Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Jim Monke
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
March 11, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42484
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Summary
The desire by many to redesign farm policy and reallocate the remaining farm bill baseline—in a
sequestration and deficit reduction environment—is driving much of the farm bill debate this
year. Several high-profile congressional and Administration proposals for deficit reduction have
specifically targeted agricultural programs with mandatory funding. The political dynamics of
sequestration and broader deficit reduction goals leave open difficult questions about how much
and when the farm bill baseline may be reduced. In this context, Congress faces difficult choices
about how much total support to provide for agriculture, and how to allocate that support among
competing constituencies.
Funding to write the next farm bill is based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline
projections of the cost of farm bill programs, and on varying budgetary assumptions about
whether programs will continue. The CBO baseline is an estimation (projection) at a particular
point in time of what federal spending on mandatory programs likely would be under current law.
In February 2013, CBO projected that the current farm bill programs, if they were to continue
beyond the 2008 farm bill, would cost $976 billion over the next 10 years (FY2014-FY2023).
When new bills are proposed that affect mandatory spending, their impact (or “score”) is
measured as a difference from the baseline. This baseline and scoring process sets the mandatory
budget for considering a new farm bill. As a starting point for the 113th Congress, CBO re-
estimated two farm bill proposals from 2012 against the new baseline and with new analysis
about the provisions. The Senate-passed farm bill in the 112th Congress, S. 3240, would reduce
spending by $13.1 billion (-1.3%); and the House-reported bill, H.R. 6083, would reduce it by
$26.6 billion (-2.7%). Both of these estimates reflect about $10 billion less in savings than was
scored last year, primarily because of the impact of drought and market prices, and because of
new understandings about the implementation of nutrition programs. Thus, compared to last year,
a new farm bill may cost more than expected, or additional reductions may be necessary to
achieve the same deficit reduction.
Also, across-the-board reductions of about 5%, known as budget sequestration, have occurred and
total $1.9 billion in FY2013 for agriculture and related agencies spending—$1.2 billion from
discretionary spending and $700 million from mandatory programs. Moreover, some popular
2008 farm bill programs do not have a baseline to continue, and will require additional budgetary
offsets if they are included in a new farm bill.

Congressional Research Service

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Contents
Budget Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
Agriculture Appropriations Compared to Farm Bill Spending .................................................. 1
What Is the CBO Baseline? ....................................................................................................... 3
CBO Baseline for Farm Bill Programs ...................................................................................... 4
Scores of the 2012 House and Senate Farm Bills ............................................................................ 9
Farm Bill Budget and Baseline Issues ........................................................................................... 22
Budget Sequestration ............................................................................................................... 22
Budget Reconciliation ............................................................................................................. 26
Nutrition Title Share of Farm Bill Baseline ............................................................................. 26
Farm Bill Programs Without Baseline ..................................................................................... 27
Possible Expiration and Reversion to Permanent Law ............................................................ 28
Government-Wide Deficit Reduction Proposals ..................................................................... 28

Figures
Figure 1. Agriculture Appropriations Relationship to Farm Bill Baseline ...................................... 2
Figure 2. Ten-Year Mandatory Baseline for Farm Bill Titles .......................................................... 5
Figure 3. Mandatory Baseline for Farm Bill Titles, FY2014-FY2023 ............................................ 5
Figure 4. Ten-Year Mandatory Baseline for Non-Nutrition Agricultural Programs ........................ 8
Figure 5. Ten-Year Scores of the Senate and House 2012 Farm Bills ........................................... 11
Figure 6. Score of the 2012 Senate Farm Bill S. 3240, by Title and Fiscal Year ........................... 12
Figure 7. Score of the 2012 House Farm Bill H.R. 6083, by Title and Fiscal Year ....................... 12
Figure 8. Ten-Year Farm Bill Baseline, and Proposed Outlays in Senate-Passed S. 3240
and House-Reported H.R. 6083 (112th Congress) ...................................................................... 13

Tables
Table 1. Baseline for Mandatory Farm Bill Programs, FY2014-FY2023........................................ 6
Table 2. 2012 Farm Bill Budget: Baseline, Scores, and Proposed Outlays, by Title ..................... 11
Table 3. Score of Mandatory Programs in S. 3240 (Senate-Passed 2012 Farm Bill) .................... 15
Table 4. Score of Mandatory Programs in H.R. 6083 (House-Reported 2012 Farm Bill) ............. 19
Table 5. Sequestration of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Accounts ................ 24
Table 6. Broad Deficit Reduction Proposals That Affect Farm Bill Programs .............................. 29

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

ongress periodically establishes agricultural and food policy in an omnibus farm bill.1 The
2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) expired in 2012, but because Congress did not enact a new
C five-year farm bill in the 112th Congress, a one-year extension was enacted in the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240).2 Further consideration may occur in
2013.
Budget issues are one of the primary factors affecting the development of a new farm bill,
particularly in a Congress that is focused on deficit reduction. How much funding is available?
How much might be used for deficit reduction? What are the budget issues and uncertainties?3
Budget Background
Agriculture Appropriations Compared to Farm Bill Spending
The total annual federal budget for agriculture-related programs was about $137 billion in
FY2012, but not all of this total was farm bill spending or for farm bill programs (Figure 1). The
total can be divided several ways using budget terms such as mandatory spending and
discretionary spending, and with overlapping components based on committee jurisdiction.
Of the $137 billion appropriation, about $117 billion was for mandatory programs (entitlements
both inside and outside the farm bill) and $20 billion was for discretionary programs (authorized
both inside and outside the farm bill). Of the $117 billion mandatory subtotal, about $99 billion
was for mandatory programs authorized in the farm bill (the farm bill “baseline,” discussed later)
and $18 billion was for child nutrition programs4 authorized outside the farm bill and not in the
jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee (Figure 1).
Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and is under the jurisdiction of
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The farm bill may authorize appropriations for
discretionary programs, but the programs are not funded until an appropriation is made. Most
agency operations (salaries and expenses) are financed with discretionary funds. From a program
perspective, the primary discretionary programs in agriculture appropriations include the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Food and Drug
Administration; agricultural research; most rural development programs; the Food for Peace and
other international food aid programs; agricultural credit and administration of farm supports;
meat and poultry inspection; certain conservation programs; and food marketing, plant and
animal health, and regulatory programs(Figure 1).
The Agriculture appropriations bill carries—but does not pay for, nor generally determine—
amounts for mandatory programs that are from authorizing legislation.

