is the agriculture disaster assistance program that expired in 2011; it also does not have baseline
funding. For more examples, see CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
21 P.L. 110-161, §751: “Except as otherwise provided in this Act ... , authorities provided under the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 ... (and for mandatory programs at such funding levels), as in effect on September 30,
2007, shall continue, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall carry out the authorities, until March 15, 2008.”
22 Milk is a commodity that required attention before the end of 2007, because the dairy price support program was
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2007. The temporary dairy extensions avoided the reversion to permanent law,
whereby the government would have been obligated to purchase surplus cheese, nonfat dry milk, and butter at prices
substantially higher than current support prices.
23 Other programs that were not included in the extensions were peanut storage payments, agricultural management
assistance for conservation, community food projects in the food stamp program, the rural broadband program, value-
added market development grants, federal procurement of biobased products, the biodiesel fuel education program, and
the renewable energy systems program.
24 P.L. 110-196, “(d) Suspension of Permanent Price Support Authorities. The provisions ... in subsections (a) through
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Commodity Support Programs
The farm commodity price and income support programs raise farm income by making payments
and reducing financial risks from uncertain weather and market conditions. Government-set target
prices offer payments when market prices fall below support levels.25
The last year for the 2008 farm bill’s commodity programs is the 2012 crop year—that is, crops
harvested during 2012 and marketed during the following year. Dairy price supports and export
incentives expire on December 31, 2012, and the milk income loss contract on September 30,
2012. Outlays for the 2012 crop year that are scheduled to occur in FY2013 are unaffected by
expiration. Thus, for the farm commodity programs, the effective deadlines for enacting a new
farm bill are January 1, 2013, for dairy, and when the first supported commodity is harvested in
the 2013 crop year.
Even if Congress deems an extension necessary for the commodity support programs, recent
experience in 2007-2008 suggests that final action likely could wait until late spring 2013, when
some winter wheat—generally the first of the 2013 crop year commodities to mature—would be
harvested. However, earlier action would be needed for dairy since it would revert to permanent
law on January 1, 2013, without an extension or a new farm bill.
Possible Reversion to Permanent Law
Farm commodity support policy has evolved over time via successive farm bills that update and
supersede prior policies. However, a set of non-expiring provisions remain in statute and are
known as “permanent law.” The permanent law provisions were enacted primarily in the
Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended by subsequent
farm bills. Modern farm bills have suspended permanent law but only for the duration of the farm
bill, currently the 2008-2012 crop years.26 If no action is taken on a new farm bill, the essentially
mothballed permanent law policies for the farm commodity programs would resume.
Description of Permanent Law
The commodity support provisions of permanent law are commonly viewed as being so radically
different from current policy—and inconsistent with today’s farming practices, marketing system,
and international trade agreements—as well as potentially costly to the federal government that

(...continued)
(c) of section 1602 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 shall be suspended through April 18, 2008.”
25 For more background, see CRS Report RL34594, Farm Commodity Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill.
26 P.L. 110-246, §1602: “(a) The following provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 shall not be
applicable to the 2008 through 2012 crops ... and shall not be applicable to milk ... through December 31, 2012: (1)
Parts II through V of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C. 1326 et seq.). (2) In the case of upland cotton, section 377 (7
U.S.C. 1377). (3) Subtitle D of title III (7 U.S.C. 1379a et seq.). (4) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). (b) The following
provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949 shall not be applicable ... (1) Section 101 (7 U.S.C. 1441). (2) Section 103(a)
(7 U.S.C. 1444(a)). (3) Section 105 (7 U.S.C. 1444b). (4) Section 107 (7 U.S.C. 1445a). (5) Section 110 (7 U.S.C.
1445e). (6) Section 112 (7 U.S.C. 1445g). (7) Section 115 (7 U.S.C. 1445k). (8) Section 201 (7 U.S.C. 1446). (9) Title
III (7 U.S.C. 1447 et seq.). (10) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), other than sections 404, 412, and 416 (7 U.S.C. 1424,
1429, and 1431). (11) Title V (7 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.). (12) Title VI (7 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.). (c) Suspension of Certain
Quota Provisions... (7 U.S.C. 1330 and 1340), shall not be applicable to the crops of wheat ... through 2012.”
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Congress is unlikely to let permanent law take effect. Permanent law provides mandatory support
for basic crops through nonrecourse loans. It does not authorize more modern support approaches
such as loan deficiency payments, counter-cyclical payments, revenue-based payments,
decoupled direct payments, or milk income loss contracts (MILC).
There are no recent estimates of the budgetary effect of reverting to permanent law. Neither the
Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), nor the Food and
Agriculture Policy Research Institute have made official estimates. However, in 2008 USDA
outlined how it would implement permanent law in the absence of a new farm bill.27 And, in
1985, the USDA Economic Research Service analyzed potential economic consequences.28
Support under permanent law uses the concept of “parity prices.” Parity refers to the relationship
between prices that farmers receive for their products and prices they pay for inputs. Support
prices would be set to guarantee producers 50% to 90% of parity using the 1910-1914 ratio as a
benchmark.29 However, productivity gains and technological advances over the past 100 years
have made parity ratios out of touch with (and possibly irrelevant to) modern agricultural
practices.30 Even if support levels were set at the lower end of the range mandated by permanent
law (e.g., 50% of parity prices in some cases), supports would be above currently high market
prices for many commodities and could result in subsidies greater than current levels.
For example, in October 2012, USDA estimated the market price for wheat at $8.37/bushel (bu.).
This exceeded the 2008 farm bill support level (marketing loan rate) of $2.94/bu., so no price
support is currently needed.31 But under permanent law, even this market price is well below the
$13.95/bu. calculated minimum support level (75% of parity, Table 1). Similarly, rice, cotton,
milk, and honey also have higher permanent law support prices than the market price. However,
current market prices for feed grains (corn, sorghum, barley, and oats) are high enough and likely
would not trigger permanent law price support.
Under permanent law, nonrecourse loan rates for wheat, corn and other feed grains, and cotton
function as farm price supports. Unless commercial markets pay more than the nonrecourse loan
prices, farmers could put their crops under loan and forfeit the commodities to USDA when the
nine-month loans mature. However, to avoid forfeiture problems, USDA has permanent authority
allowing farmers to repay nonrecourse loans for less than the principal (loan rate) plus interest.32