1 For more on the scope of a farm bill, see CRS Report RS22131, What Is the Farm Bill?
2 For more on the extension of the 2008 farm bill, new expiration dates, and consequences of legislative delays, see
CRS Report R42442, Expiration and Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill.
3 For more on the policies proposed in 2012, 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.
4 The federal “child nutrition programs” fund meals, snacks, and milk for children (and, in one program, some adults)
in congregate, institutional settings. The account includes funding for the National School Lunch Program, School
Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Special Milk Program.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Figure 1. Agriculture Appropriations Relationship to Farm Bill Baseline
(appropriated annual budget authority in billions of dollars)

Source: CRS, based on FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act, P.L. 112-55.
Notes: Graph is based on appropriations bill amounts and jurisdiction. Authorizing committee jurisdiction
general y is with House and Senate Agriculture committees, except for child nutrition and WIC (House
Education and Workforce; Senate Agriculture), FDA (House Commerce; Senate Health, Education, Labor &
Pensions). The smal amount below APHIS is for other departmental administration and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, net of limitations and rescissions offsets.
SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; CCC = Commodity Credit Corp.; WIC = Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; FDA = Food and Drug Admin.; FSA = Farm
Service Agency; FSIS = Food Safety Inspection Service; APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Mandatory spending is controlled by authorizing legislation and—for farm bill programs—is
under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. Allocating mandatory
spending is one of the primary purposes of the farm bill. The farm bill “pays for” mandatory
spending by creating the necessary budget authority, using resources available under budget
enforcement rules. The primary mandatory spending categories in the Agriculture appropriations
bill are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps),
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), crop insurance, some Section 32 programming, and child
nutrition. The CCC is the funding mechanism for most mandatory farm bill programs, including,
historically, the farm commodity programs and, in recent decades, the mandatory spending for the
conservation, trade, research, horticulture, bioenergy, and rural development titles5 of the farm

5 Over time, authorizing committees began providing mandatory funds to programs that generally were considered
discretionary. Appropriators have argued that this reduces their oversight, and sometimes have limited outlays for the
relatively newer mandatory programs using Changes in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

bill. Section 32 is a separate mandatory fund—supported by customs receipts—created to assist
non-price-supported commodities; not all farm bills include Section 32 provisions.
Differences over what is included in the Agriculture appropriations bill compared to the farm bill
primarily appear in nutrition programs and the Food and Drug Administration. The child nutrition
programs and WIC, which are in Agriculture appropriations, are not part of the farm bill because
they are not in the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee (the Senate Agriculture
Committee does have jurisdiction). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), part of Agriculture
appropriations, is not in the jurisdiction of the House or Senate Agriculture Committees (House
Commerce Committee; and Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee).
The remainder of this report focuses on mandatory spending authorized in the farm bill. For more
on discretionary agriculture appropriations, see CRS Report R42596, Agriculture and Related
Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations.
What Is the CBO Baseline?
Funding to write the next farm bill will be based on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
baseline projection of the cost of these farm bill programs, and on varying budgetary assumptions
about whether programs will continue. These amounts are shown in the CBO baseline projections
for mandatory spending (direct spending) and in budget scores of proposed bills. CBO develops
the baseline under the supervision of the House and Senate Budget Committees.6 This process
sets the mandatory budget for the farm bill.
The CBO baseline is an estimate (projection) at a particular point in time of what federal
spending on mandatory programs likely would be under current law.7 CBO periodically re-
estimates the baseline to incorporate changes in economic conditions. When CBO makes periodic
updates to the baseline, the changes do not trigger budget enforcement mechanisms but instead
show how changing economic conditions affect outlays under current law. That is, increases in
projected costs from last year’s baseline to this year’s re-estimate (e.g., because more people
qualify for entitlements) do not require offsets to pay for higher costs. Likewise, reductions in
projected costs from last year’s baseline to this year’s re-estimate (e.g., because less government
intervention is needed) do not create savings that can be used to pay for other programs.
A primary purpose of the baseline is to evaluate the effect of new legislation. The baseline serves
as a benchmark or starting point for changes that a bill would make. When new bills affect
mandatory spending, their impact (or “score”) is measured as a difference from the baseline.
Projected increases in budgetary cost above the baseline (that is, a positive score, a score greater
than zero) may be subject to budget rules such as statutory or other types of PAYGO.8 Reductions
in cost below the baseline (that is, a negative score, a score less than zero) provide savings for
deficit reduction or offsets that can be used to help pay for other provisions with positive scores.

6 For more information, see CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
7 The most recent, detailed CBO baseline projection for agriculture is from February 2013. A new “scoring” baseline
for 2013 legislative proposals will be released in March 2013. The February 2013 baseline for the farm commodity
programs, conservation programs, crop insurance, and trade programs is available at http://cbo.gov/publication/43893.
8 PAYGO generally requires that direct spending and revenue legislation enacted into law not increase the deficit. It
does not address deficit increases that are projected to occur under existing law, nor does it apply to discretionary
spending. See CRS Report R41157, The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010: Summary and Legislative History.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

From a budget perspective, programs with a continuing baseline are assumed to go on under
current law, and have their own funding for reauthorization if policymakers want them to
continue.9 Normally, a program that receives mandatory funding in the last year of its
authorization will be assumed to continue at that level of funding into the future as if there were
no change in policy. This allows major farm bill provisions such as the farm commodity programs
or nutrition assistance to be reauthorized periodically without assuming that funding will cease or
following zero-based budgeting. However, some programs may not be assumed to continue in the
budget baseline beyond the end of a farm bill because
• the program did not receive new mandatory budget authority during the last year
of a farm bill, or
• the baseline during the last year of a farm bill is below a minimum $50 million
scoring threshold that is needed to continue a baseline, or
• the budget committees and agriculture committees did not agree to give the
program a baseline in the years beyond the end of the farm bill—either to reduce
the program’s 10-year cost at the time the farm bill was written, or to prevent it
from having a continuing baseline.10
CBO Baseline for Farm Bill Programs
The February 2013 CBO baseline for mandatory farm bill programs is $976 billion for the 10-
year period FY2014-FY2023 (Figure 2).11 Most of this baseline ($761 billion, or 77.9%) is for
domestic nutrition assistance programs, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP).12 The rest, about $216 billion, is divided among various agriculture-related programs,
primarily crop insurance ($85 billion, or 8.7%), farm commodity price and income supports ($64
billion, or 6.6%), and conservation ($64 billion, or 6.6%). Less than 1% of the baseline is for
mandatory spending on international trade ($3.4 billion) and horticulture programs ($1.1 billion).
The baseline shows that the 2008 farm bill’s programs, if they were to continue, are expected to
spend about $100 billion per year through FY2016, and then decline through the rest of the
baseline period. The nutrition portion is expected to decline, while conservation and crop
insurance outlays are expected to increase slightly (Figure 3).
Table 1 lists the baseline totals shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, and the amounts for individual
programs that have baseline within each title. The table provides data for each year FY2014-
FY2018, the 5-year total (FY2014-FY2018), and the 10-year total (FY2014-FY2023).

9 This report does not explain the issue of certain mandatory programs not having future baseline. For that discussion,
see CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
10 Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 907), as
amended, specifies that expiring mandatory spending programs are assumed to continue in the budget baseline if they
have outlays of more than $50 million in the current year and were established before the Balanced Budget Act of
1997. Programs established later are not automatically assumed to continue, and are assessed program by program in
consultation with the House and Senate Budget Committees. (CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years
2013 to 2023, p. 22, at http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf).
11 CBO, “February 2013 Baseline for the 2008 Farm Bill Programs and Provisions, by Title,” unpublished, February
2013. See also “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023,” at http://cbo.gov/publication/43907.
12 The farm bill baseline includes SNAP but not child nutrition programs (e.g., school lunch) due to jurisdictional
differences (see earlier discussion of Figure 1).
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Figure 2. Ten-Year Mandatory Baseline for Farm Bill Titles
(10-year expected outlays FY2014-FY2023 in billions of dollars by farm bill title)

Source: CRS, using the February 2013 CBO baseline.
Figure 3. Mandatory Baseline for Farm Bill Titles, FY2014-FY2023
(annual expected outlays in billions of dol ars by farm bill title)

Source: CRS, using the February 2013 CBO baseline.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Table 1. Baseline for Mandatory Farm Bill Programs, FY2014-FY2023
(expected outlays in millions of dollars)







5- and 10-year totals
FY2014-
FY2014-

2008 Farm Bill Titles and Programs
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018
FY2018
FY2023
I Commodity
Programs
5,898
6,750
7,141
6,557
6,325 32,671 64,284
Direct payments
4,946
4,946
4,946
4,946
4,946
24,732
49,464
Counter-cyclical, ACRE, Marketing loans
314
1,184
1,561
983
762
4,804
8,595
MILC and other dairy assistance
34
34
36
32
26
161
284
Economic assistance to cotton mil s
48
50
50
50
49
247
493
Interest and operating expenses
45
90
130
144
143
552
1,259
Other 511
445
417
402
399
2,174
4,188
II Conservation
5,566
5,563
5,843
6,086
6,427 29,485 63,954
Conservation Reserve Program
2,175
2,172
2,286
2,249
2,310
11,192
23,299
Conservation Security/Stewardship Prog.
1,369
1,415
1,579
1,812
2,034
8,209
19,792
Environmental Quality Incentives Prog.
1,282
1,434
1,558
1,622
1,676
7,572
16,285
Farmland Protection Program
156
174
184
192
200
906
1,906
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
64
73
72
77
77
363
784
Wetlands Reserve Programa 371
153
26
0
0
550
550
Agricultural Water Enhancement Prog.
63
62
61
60
60
306
606
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program
50
51
51
50
50
252
502
Agricultural Management Assistance
11
13
11
11
11
57
107
Grassland Reserve Programa 20
11
10
8
8
57
97
E


mergency Forestry Conserv. Reserve
5
5
5
5

1

21

26
III Trade
(CCC)
344
344
344
344
344 1,718
3,435
Market Access Program (MAP)
200
200
200
200
200
1,000
2,000
Export donations ocean transportation
100
100
100
100
100
500
1,000
Foreign market development coop.
35
35
35
35
35
173
345

Specialty crop technical
assistance
9
9
9
9

9

45

90
IV Nutrition
(SNAP)b 79,672
79,091
79,106
77,816
76,368
392,053
760,542
V Creditc -100
-169
-174
-181
-187
-811
-1,850

VI
Rural Develop
ment
10
3
0
0

0

13

13
Rural Microenterprise Assistance Prog.a
10
3
0
0
0
13
13
VII
Research and Related Matters
93
18
0
0
0
111
111
Organic; Specialty Crop; Beg. Farmersa 93
18
0
0
0
111
111
VIII Forestry
2
1
0
0
0
3
3
Healthy Forest Reserve Programa
2
1
0
0
0 3 3
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013