27 USDA memorandum, “The Effects of Failure to Enact a New Farm Bill: Permanent Law Support for Commodities
and Lapse of Other USDA Programs,” February 29, 2008, at http://www.usda.gov/documents/fbpaper022908.doc.
28 USDA Economic Research Service, Possible Economic Consequences of Reverting to Permanent Legislation or
Eliminating Price and Income Supports, AER-526, January 1985, at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer526.
29 Permanent law requires USDA to estimate and publish parity prices regularly. See USDA National Agricultural
Statistics Service, Agricultural Prices, published monthly at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/
viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1002. Parity prices are computed under the provisions of Title III, Subtitle a, §301
(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by the Agricultural Acts of 1948, 1949, and 1956.
30 USDA Economic Research Service, Possible Economic Consequences of Reverting to Permanent Legislation or
Eliminating Price and Income Supports, AER-526, January 1985, pp. 1-2, at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/
aer526/aer526.pdf.
31 See Table 1 in CRS Report RL34594, Farm Commodity Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill, Farm Commodity
Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill. In this context, the marketing loan rates are the price support level (rather than target
prices that are another form of income support).
32 Section 1009 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308a).
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Nonrecourse loan rates under permanent law could be as high as 90% of parity but not less than
50% of parity for corn, wheat, and rice, and 65% of parity for cotton. Milk support would be
between 75% and 90% of parity. Table 1 summarizes the possible support estimates.
Table 1. Parity Prices and Supports for Farm Products Under Permanent Law
(based on preliminary data for October 2012)
Farm
Permanent Law: Minimum Support Provisions
2008
Farm
Price
Farm Bill
Market
Parity
as % of
Support
Commodity, unit
Price
Price
Parity
Description Support
Pricea

Price


Basic and Designated Non-basic Commodities

Wheat, Bu
$8.37
$18.60
45% Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases.
75% parity = $13.95
$2.94
Acreage allotments. Quotas approved,
loan rate=65%-90% of parity. Quotas not
approved, loan rate=50% parity. Quotas
not announced, loan=75%-90% parity.
Rice, Cwt
$15.00
$42.70
35% Permanent authority repealed by P.L.
50% parity = $21.35
$6.50
104-127 (1981 farm bill), §601, but
restored by P.L. 104-127 (1996 farm bill),
§171(b). Loan=50%-90% of parity.
Corn, Bu
$6.95
$12.10
57% Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases.
50% parity = $6.05
$1.95
Acreage allotments are not authorized.
Loan rate = 50%-90% of parity.
Sorghum, Bu
$11.90
$21.30
56% Support for sorghum, barley and oats is
95% corn loan = $5.75
$1.95
set in relation to feed value and adjusted
Barley, Bu
$6.15
$12.80
51% for differing bushel weights. Sorghum
77% corn loan = $4.66
$1.95
loan=95% of corn loan, barley loan=77%
Oats, Bu
$3.75
$7.70
49%
51% corn loan = $3.09
$1.39
of corn loan, and oats=51% of corn loan.
Cotton, Upland, Lb
$0.726
$2.11
34% Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases.
65% parity = $1.37
$0.52
Acreage allotments. Quotas approved,
loan rate=65%-90% of parity. Quotas not
approved, loan rate=50% parity. Quotas
not announced, loan=65%-90% of parity.
Peanuts, Lb
$0.338
$0.761
44% Permanent authority repealed.
none
$0.1775
Milk, Al , Cwt
$19.50
$52.70
37% Purchases of milk and butterfat products
75% parity = $39.53
$9.90b
at 75%-90% of parity.
Honey, Lb
$1.71
$4.07
42% Purchases of honey at 60%-90% of parity.
60% parity = $2.44
$0.69
Other Commodities

Wool, Lb
$1.68
$3.05
55% Permanent authority repealed.
none
$1.15
Mohair, Lb
$4.10
$9.75
42% Permanent authority repealed.
none
$4.20
Sugar beet, ton
$66.70
$145.00
46% Permanent law includes no mandatory
none nac
support for these other nonbasic
Sugar cane, ton
$41.70
$95.20
44% commodities.
none
nac
Soybeans, Bu
$14.20
$29.30
48%
none
$5.00
Sunflower Seed, Cwt
$28.20
$60.30
47%
none
$10.09
Rapeseed, Cwt
$27.00
$65.30
41%
none
$10.09
Canola, Cwt
$26.70
$53.30
50%
none
$10.09
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Farm
Permanent Law: Minimum Support Provisions
2008
Farm
Price
Farm Bill
Market
Parity
as % of
Support
Commodity, unit
Price
Price
Parity
Description Support
Pricea

Price


Safflower, Cwt
$24.30
$59.10
41%
none
$10.09
Flaxseed, Bu
$13.40
$32.20
42%
none
$10.09
Mustard Seed, Cwt
$33.30
$82.60
40%
none
$10.09
Crambe na
na
na
none $10.09
Sesame Seed
na
na
na
none
$10.09
Lentils, Cwt
$22.40
na
na
none
$11.28
Chickpeas, Large, Cwt
$41.80
na
na
none
$11.28
Chickpeas, Small, Cwt
$28.00
na
na
none
$7.43
Peas, Dry, Cwt
$16.10
na
na
none
$5.40
Source: Compiled by CRS, using USDA-NASS Agricultural Prices, Oct. 2012, at http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/
usda/current/AgriPric/AgriPric-10-31-2012.pdf. Some data are from prior-month publications.
Note: An explanation of permanent law is provided by USDA-ERS, Possible Economic Consequences of Reverting to
Permanent Legislation or Eliminating Price and Income Support, AER 526, January 1985, at http://www.ers.usda.gov/
publications/aer526/aer526.pdf. USDA also indicated how it would implement permanent law in a February 2008
memorandum, “The Effects of Failure to Enact a New Farm Bill: Permanent Law Support for Commodities and
Lapse of Other USDA Programs,” at http://www.usda.gov/documents/fbpaper022908.doc. This table assumes
permanent law is implemented without time to hold producer referenda on national quotas.
a. The 2008 farm bill support price listed in this table is the marketing loan rate.
b. The 2008 farm bill does not specify a support price for milk, but rather support prices for butter, nonfat dry
milk and cheddar cheese at levels that approximate an indirect support price for farm milk at $9.90 per cwt.
c. The 2008 farm bill support price for sugar reflects the value added by processing and is shared between
producers and processors. Therefore the farm bill support price is not comparable to the farm level or
parity prices for sugar beets and sugar cane.
Dairy is supported currently, and in permanent law, through the USDA offer to purchase surplus
manufactured dairy products (nonfat dry milk, cheddar cheese, and butter) at prices to achieve
desired support (the Dairy Product Price Support Program). Under permanent law, those purchase
prices (based on October 2012 data) would be about four times as high as currently supported and
double recent market prices (Table 1). Such high USDA purchase prices could result in the
government outbidding commercial markets for a sizeable share of processor output. Under the
2008 farm bill, permanent law for dairy would take effect on January 1, 2013. A separate Milk
Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program is authorized through September 30, 2012, and the Dairy
Export Incentive Program through December 31, 2012. Another major component of dairy policy,
the Federal Milk Marketing Order system, is permanently authorized.
For wheat and cotton, permanent law requires USDA to announce acreage allotments and
marketing quotas during the prior crop year, and to hold producer referenda on implementing
marketing quotas. A two-thirds affirmative vote for marketing quotas results in the highest levels
of support, with mandatory restrictions on acreage (and the quantity eligible for support).33

33 In anticipation of farm bill expiration and recognizing deadlines required by permanent law if it were implemented,
USDA has announced that no marketing quotas would be required for wheat or cotton for the 2013 crop year. USDA,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

As shown in Table 1, not all commodities currently receiving federal support would be covered
by mandatory provisions in permanent law. The commodities that would lose mandatory support
include soybeans and other oilseeds, peanuts, wool, mohair, sugar beets and sugar cane, dry peas,
lentils, and small and large chickpeas. Any and all of these commodities could receive support
under discretionary authority given the Secretary of Agriculture in the Agricultural Act of 1949
and the CCC Charter Act. But for budgetary and other reasons, such discretionary authority rarely
has been used. Also, currently, market prices for agricultural commodities generally are high and
there likely would be little economic justification for discretionary federal support.
Legislative Options Under Permanent Law
Some see the existence of permanent law as an assurance for farm bill supporters that the farm
commodity programs will be revisited every time a farm bill expires. Congress is not likely to let
a farm bill expire without taking some action, given the likely undesirable consequences of
permanent law. Permanent law, however badly it may be perceived to be in the current policy
context, has stayed on the books, and each new farm bill has suspended permanent law for the
duration of the farm bill. Several legislative options exist as a farm bill approaches expiration:
1. Pass a new farm bill (and reinstate the suspension of permanent law).
2. Pass an extension of the current farm bill (with its suspension of permanent law).
3. Do nothing, but because the consequences of reverting to permanent law are
perceived as undesirable, Congress usually does (1) or (2) above.
4. Suspend permanent law (without a new farm bill or extension).
5. Repeal permanent law, and then do one of the following:
a. pass a new farm bill;
b. pass an extension of the current farm bill;
c. do nothing.
The existence of permanent law thus likely forces Congress to take action, because inaction
generally is considered to have unacceptable consequences—that is, reverting to a policy that
almost everyone would regret. If Congress cannot reach agreement on a new farm bill, then the
path of least resistance probably is extending the current farm bill rather than doing nothing and
reverting to permanent law—but this, too, requires legislative action and budget compromises.
For those who oppose the farm commodity programs, repealing permanent law would allow
Congress to debate farm supports without the permanent law consequence of inaction. But
repealing permanent law requires legislative action. Some believe that it is easier to negotiate and
pass a new farm bill than to deal with the question of repealing permanent law. Thus, given the
existence of permanent law, a type of inaction is, in fact, leaving the permanent law in statute.