5- and 10-year totals
FY2014-
FY2014-

2008 Farm Bill Titles and Programs
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018
FY2018
FY2023
IX Energy
8
5
21
23
27
84
243
Feedstock Flexibility Program
0
0
19
23
27
69
228
Other (expiring programs, incl. BCAP)a
8
5
2
0
0
15
15
X
Horticulture and Organic Agriculture
116
105
105
105
105
536
1,061
Specialty
Crop
Block
Grants
55 55 55 55 55 275 550
Plant Pest & Disease Management
50
50
50
50
50
250
500
Farmers Markets; Clean Plant Networka 11 0 0 0 0 11 11
XII Crop
Insurance
6,955
8,279
8,216
8,274
8,383 40,107 84,576
Premium Subsidy
4,874
5,798
5,762
5,818
5,916
28,168
59,860
Delivery Expenses
1,148
1,372
1,352
1,343
1,336
6,552
13,268
Underwriting Gains
932
1,109
1,102
1,113
1,131
5,387
11,449
Total—Farm Bill Baseline
98,564
99,989
100,601
99,024
97,792 495,969
976,372
Nutrition 79,672
79,091
79,106
77,816
76,368
392,053
760,542
Non-nutrition 18,892
20,898
21,495
21,208
21,424
103,916
215,830
Alternate total
Minus baseline of programs not continuing
-515
-191
-38
-8
-8
-760
-800
Remainder for continuing programs
98,049
99,798
100,563
99,016
97,784
495,209
975,572
Remainder for non-nutrition programs
18,377
20,707
21,457
21,200
21,416
103,156
215,030
Source: CRS, using the February 2013 CBO baseline.
Note: Several titles in the 2008 farm bill—Titles XI (Livestock), XIII (Commodity Futures Trading Commission),
XIV (Miscel aneous), and XV (Trade and Taxes)—have no programs with budget baseline for the next 10 years.
Some 2008 farm bill programs in these titles, however, may have received mandatory funding in FY2008-FY2012;
these programs are listed in CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
a. Some programs have outlays listed during the baseline period but are not considered to have funding to
continue beyond the end of the 2008 farm bill. These are discussed in CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill
Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
b. The nutrition title of the farm bil includes only the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and
related programs, given joint jurisdiction between the House and Senate Agriculture committees. Child
nutrition programs, while in the jurisdiction of the Senate Agriculture Committee, are not in the jurisdiction
of the House Agriculture Committee. Child nutrition programs would add $246 billion over 10 years.
c. The Credit title has negative outlays that reflect receipts into the Farm Credit System Insurance Fund.
Table 1 also shows an alternative total that is slightly smaller. Some programs have baseline for
expected outlays from the 2008 farm bill, but are not considered to have funding available for
reauthorization beyond the end of the 2008 farm bill. These include the Wetlands Reserve
Program, Grasslands Reserve Program, Biomass Crop Assistance Program and other bioenergy
programs, Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program, and organic and specialty crops research.
Without these programs, the 10-year baseline for “continuing” farm bill programs is $800 million
smaller. The alternative 10-year total still rounds to $976 billion, and the alternative total for the
non-nutrition agricultural programs is $215 billion.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Figure 4 shows the baselines for the individual programs comprising the $216 billion 10-year
subtotal of the non-nutrition programs (all of the programs except SNAP). The colors assigned to
the programs are consistent with the colors of the titles in earlier figures, and show which
programs in each title have the most baseline.
In the farm commodity programs, “direct payments” are the primary program with a mandatory
funding baseline. Direct payments have become vulnerable politically in this high farm-income
environment because they are made regardless of market price and farm income conditions.13 The
other farm commodity programs that make “counter-cyclical payments” do not have much
baseline presently because high market prices for farm commodities have reduced the need for
government support.
Figure 4. Ten-Year Mandatory Baseline for Non-Nutrition Agricultural Programs
(expected outlays over FY2013-FY2022 in billions of dollars for programs in a subset of farm bill titles)

Source: CRS, using the February 2013 CBO baseline.
Notes: MILC = Milk Income Loss Contract Program; CRP=Conservation Reserve Program; CSP =
Conservation Security/Stewardship Program; EQIP = Environmental Quality Incentives Program; FPP = Farmland
Protection Program; WHIP = Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program; WRP = Wetlands Reserve Program; AWEP =
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program; MAP=Market Access Program. Includes baseline for expiring
programs (*) that do not have baseline to continue, as noted in Table 1.

13 For more background and terminology, see CRS Report R42759, Farm Safety Net Provisions in a 2012 Farm Bill: S.
3240 and H.R. 6083.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

The crop insurance baseline is larger by comparison, but is considered by most farmers and
policymakers to be the most important remaining component of the farm “safety net.” Premium
subsidies to farmers are the largest component, but reimbursements to insurance companies for
delivery expenses and underwriting gains are not insignificant.
Total estimated costs of the conservation programs are now about as large as estimated farm
commodity spending. The largest three conservation programs have 93% of total conservation
baseline (the Conservation Reserve Program, the Conservation Security Program, and the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program).
Two other farm bill titles have more than $1 billion of 10-year baseline. The Trade title has $3.4
billion, with most of it in the Market Access Program (MAP). The Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture title has $1.1 billion of 10-year baseline, with half in specialty crop block grants, and
half for pest and disease prevention. The Energy title has $0.2 billion of 10-year baseline for
continuing programs, specifically the Feedstock Flexibility program to convert sugar to ethanol.
The Forestry, Research, and Rural Development titles are combined under “Other” in the figure
and do not have programs with baseline for reauthorization. The Credit title is not shown because
it has a negative baseline, reflecting receipts into a Farm Credit System insurance fund.
Scores of the 2012 House and Senate Farm Bills
In the 112th Congress, both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees marked up drafts for 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, however, never occurred, and a one-year extension was enacted (P.L.
112-240). While these bills ended with the 112th Congress, they may indicate a starting point as
the 113th Congress develops a new farm bill. The Senate bill has been reintroduced as S. 10.
In 2012, the CBO scores of the 2012 bills indicate that the Senate bill would have reduced the
baseline by $23.1 billion over 10 years, a reduction of 2.3% from the March 2012 10-year
baseline of $993 billion.14 The House bill would have reduced spending by $35.1 billion over 10
years, a reduction of 3.5%.15 These are the savings that would have been achieved, against the
March 2012 baseline, had the bills been enacted in 2012 during the 112th Congress.
In March 2013, CBO released updated scores of the two 2012 farm bill proposals.16 The updated
scores indicate that the Senate bill would reduce the baseline by $13.1 billion over 10 years, a
reduction of 1.3% from the February 2013 10-year baseline of $976 billion. The House bill would
reduce spending by $26.6 billion over 10 years, a reduction of 2.7% from the February baseline.
These are the savings that would be achieved, against the February 2013 baseline, if the bills were
enacted in 2013 during the 113th Congress. Even though the farm bills would expire after 5 years,
budget rules require bills to be evaluated over 10 years.