(...continued)
“USDA Announces No Marketing Quota for 2013 Wheat Crop,” Press release 0041.12, April 6, 2012; and USDA,
“USDA Announces No Marketing Quota for the 2013 Upland Cotton Crop,” Press release 0109.12, August 3, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Crop Insurance
The federal crop insurance program protects producers against losses in crop revenue or yield
through federally subsidized policies purchased by producers. Because the program is
permanently authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.),
an extension of the program is not needed in the next farm bill. Producers who grow a crop that is
currently ineligible for crop insurance may be eligible for a direct payment under USDA’s
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). Like crop insurance, NAP has permanent
authority under Section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7333).
Conservation Programs
USDA currently administers more than 20 agricultural conservation programs.34 These programs
address natural resource concerns on private agricultural and forested lands through technical and
financial assistance. Many conservation programs have different expiration dates for program and
funding authority and are affected differently by the farm bill expiration or possible extension.
For many conservation programs, program authority is permanent under the Food Security Act of
1985, but the authority to receive mandatory funding expires. For example, the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP) and the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) have permanent program authority,
but mandatory funding authority to enroll acres expired September 30, 2012. Existing easements
and contracts will be enforced and honored, but no new acres may be enrolled. One notable
exception is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)—the largest conservation program—
whose program authority also expired at the end of FY2012. Absent an extension of mandatory
funding authority, no new contracts or agreements can be approved. All existing contracts and
agreements (including long-term easements) stay in force for the contract period, and payments
continue to be made. In total, mandatory programs account for more than 85% of USDA
conservation spending.
Budget enforcement rules and appropriations dynamics have caused particular issues for farm bill
reauthorization of conservation programs. The Congressional Budget Office uses the last year of
authorization to determine the 10-year funding baseline for the farm bill reauthorization. A
reduction in the last year’s authorized level could multiplicatively affect the overall farm bill
baseline. Because the FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-55) reduced spending for
select mandatory conservation programs and could have reduced the multi-year budget baseline,
it also extended the funding authority expiration date for five of these programs, including
Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA),35 the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP),
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Farmland Protection Program (FPP),
and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). This allowed appropriators to score savings
in FY2012, but not affect the overall farm bill baseline since the last year of program authority for

34 For additional information on agricultural conservation programs, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural
Conservation: A Guide to Programs. For additional information on conservation issues in the next farm bill, see CRS
Report R42093, Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill.
35 AMA has permanent mandatory funding authority under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended, for $10
million annually. The 2008 farm bill authorized an annual increase of $5 million until FY2012. It is this additional $5
million increase that was extended to FY2014 in the FY2012 agriculture appropriations act.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

many of the reduced programs became 2014.36 Thus, even without a reauthorization of the 2008
farm bill or an extension, the five programs extended to FY2014 would operate with existing
funding authority.37
Other, older conservation programs also have permanent program authority, but are authorized to
receive discretionary funds appropriated annually. Funding for these programs varies and is based
on budget requests and appropriated levels. Other discretionary programs with authorization to
receive appropriations expired at the end of FY2012. Similar to other discretionary programs with
expired authority, as long as the program receives appropriated funding, the program may
continue (see “Programs with Discretionary Funding” discussion). Table 2 separates the
conservation programs by funding authority type—mandatory and discretionary.
Other farm bill provisions have expired that affect the remaining agricultural conservation
programs. Compliance activities and regional equity funding requirements continue for programs
authorized beyond September 30, 2012.38 Provisions in other titles, such as the adjusted gross
income requirement that limits eligibility for conservation programs,39 no longer apply to
conservation programs.
Table 2. Conservation Program Authorization
Programs Authorized to Receive Mandatory Fundinga
Expiration of Funding Authority
Agricultural Management Assistance
No expiration dateb
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program
No expiration date
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program
September 30, 2012
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
September 30, 2012
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
September 30, 2014c
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
September 30, 2014c
Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
September 30, 2014c
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)
September 30, 2012
Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP)
September 30, 2012
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
September 30, 2009d
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
September 30, 2012
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
September 30, 2014c
Voluntary Access and Habitat Incentives Program
September 30, 2012
Programs Authorized to Receive Annual Appropriationse
Expiration of Appropriations Authority
Conservation Operations (including Conservation Technical Assistance)
No expiration date
Conservation of Private Grazing Land
September 30, 2012