14 CBO, “Cost Estimate of S. 3240, Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012,” July 6, 2012, at http://cbo.gov/
publication/43417.
15 CBO, “Cost Estimate of H.R. 6083, Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012,” July 26, 2012,
at http://cbo.gov/publication/43486.
16 CBO, “Updated cost estimates of the farm bills that were considered in the Senate and the House during the 112th
Congress,” March 1, 2013, at http://cbo.gov/publication/43966.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

The updated Senate score is $10 billion less in savings than scored in 2012; the updated House
score is $9 billion less in savings than scored in 2012. These new scores are different from the
2012 scores in two important ways: (1) they are relative to the February 2013 baseline insofar as
expectations of the economy and commodity prices, and (2) they reflect new CBO analysis of the
effect of the bills’ provisions. Given the adjustments that were made, the same bills in the 113th
Congress would achieve less budgetary savings than was expected last year, thus implying that a
new farm bill could cost more than might have been expected unless additional changes are
made.17
• Among the differences accounting for the $10 billion change in the Senate bill’s
score are $4.5 billion of savings that are no longer achieved from the nutrition
title’s standard utility allowance provision, given new information about
implementation of the program; $2.4 billion of additional costs for the new
Agricultural Risk Coverage program in Title I due to higher prices; $1.5 billion
of additional costs for disaster assistance due to the severity of the 2012 drought;
and $1.4 billion of additional conservation program costs.
• Among the differences accounting for the $9 billion change in the House bill’s
score are the same $4.5 billion of savings that are no longer achieved from the
standard utility allowance provision, $1.7 billion of additional conservation
program costs, $1.5 billion of additional crop insurance costs because of
interaction with a new commodity program, and $1.1 billion of additional costs
for disaster assistance due to the severity of the 2012 drought.
Figure 5 illustrates the magnitude of the budgetary reductions and additions to each farm bill title
that would be made by S. 3240 and H.R. 6083 under the updated score for the 113th Congress.
Table 2 contains the data in tabular form.
• Under the Senate bill, seven titles would receive a combined $7.8 billion increase
relative to their baselines, and three titles would offer a combined budgetary
reduction of $20.9 billion. The net reduction is therefore $13.1 billion over the
10-year period FY2014-FY2023.
• Under the House bill, six titles would receive a combined $12.1 billion increase
relative to their baselines, and three titles would offer a combined budgetary
reduction of $38.7 billion. The net reduction is therefore $26.6 billion over the
10-year period FY2014-FY2023.
One of the most noticeable budget differences between House and Senate bills remains the
reduction proposed for the nutrition title, with the Senate bill no longer reducing the nutrition
baseline (and actually increasing it by $350 million) and the House bill reducing it by $12 billion.
This difference emerged as one of the most important political issues for the bill in 2012—
especially in the House—with some calling for less reduction and others for more. For crop
insurance and farm commodities, the combined change for these titles in the House bill (-$11.5
billion) is somewhat close to the Title I and Title XI subtotal in the Senate bill (-$10.0 billion),
even though larger policy differences exist. Conservation changes are similar between the bills.
Energy received more funding in the Senate bill but not in the House. Figure 6 (Senate) and
Figure 7 (House) illustrate the same budgetary changes by farm bill title, but for each year.

17 Craig Jagger, “Why do CBO cost estimates change?,” March 7, 2013, at http://agchallenge2050.org/farm-and-food-
policy/2013/03/why-do-cbo-cost-estimates-change.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Figure 5. Ten-Year Scores of the Senate and House 2012 Farm Bills
(change in outlays over FY2013-FY2022 in billions of dollars by farm bill title, relative to baseline)

Sources: CRS, using updated CBO cost estimate of S. 3240 and H.R. 6083 (March 1, 2013, at http://cbo.gov/
sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s3240_hr6083_Stabenow_Ltr.pdf).
Table 2. 2012 Farm Bill Budget: Baseline, Scores, and Proposed Outlays, by Title
(outlays in millions of dollars, 10-year total FY2014-FY2023)
CBO
CBO Score of Bill
Outlays Proposed
Baseline
(change to baseline)
(Baseline + Score)
FY2014-
2012 Farm Bill Titles
FY2023
S. 3240
H.R. 6083
S. 3240
H.R. 6083
I Farm
Commodities
64,284
-15,596 -22,507
48,688
41,777
II Conservation
63,954
-5,021
-4,480
58,933
59,474
III Trade
3,435
0
0
3,435
3,435
IV Nutrition
760,542
+354
-11,715
760,896
748,827
V Credit
-1,850
0
0
-1,850
-1,850
VI Rural
Development
13
+131
+112
144
125
VII Research
111
+681
+546
792
657
VIII Forestry
3
+10
+4
13
7
IX Energy
243
+780
+5
1,023
248
X Horticulture
1,061
+359
+428
1,420
1,489
XI Crop
Insurance
84,576
+5,526
+10,971
90,102
95,547
XII Miscel aneous
0
-319
+50
-319
50
Total 976,372
-13,095
-26,586
963,277
949,786
Source: CRS, using the February 2013 CBO baseline and updated CBO cost estimates (March 1, 2013),
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Figure 6. Score of the 2012 Senate Farm Bill S. 3240, by Title and Fiscal Year
(change in outlays in billions of dol ars by farm bil title, relative to baseline)

Source: CRS, using updated CBO cost estimate of S. 3240, March 1, 2013.
Figure 7. Score of the 2012 House Farm Bill H.R. 6083, by Title and Fiscal Year
(change in outlays in billions of dol ars by farm bil title, relative to baseline)

Source: CRS, using updated CBO cost estimate of H.R. 6083, March 1, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Table 3 (for the Senate bill) and Table 4 (for the House bill) present the detailed cost estimates of
each bill, relative to the baseline, as estimated by CBO. These tables, and the year-by-year figures
(Figure 6 and Figure 7), reveal additional differences between the House and Senate bills. For
example, the budgetary savings from the commodity title would not begin until FY2015, because
direct payments for the 2013 crop year under the extension of the 2008 farm bill are paid in
FY2014, the first year of the new farm bill baseline. Also, the reduction in FY2015 in the
commodity title of the House bill is much larger than the comparable reduction in the Senate bill.
This is because outlays under the new House counter-cyclical program are delayed into a later
fiscal year and would not begin until FY2016, whereas outlays under the Senate bill would begin
a year sooner in FY2015. Thus, if the score were expressed on a crop year basis, rather than a
fiscal year basis, the reductions in the House bill could be about $3 billion less (that is, the House
bill could cost about $3 billion more than its actual score). The tables and figures also show that
changes to both crop insurance and conservation grow gradually through the budget window, with
more of the effect in the second five years.
Figure 8 illustrates the total outlays expected for farm bill programs under the current law
baseline, and after incorporating the changes proposed in S. 3240 and H.R. 6083. The first
stacked bar is the same $976 billion baseline distribution from Figure 2. The Senate bill’s $13.1
billion reduction over 10 years represents a 1.3% reduction to $963 billion of expected outlays
over the FY2014-FY2023 period (the second bar). The House bill’s $26.6 billion reduction
represents a 2.7% reduction to $950 billion over the FY2014-FY2023 period (the third bar).
Figure 8. Ten-Year Farm Bill Baseline, and Proposed Outlays in Senate-Passed S.
3240 and House-Reported H.R. 6083 (112th Congress)
(outlays over FY2013-FY2022 in billions of dollars by farm bill title)

Source: CRS, using the February 2013 CBO baseline and updated CBO cost estimates (March 1, 2013),
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

The original score of the Senate bill in June 2012 with $23.1 billion of savings was consistent
with the total savings proposed by the House and Senate Agriculture committees for the Joint
Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (a.k.a. the Super Committee, discussed later) in the fall of
2011. The reductions in S. 3240 from the conservation and nutrition titles were nearly the same
as in the Super Committee proposal. And the $13 billion reduction from commodity programs in
the Super Committee proposal was roughly the same as the $14.4 billion of net savings in S.
3240 from the farm commodity program and crop insurance. The original score of the House bill
in July 2012, with $35.1 billion of savings, was consistent with the $33.2 billion of reconciliation
instructions in the FY2013 House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 112, discussed later) and the
$35.8 billion of savings identified by the Agriculture Committee for budget reconciliation. A
primary difference, though, was that all of the reconciliation savings were from nutrition
programs, while only about half of the original savings in H.R. 6083 were from nutrition
programs. These consistencies with prior broader deficit reduction proposals, whether intentional
or not, disappeared when the updated scores were released in March 2013. The same bills in the
113th Congress would achieve less budgetary savings than was expected last year, thus implying
that a new farm bill could cost more than might have been expected unless additional changes are
made.
Also, Table 3 and Table 4 indicate which programs in a new farm bill might become concerns
over “programs without baseline” in the future.18 The scores for the FY2019-FY2023 period
reveal which programs would receive baseline beyond the expected five-year life of a new farm
bill and which would receive baseline only for the five-year window of the bill (see footnote 10,
and a discussion in the Issues section later). For example, the specialty crops research program
would receive a 10-year baseline in the Senate bill, but three other research programs would
receive baseline only through FY2018. This also was an issue for all of the programs the energy
and rural development titles, the farmers market promotion program and other horticulture
programs, outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers, whole grain products and hunger-free
community programs, and desert terminal lakes, among other programs. The House bill had
similar issues, such as for organic research and other organic programs, the beginning farmers
program, the farmers market promotion program, some conservation programs, a nutrition pilot
program, and value-added marketing grants.
Finally, separate from the mandatory spending figures above, the original CBO cost estimates in
2012 included a projection of discretionary appropriations that would be needed to carry out the
authorized farm bill programs. For S. 3240 and H.R. 6083, CBO estimated that $29.0 billion
and $22.1 billion, respectively, of discretionary appropriations would be needed over the five-
year period FY2013-FY2017. However, not all of these amounts represented new programs or
spending, since much of the totals were for reauthorizing programs that are already appropriated
in the annual Agriculture appropriations bill. Moreover, these amounts would be subject to annual
decisions by the budget committees and the appropriations committees. The updated CBO scores
of the bills in March 2013 did not address the discretionary estimates.

18 For more background, see a discussion later in the Issues section and CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill
Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Table 3. Score of Mandatory Programs in S. 3240 (Senate-Passed 2012 Farm Bill)
(change in annual outlays in millions of dollars, relative to baseline)
Fiscal year
5- and 10-year total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Title I – Commodity Programs
Repeal Direct Payments
0
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-19,784
-44,514
Repeal Countercyclical Payments
0
0
-162
-175
-191
-209
-212
-205
-191
-188
-528
-1,533
Repeal Average Crop Election Payments
0
0
-1,304
-708
-469
-426
-413
-453
-428
-504
-2,481
-4,705
Popcorn as a Covered Commodity
8
9
11
12
10
10
10
10
11
11
50
102
Agricultural Risk Coverage
0
4,155
4,530
4,127
3,189
2,894
3,042
2,848
3,112
3,100
16,001
30,997
Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loans
0
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
13
37
Dairy Pr

ogram
-31
-8
-4
18
18
48
72
66
85
58

-7

322
Supplemental Agriculture Disaster Assistance
1,072
320
287
282
283
285
288
290
291
294
2,244 3,692
Adjusted Gross Income Limitation of $750,000
0
-9
-11
-11
-10
-10
-10
-11
-11
-11
-41
-94
Implementation 85
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Subtotal – Title I
1,134
-461
-1,596
-1,398
-2,113
-2,350
-2,164
-2,396
-2,072
-2,181
-4,433
-15,596
Title II - Conservation
Conservation Reserve Program
25
37
-82
-236
-336
-453
-447
-457
-483
-529
-592 -2,961
Conservation Stewardship Program
-7
-50
-87
-130
-173
-221
-265
-308
-351
-394
-447 -1,986
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
-69
-89
-80
-92
-100
-111
-121
-101
-100
-100
-430
-963
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
-53
138
315
321
211
122
58
49
56
60
932
1,277
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
-4
-7
-8
-8
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-37
-87
Other Conservation Programs
158
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
190
190
Funding 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
Repeal Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
-7
-26
-41
-51
-61
-70
-80
-85
-85
-85
-186
-591
CRS-15

---

Fiscal year
5- and 10-year total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Subtotal – Title II
53
21
35
-178
-451
-733
-855
-902
-963
-1,048
-520
-5,021
Title IV - Nutrition
Retailers -8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-40
-80
Assistance for Community Food Projects
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
25
50
Emergency Food Assistance
21
37
17
11
2
2
2
2
2
2
88
98
R
etailer Tra
fficking
9
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19