36 For additional information, see CRS Report R41964, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations.
37 The FY2013 continuing resolution (CR, P.L. 112-175) extended the FY2012 agriculture appropriations act, including
reductions in the five extended mandatory programs. Therefore, while these programs have funding authority through
FY2014, they are limited to the FY2012 levels for the first six-months of FY2013, when the current CR expires.
38 Conservation compliance is the requirement that, in exchange for certain USDA program benefits, a producer agrees
to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly erodible land and not convert wetlands to crop production. The
regional equity provision (16 U.S.C. 3841(d)) mandates that each state receive annually a minimum aggregate amount
of funding ($15 million) for EQIP, WHIP, FPP, and GRP.
39 7 U.S.C. 1308-3a(e).
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Programs Authorized to Receive Mandatory Fundinga
Expiration of Funding Authority
Emergency Conservation Program
No expiration date
Emergency Watershed Program
No expiration date
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program
September 30, 2012
Great Lakes Basin Program for soil erosion and sediment control
September 30, 2012
Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) program
No expiration date
Snow Surveys
No expiration date
Soil Surveys
No expiration date
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
No expiration date
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
September 30, 2012
Source: CRS.
a. With a few exceptions, these programs were initially authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-
198), as amended, or through subsequent farm bills. All of these programs were either reauthorized or
created in Title II of the 2008 farm bill.
b. AMA has permanent mandatory funding authority for $10 million annual y. The 2008 farm bill authorized an
annual increase of $5 million through FY2012. It was this additional $5 million that was extended to FY2014
in the FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
c. Mandatory funding authority was extended through FY2014 in the FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act
(P.L. 112-55).
d. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program was authorized to receive $100 million in mandatory funding in
FY2009 to remain available until expended.
e. Though some discretionary programs have expired authority to receive appropriations, they are not
prohibited from receiving annual appropriations. See “Programs with Discretionary Funding” for additional
explanation. Not al discretionary programs listed here received appropriations in FY2013.
Nutrition Programs
The 2008 farm bill reauthorized a number of domestic food assistance programs, including the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), the Emergency
Supplemental Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), the Senior Farmers’
Market Nutrition Program, the Bill Emerson Hunger Fellowship Program, Community Food
Projects, Nutrition Assistance block grants for American Samoa and Puerto Rico, and Hunger-
Free Communities grants.40 For the majority of these programs the farm bill authorization expired
at the end of FY2012 (September 30, 2012). Annual appropriations had also been scheduled to
expire on this date, but a continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175) continued appropriations.

40 New authorizations were created for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program and some programs within the SNAP
program. For an overview of these farm bill programs, please see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance:
Summary of Programs. Note that the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child
and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Special Milk Program, and Special
Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs were not authorized in the farm bill. They
were authorized by P.L. 111-296 (the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010) through FY2015. These child nutrition
and WIC programs are in the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

The 2008 farm bill included an expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (“snack”
program), and permanently funded it through Section 32.41 As a result, the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program does not expire.
As discussed earlier, appropriations can allow a program to continue even if the underlying
authorization has not been extended. Because many of the nutrition programs are funded by the
SNAP account, appropriated funds for SNAP would be enough to extend operations for most of
the programs in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.42 The following nutrition provisions of the
farm bill could continue to operate if funds were appropriated to the SNAP account, but would
expire in the absence of a SNAP account appropriation:
• Most aspects of SNAP operations (except for the Healthy Incentives Pilot, listed
below).
• Purchase and distribution of TEFAP commodities (administrative costs could
continue with appropriations for the Commodity Assistance Program account).
• Most aspects of FDPIR (except as listed below).
• Nutrition assistance funding for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
• Community Food Projects (administered by the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture).
For CSFP, the authority to fund commodity purchases and administrative costs would expire
without an extension of the authority or without an appropriation. However, all program
operations could continue under CSFP appropriations.
For the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, the farm bill contains both the authority and
the funding (a transfer from the Commodity Credit Corporation). Funding for this program has
expired. The impact of this expiration will depend, in part, on whether states operate the program
only in the summer months and how long the expiration lasts.
The following programs would have required either an extension of the authority or specific
appropriations language to continue (the continuing resolution did not include such language):
• Hunger-Free Communities grants.
• SNAP pilot projects to evaluate health and nutrition promotion. This authority
and related funding is used to operate the Healthy Incentives Pilot program. The
program could continue to use existing funding beyond FY2012 but any
additional funding would have to be specifically authorized or appropriated.

41 Section 32 (of the act of August 24, 1935; 7 U.S.C. 612c) refers to a permanent appropriation of 30% of customs
receipts, primarily for use by the Secretary of Agriculture. Section 32 receives about $8 billion annually, though most
of it is transferred to support the child nutrition programs. About $1 billion is available annually to support mostly,
through purchases, commodities typically not covered by price support programs (such as meats, poultry, fruits,
vegetables, and fish). USDA often donates these surplus commodities to various nutrition assistance programs. For
more background, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program.
42 Because of changes made in the 2008 farm bill, many of the programs that would have expired at the end of 2002
farm bill do not have the same status at the close of FY2012. More of those expiring provisions could now be continued
with a SNAP appropriation.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