83

176

Whole Grain P
roducts
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

10

10
Hunger-Free Communities
6
14
19
20
22
14
5
0
0
0
81
100
Subtotal – Title IV
38
72
52
47
40
32
23
18
18
18
247
354
Title VI – Rural Development
Value
-Added M

arketing Grants
0
4
8
12
13
13
8
4
0
0

37

62

Rural Microen
terprise P
rogram
1
3
4
4
4
3
0
0
0
0

16

19


Rural Water and Waste D
isposal
2
11
13
10
8
4
2
0
0
0

44

50
Su


btotal – Title VI
3
18
25
26
25
20
10
4
0
0

97

131
Title VII – Research, Extension, and Related Matters
Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
8
13
16
16
16
8
3
0
0
0
69
80
Specialty Crop Research
13
23
29
48
50
53
50
50
50
50
163
416
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development
4
9
14
17
17
13
8
3
0
0
61
85
Foundation for Food Agriculture Research
10
20
20
30
20
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Subtotal – Title VII
35
64
79
111
103
74
61
53
50
50
392
681
Title VIII – Forestry
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
10
Title IX – Energy
Bior
efinery Ass
istance
5
32
50
55
44
20
10
0
0
0

186

216
CRS-16

---

Fiscal year
5- and 10-year total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Rural Energy for America Program
10
30
42
48
48
38
20
4
0
0
178
240
Biomass Research and Development
1
5
16
25
26
25
21
10
1
0
73
130
Biomass Crop Assistance Program
4
12
20
27
31
29
23
16
8
4
94
174
Other Energy Programs
-2
-1
12
6
4
1
0
0
0
0
19
20
Subtotal – Title IX
18
78
140
161
153
113
74
30
9
4
550
780
Title X – Horticulture
Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Coordinated Plan Management Program
3
6
8
9
11
13
14
15
15
15
36
108
Sp

ecialty Crop Block
Grants
8
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

66

141
Other Horticulture Programs
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
Subtotal – Title X
32
42
45
46
48
28
29
30
30
30
212
359
Title XI – Crop Insurance
Supplemental Coverage Option
23
224
300
307
324
318
348
348
361
370
1,178
2,923
Catastrophic Crop Insurance Rerating
-4
-38
-50
-51
-52
-53
-54
-54
-55
-56
-195
-467
Enterprise Units Irrigated Nonirrigated Crops
5
47
62
63
64
66
68
69
71
72
241
586
Adjustment in Average Producer History Yields
2
22
50
76
104
131
139
141
143
146
253
952
Stacked Income Protection For Cotton
28
278
362
347
423
438
459
451
467
488
1,438
3,741
Peanut Revenue Crop Insurance
3
26
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
119
269
Implementation 2
21
16
15
15
14
2
0
0
0
69
85

Crop In

surance for

Organic Crops
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

3

8
Index-Based Weather Insurance
0
1
9
10
10
10
9
1
0
0
30
50
Beginning Farmer Provisions
2
20
26
28
31
34
35
36
36
36
106
283
Agricultural Management Assistance & Educ.
1
5
9
10
11
10
-2
-4
-6
-7
36
27
CRS-17

---

Fiscal year
5- and 10-year total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Crop Production on Native Sod
0
-5
-12
-18
-23
-24
-24
-24
-24
-24
-58
-178
Conse
rvation Com

pliance for Crop In
surance
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9

-20

-65
Participation Effects of Commodity Programs
-33
-320
-389
-359
-288
-258
-262
-241
-267
-273
-1,388
-2,689
Subtotal – Title XI
28
279
409
454
642
707
740
746
747
774
1,812
5,526
Title XII - Miscellaneous
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers
3
4
5
5
5
2
1
0
0
0
22
25
Sheep Production & Marketing Grant Program
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
6
48
-36
-52
-52
-52
-52
-52
-52
-52
-86
-346
Subtotal – Title XII
10
53
-31
-47
-47
-50
-51
-52
-52
-52
-62
-319
Total Changes in S. 3240
1,352
166
-842
-778
-1,598
-2,159
-2,133
-2,469
-2,232
-2,404
-1,700
-13,096
Source: CRS, using updated CBO cost estimate of S. 3240, March 1, 2013, at http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s3240_hr6083_Stabenow_Ltr.pdf.

CRS-18

---

Table 4. Score of Mandatory Programs in H.R. 6083 (House-Reported 2012 Farm Bill)
(change in annual outlays in millions of dollars, relative to baseline)
5- and 10-year

Fiscal year
total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Title I – Commodity Programs
Repeal Direct Payments
0
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-4,946
-19,784
-44,514
Repeal Countercyclical Payments
0
0
-162
-175
-191
-209
-212
-205
-191
-188
-528
-1,533
Repeal Average Crop Revenue Election Payments
0
0
-1,304
-708
-469
-426
-413
-453
-428
-504
-2,481
-4,705
Farm Risk Management Election
0
0
3,475
3,711
3,427
2,876
2,758
2,844
2,679
2,806
10,613
24,576
Nonr
ecourse M
arketing As

sistance Loans
4
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
16
40
Dairy Pr
ogram
-31
10
22
11
34
78
98
53
83
83
46
441
Supplemental Agriculture Disaster Assistance
773
300
260
247
247
249
251
252
253
256
1,827
3,088
Administration 65
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Subtotal – Title I
810
-4,598
-2,652
-1,857
-1,895
-2,374
-2,459
-2,450
-2,545
-2,488
-10,191
-22,507
Title II – Conservation
Conservation Reserve Program
20
18
-226
-218
-279
-346
-292
-349
-355
-356
-685
-2,383
Conservation Stewardship Program
-10
-79
-136
-203
-269
-344
-412
-479
-546
-613
-697
-3091
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
108
256
318
234
122
73
57
47
63
59
1,038
1,337
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
-4
-7
-8
-8
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-37
-87
Other Conservation Programs
122
83
44
30
6
0
0
0
0
0
285
285
Funding 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
Repeal Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
-18
-37
-47
-57
-66
-76
-85
-85
-85
-85
-225
-641
Subtotal – Title II
228
244
-45
-212
-486
-693
-732
-866
-923
-995
-271
-4,480
Title IV – Nutrition
Upgrading Program Eligibility
-535
-1,295
-1,295
-1,270
-1,240
-1,220
-1,200
-1,175
-1,165
-1,160
-5,635
-11,555
CRS-19