• FDPIR’s “Traditionally and Locally Grown Food Fund.” Since it is not currently
implemented, only an extension of the authorization or a specific appropriation
would extend it.
• Nutrition Information and Awareness Pilot Program. This authority was provided
in the 2002 farm bill and reauthorized in the 2008 farm bill, but is not used in
FY2012 to operate or fund any programs.
There are also several authorities relating to USDA’s purchase and national processing of
commodity foods, which may be affected without an extension of the bill.
Trade and Foreign Food Aid Programs
Several agricultural trade and international food aid programs have expired since a new farm bill
has not been enacted.
The trade programs with mandatory funding that are affected are export credit guarantees
(including those for emerging markets), facilities credit guarantees, export market promotion (the
Market Access Program), dairy export subsidies, and technical assistance for specialty crops.
Without new mandatory program authority, the Commodity Credit Corporation is not able to
enter into agreements to guarantee U.S. commercial banks against defaults by foreign purchasers
of U.S. agricultural commodities, fund grants to trade associations for the promotion of U.S.
agricultural exports in foreign markets, or fund activities to address sanitary and phytosanitary
(SPS) barriers to U.S. agricultural exports.
Separately, authority to carry out international emergency and non-emergency food aid programs
is provided by the Food for Peace Act.43 Without extension or reauthorization of the Food for
Peace Act, no agreements to provide financing or to provide emergency or non-emergency food
aid could be entered into after December 31, 2012. Likewise, financing through Food for Peace
for agricultural technical assistance (the Farmer-to-Farmer program) in sub-Saharan African and
Caribbean countries would expire. Authority to provide commodities and pay transportation costs
under the Food for Progress program would end on December 31, 2012. Authority to replenish
stocks of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, a reserve of commodities and cash used to meet
unanticipated food aid needs, expired on September 30, 2012. The authorization of appropriations
for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program also
expired at the end of FY2012, though the continuing resolution continues to fund this
discretionary program.

43 The Food for Peace Act was known formerly as the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act (P.L. 480).
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Appendix. Legislative Action on Previous Farm Bills
Table A-1. Major Legislative Action on Farm Bills Since 1973





Conference Report Approval

House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
House
Senate

Cmte.
Passage
Cmte.
Passage
Report
Passage
Passage Public
Law
1973 farm bill
6/20/1973 7/19/1973 5/23/1973
6/8/1973
7/31/1973
8/3/1973
7/31/1973
8/10/1973
H.R. 8860
S. 1888
Agriculture and
introduced Amdt. to S.
S. 1888
S. 1888
H.Rept. 93-
S. 1888
Vote 85-7
P.L. 93-86
Consumer Protection
1888
introduced
427
Act
6/27/1973
Vote 78-9
Vote of
8/3/1973
H.Rept. 93-
Vote of
S.Rept. 93-

252-151
Voice vote
Covers 1974-1977 crops
337
226-182
173
or until 6/30/1977
1977 farm bill
5/13/1977 7/28/1977 1/18/1977 5/24/1977
9/9/1977
9/16/1977
9/9/1977
9/29/1977
H.R. 7171
S. 275
Food and Agriculture introduced Amdt. to S. introduced
S. 275
S.Rept. 95-
S. 275
S. 275
P.L. 95-113
Act of 1977
275
418
5/16/1977
5/16/1977 Vote 69-18
Vote of
Vote 63-8
Covers 1978-1981 crops H.Rept. 95- Vote of S.Rept. 95-
283-107
or until 9/30/1981
348
294-114
180
1981 farm bill
5/18/1981 10/22/1981 4/7/1981 9/18/1981 12/9/1981 12/16/1981 12/10/1981
12/22/1981
H.R. 3603
S. 884
H.Rept. 97-
Agriculture and Food introduced
S. 884
introduced
S. 884
377
S. 884
S. 884
P.L. 97-98
Act of 1981
5/19/1981
Vote of
5/27/1981 Vote 49-32 12/10/1981
Vote of
Vote 67-32
Covers 1982-1985 crops H.Rept. 97- 192-160 S.Rept. 97-
S.Rept. 97-
205-203
or until 9/30/1985
106
126
290
1985 farm bill
4/17/1985 10/8/1985 9/30/1985 11/23/1985 12/17/1985 12/18/1985 12/18/1985
12/23/1985
H.R. 2100
Food Security Act of introduced H.R. 2100
S. 1714
H.R. 2100 H.Rept. 99- H.R. 2100 H.R. 2100
P.L. 99-198
1985
447
9/13/1985
Vote of
S.Rept. 99- Vote 61-28
Vote of
Vote 55-38
Covers 1986-1990 crops H.Rept. 99- 282-141
145
325-96
or until 9/30/1990
271
1990 farm bill
2/5/1990
8/1/1990
7/6/1990
7/27/1990 10/22/1990 10/23/1990 10/25/1990
11/28/1990
H.R. 3950
Food, Agriculture,
introduced H.R. 3950
S. 2830
S. 2830
H.Rept.
S. 2830
S. 2830
P.L. 101-624
Conservation, and
101-916
Trade Act of 1990
7/3/1990
Vote of
S.Rept.
Vote 70-21
Vote of
Vote 60-36
H.Rept.
327-91
101-357

318-102
Covers 1991-1995 crops
101-569
or until 9/30/1995
Omnibus Budget Act Extended dairy until 1996; wheat, feed grains, cotton, rice, peanuts, wool and mohair until
8/10/1993
of 1993
1997; honey until1998
P.L. 103-66
1996 farm bill
8/4/1995 9/28/1995





H.R. 2195
unnumber-
Freedom to Farm
introduced
ed bill
Act
9/20/1995
fails cmte.
Balanced Budget Act 10/26/1995 10/26/1995 10/28/1995 10/28/1995 11/16/1995 11/20/1995 11/17/1995
12/6/1995
of 1995
H.R. 2491 H.R. 2491
S. 1357
Amdt. to
H.Rept.
H.R. 2491 H.R. 2491
includes
Vote of
includes
H.R. 2491
104-347
Vote of
Vote 52-47
Vetoed
H.R. 2195
227-203
Senate bill Vote 52-47
235-192
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill






Conference Report Approval

House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
House
Senate

Cmte.
Passage
Cmte.
Passage
Report
Passage
Passage
Public Law
1996 farm bill (cont.)
1/5/1996 2/29/1996 1/26/1996
2/7/1996 3/25/1996 3/29/1996 3/28/1996
4/4/1996
H.R. 2854
S. 1541
H.Rept.
H.R. 2854 H.R. 2854
Federal Agriculture
introduced H.R. 2854 S. 1541
Vote 64-32
104-494
Vote of
Vote 74-26
P.L. 104-127
Improvement and
introduced
318-89
Reform Act of 1996
2/9/1996
Vote of
3/12/1996
H.Rept.
270-155

Amdt. to
Covers 1996-2002 crops
104-462
H.R. 2854
or until 9/30/2002
Voice vote
2002 farm bill
7/26/2001 10/5/2001 11/27/2001 2/13/2002
5/1/2002
5/2/2002
5/8/2002
5/13/2002
H.R. 2646
S. 1731
Farm Security and
introduced H.R. 2646
Amdt. to
H.Rept.
H.R. 2646 H.R. 2646
P.L. 107-171
Rural Investment Act
12/7/2001 H.R. 2646
107-424
of 2002
8/2/2001
Vote of
S.Rept.
Vote of
Vote 64-35
H.Rept.
291-120
107-117
Vote 58-40
280-141
Covers 2002-2007 crops
107-191
or until 9/30/2007
Extension of MILC
Extended the early-expiring MILC program for 2 years from 9/2005 through 8/2007
2/8/2006
P.L. 109-171
Short-term
Extended the 2002 farm bill until 3/15/2008, with exceptions. But did not extend the direct
12/26/2007
extensions
and counter-cyclical farm commodity programs. See Division A, §751.
P.L. 110-161

Continued extension until 4/18/2008, added extension of suspension of permanent law.
3/14/2008
P.L. 110-196

Continued extension until 4/25/2008
4/18/2008
P.L. 110-200

Continued extension until 5/2/2008
4/25/2008
P.L. 110-205

Continued extension until 5/16/2008
5/2/2008
P.L. 110-208

Continued extension until 5/23/2008
5/18/2008
P.L. 110-231
2008 farm bill
5/22/2007 7/27/2007 11/2/2007 12/14/2007 5/13/2008 5/14/2008 5/15/2008
5/21/2008
H.R. 2419
Food, Conservation,
introduced H.R. 2419
S. 2302
Amdt. to
H.Rept.
H.R. 2419 H.R. 2419 Enrolling error
and Energy Act of
H.R. 2419
110-627
omits Title III
2008
7/23/2007
Vote of
S.Rept.
Vote of
Vote of
H.Rept.
231-191
110-220
Vote 79-14
318-106
81­15
Vetoed
Covers 2008-2012 crops
110-256
or until 9/30/2012


5/21/2008
5/22/2008
5/22/2008
Passed
Passed
P.L. 110-234
over veto
over veto
316-108
82-13



Re-passed
5/22/2008
6/5/2008
6/18/2008
as new bill H.R. 6124 H.R. 6124
w/ Title III
Vote of
Vote of
Vetoed
306-110
77­15


6/18/2008
6/18/2008
6/18/2008
Passed
Passed
over veto
over veto
P.L. 110-246
317-109
80-14
FY2012 Agriculture
Extended five conservation programs until FY2014 (AMA, CSP, EQIP, FPP, and WHIP)
11/18/2011
Appropriations Act
P.L. 112-55
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill






Conference Report Approval

House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
House
Senate

Cmte.
Passage
Cmte.
Passage
Report
Passage
Passage
Public Law
2012 farm bill
7/11/2012
— 4/26/2012
6/21/2012
— — — —
Covers 2013-2017 crops H.R. 6083
S. 3240
S. 3240
or until 9/30/2017
Vote of
Vote of
Vote of
35­11
16-5
64-35
9/13/2012
8/28/2012
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
112-669
112-203
Source: CRS.
Note: Includes only major legislative actions to enact each farm bill. Excludes subsequent revisions, except as
noted in 1993, 2006, and 2011 because those budgetary actions extended expiration dates of certain provisions.

Figure A-1. Time Line of Developing the 2008 Farm Bill
Regular timeline (for the 2008 farm bill)
Extensions timeline (of the 2002 farm bill)
5/22/2
5/22/ 007, H
2
.
007, H R. 24
R. 19 i
24
n
19 i trod
tr uc
od ed H
uc
o
ed H us
o e
us
7/23/2
7/23/ 007, H
2
.
007, H R. 24
R. 19 r
24
e
19 r po
p rt
r ed
e Hous
Ho e
us
7/27/2
7/27/ 007, H
2
.
007, H R. 24
R. 19
24
p
19 a
p sse
s d
e Hous
H
e 23
ous
1-
e 23 1
1- 9
1 1
11/2/2
11/2/ 007, S
2
.
007, S 23
2 02 r
3
epor
02 r
te
epor d S
te
e
d S nate
e
12/14
12/1 /200
/
7, H.R
200
.
7, H.R 24
2 19
1 Am
A dt. pas
m
s
dt. pas ed
s
Se
ed
n
Se a
n te 7
te 9
7 -1
- 4
12/26/
12/2 200
6/
7
200 , P.
, P L. 11
L. 1 0
1 -1
- 61
6 exte
ex ns
te i
ns on to
on t 3/
3 15/2
15/ 008 w
2
/
008 w exc
ex epti
e ons
pti
3/14/2
3/14/ 008
2
,
008 P.L. 11
P.
0-
L. 11 196 ex
0-
tens
196 ex
i
tens on to
o
4/1
n to
8
4/1 /20
/2 0
0 8 w/
8 w su
s sp
s en
e si
s on
o
4/18/2
4/18/ 008
2
,
008 P.L. 11
P.
0-
L. 11 200 ex
0-
tens
200 ex
i
tens on to
o
4/2
n to
5
4/2 /20
/2 0
0 8
4/25/2
4/25/ 008
2
,
008 P.L. 11
P.
0-
L. 11 205 ex
0-
tens
205 ex
i
tens on to
o
5/2
n to
/
5/2 200
20 8
0
5/2/20
5/2/2 0
0 8, P.L.
8,
110-
P.L.
2
110- 0
2 8 extens
8 ex
ion to
n t 5/1
5/ 6
1 /200
/20 8
0
5/14/2
5/14/ 008 H
2
.
008 H R. 241
R.
9 c
241
onfer
9 c
e
onfer n
e ce p
a
p ssed H
s
o
ed H us
u e 31
s
8-
e 31 106
8-
5/15/2
5/15/ 008 H
2
.
008 H R. 241
R.
9 c
241
onfer
9 c
e
onfer n
e ce p
a
p ssed S
s
e
ed S na
n te 81-
te
1
81- 5
1
(enro
r lling error exc
x ludes T
s i
T tle III)

5/18/2
5/18/ 008
2
,
008 P.L. 11
P.
0-
L. 11 231 ex
0-
tens
231 ex
i
tens on to
o
5/2
n to
3
5/2 /20
/2 0
0 8
5/21/2
5/21/ 008 Vet
2
o
008 Vet of H.R.
H.R 2419
241
5/21/2
5/21/ 008 Vet
2
o
008 Vet over
ov r
er irde Hous
de Ho e 316-
us
1
e 316- 0
1 8
5/22/2
5/22/ 008 Vet
2
o
008 Vet over
ov r
er irde Senat
de S
e 82-
enat
1
e 82- 3
1
5/22/2
5/22/ 008
2
E
008 nac
n te
ac d P
te
.
d P L. 110-
L. 11 234 (
0-
w
234 ( i
w thout Ti
ho
tle
tl III)
e
5/22/2
5/22/ 008
2
H.
H R. 6124
R. 612 intr
n od
tr uc
od ed, a
uc
dds
ed, a
Title
tl III
5/22/2
5/22/ 008 H
2
.
008 H R. 612
R.
4 P
612
a
4 P ss
s ed i
s
n
ed i Hous
H
e 30
ous
6-
e 30 1
6- 1
1 0
6/05/2
6/05/ 008 H
2
.
008 H R. 612
R.
4 P
612
a
4 P ss
s ed i
s
n
ed i Se
S na
n te 77-
te
1
77- 5
1
6/18/2
6/18/ 008 Vet
2
o
008 Vet of H.R.
H.R 6124
612
6/18/2
6/18/ 008 Vet
2
o
008 Vet over
ov r
er irde Hous
de Ho e 317-
us
1
e 317- 0
1 9
6/18/2
6/18/ 008 Vet
2
o
008 Vet over
ov r
er irde Senat
de S
e 80-
enat
1
e 80- 4
1
6/18/2
6/18/ 008
2
En
008
ac
En te
ac d P
te
.
d P L. 110-
L. 11 246
0-

Source: CRS.

Congressional Research Service
18

---

Expiration and Possible Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill

Presidential Vetoes
Presidential vetoes of farm bills are not common. Two complete farm bills have been vetoed as
stand-alone measures (1956 and 2008), the latter being vetoed twice. Another farm bill was
vetoed as part of a larger budget reconciliation package (1995).
The first veto of a farm bill was in 1956 when President Eisenhower vetoed H.R. 12, the first
version of the Agricultural Act of 1956. The second and third vetoes were in 2008 by President
George W. Bush. The 2008 farm bill was vetoed and overridden twice. After the initial veto of the
bill (H.R. 2419), Congress overrode the veto and enacted P.L. 110-234, but accidentally enrolled
the law without the Title III (the trade title). Congress immediately reintroduced the same bill
with the trade title as H.R. 6124. President Bush vetoed this version as well, and Congress again
overrode the veto to enact P.L. 110-246, a complete 2008 farm bill that included the trade title.
The overrides in 2008 were the only time that a farm bill was enacted by overriding a veto.
A 1995 budget reconciliation package that included the first version of what became the 1996
farm bill was vetoed by President Clinton, but the veto was not necessarily due to the farm bill.


Author Contact Information

Jim Monke
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
Megan Stubbs

Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Commodity programs, farm bill budget
Jim Monke
7-9664
jmonke@crs.loc.gov
Conservation programs
Megan Stubbs
7-8707
mstubbs@crs.loc.gov
Nutrition programs
Randy Alison Aussenberg
7-8641
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov
International trade and food aid
Charles E. Hanrahan
7-7235
chanrahan@crs.loc.gov
Rural development
Tadlock Cowan
7-7600
tcowan@crs.loc.gov
Dairy, crop insurance, commodities
Dennis Shields
7-9051
dshields@crs.loc.gov


Congressional Research Service
19

---