---

5- and 10-year

Fiscal year
total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Retailers -8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-40
-80
Repeal Grant Program
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-25
-50
Repeal Bonus Program
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-240
-480
Assistance for Community Food Projects
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
Emergency Food Assistance
25
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
28
29
129
268
Retailer Tr
afficking
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
25
50
Northern Mariana Islands Pilot Program
1
1
10
10
9
2
0
0
0
0
31
33
Subtotal – Title IV
-555
-1,315
-1,305
-1,280
-1,251
-1,237
-1,219
-1,193
-1,183
-1,177
-5,706
-11,715
Title VI – Rural Development
Value-Added Marketing Grants
0
18
15
15
2
0
0
0
0
0
50
50
Rural Ec
onomic Devel


opment Loans and Grants
1
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
27
62
Subtotal – Title VI
1
23
22
22
9
7
7
7
7
7
77
112
Title VII – Research, Extension, and Related Matters
Organic Agr
iculture R

esearch and Ex
tension
8
13
16
16
16
8
3
0
0
0
69
80
Specialty Crop Research
13
23
29
48
50
53
50
50
50
50
163
416
B


eginning Farmer and R
ancher Devel
opment
3
5
8
10
10
8
5
2
0
0
36
50
Subtotal – Title VII
23
40
53
74
76
68
58
52
50
50
267
546
Title VIII – Forestry
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4


Title IX – E
nergy
-5
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
Title X – Horticulture
F



armers Market and Local Food Pro
motion
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Organic Agr
iculture
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
Sp

ecialty Crop Block G
rants
8
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
67
142
CRS-20

---

5- and 10-year

Fiscal year
total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23

Plant Pest and D
isease Manag
ement
5
13
16
17
22
22
22
22
22
22
73
181
Subtotal – Title X
34
48
52
53
58
37
37
37
37
37
245
428
Title XI – Crop Insurance
Supplemental Coverage Option
41
409
542
554
578
574
627
628
645
666
2,124
5,264
Catastrophic Crop Insurance Rerating
-4
-38
-50
-51
-52
-53
-54
-54
-55
-56
-195
-467
Ente


rprise Units for Irr
igated Nonirr
igated
Crops
5
47
62
63
64
66
68
69
71
72
241
586
Adjustment in Average Producer History Yields
10
97
126
128
131
134
139
141
143
146
492
1,194
Equitable Relief for Specialty Crop Producers
82
41
41
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
205
205
Crop Production Native Sod (Prairie Potholes)
0
-4
-8
-11
-15
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
-38
-118
Co


verage Level by P
ractice
2
17
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
80
188
Beg
inning F

armer and R
ancher Pro
visions
2
20
26
28
31
34
35
36
36
36
106
283
Stacked Income Protection For Cotton
0
285
375
350
440
455
476
467
479
504
1,450
3,831
Peanut Re

venue Crop Ins
urance
3
26
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
119
269
Implementation
2
21
16
15
15
14
2
0
0
0
69
85
Limitation on Livestock Pilot Program
0
3
26
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
89
239
Noni
nsured Assi
stance Pr
ogram
1
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
48
108
Participation Effects of Commodity Programs
-9
-89
-109
-97
-71
-60
-65
-60
-67
-69
-375
-696
Subtotal – Title XI
135
845
1,108
1,112
1,214
1,240
1,304
1,305
1,330
1,377
4,414
10,971
Title XII – Miscellaneous
5
8
10
10
10
5
2
0
0
0
43
50
Total Changes in H.R. 6083
678
-4,695
-2,753
-2,077
-2,264
-2,947
-3,002
-3,108
-3,228
-3,190
-11,112
-26,586
Source: CRS using updated CBO cost estimate of H.R. 6083, March 1, 2013, at http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s3240_hr6083_Stabenow_Ltr.pdf.

CRS-21

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Farm Bill Budget and Baseline Issues
The budget situation is more difficult and uncertain this year than for recent farm bills because of
the attention to the federal debt. Across-the-board reductions are occurring under an automatic
budget sequestration process. The desire by many to redesign farm policy and reallocate or
reduce the remaining farm bill baseline is driving much of the debate. Uncertainty persists about
broader deficit reduction plans, some of which have targeted agricultural programs with
mandatory funding. Much of that uncertainty affects the farm bill but is beyond the control of the
agriculture committees. Moreover, some 2008 farm bill programs do not have a baseline to
continue and will require budgetary offsets.
Thus, the political dynamics of sequestration and deficit reduction pose difficult questions about
how much and when the farm bill baseline may be reduced. In an era of deficit reduction,
Congress faces difficult choices about how much total support to provide for agriculture, and how
to allocate it among competing constituencies.
Budget Sequestration
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board spending reductions under which
budgetary resources are permanently canceled to enforce budget goals specified in statute. Many
of the sequestration provisions currently used were authorized by the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended (Title II of P.L. 99-177, also known as the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act). The current sequestration requirements were included in the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25) as a last resort to enforce deficit reduction.19
Given the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose budget
reductions by January 2012, and in the absence of a “grand bargain” for deficit reduction by
Congress during the remainder of 2012,20 budget sequestration was ordered on March 1, 2013.21
Sequestration is reducing both discretionary budget authority and mandatory budget authority in
FY2013 by $85 billion across the government. The sequestration rate is a reduction of 5.0% from
non-defense discretionary spending and 5.1% from non-defense mandatory programs.22 (These
are lower rates of sequestration than were forecast previously, prior to some savings being
achieved in the American Taxpayer Relief Act.)23
The nutrition programs and the Conservation Reserve Program in the farm bill are exempt from
sequestration.24 Other programs, including prior legal obligations in crop insurance and some of

19 CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules.
20 See CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011 and CRS Report R42884, The “Fiscal Cliff” and the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
21 White House, “Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2013,” March 1, 2013, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/2013sequestration-order-rel.pdf. The trigger and timing for sequestration was based on Section 302 of the
BCA (P.L. 112-25) and a two-month extension in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240).
22 OMB, Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, March 1, 2013, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
23 OMB, Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act, September 2012, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf.
24 2 U.S.C. 905 (g)(1)(A).
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

the farm commodity programs,25 may be exempt, as determined by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
The OMB report on sequestration indicates that about $1.9 billion will be sequestered from
accounts in Agriculture and related agencies appropriations—$1.2 billion from discretionary
accounts and $700 million from mandatory accounts (Table 5). Nearly all of discretionary budget
authority, $23 billion, is subject to sequestration. About $14 billion of mandatory budget authority
in Agriculture and related agencies programs is sequesterable, according to OMB. This latter
amount is a fraction of total mandatory spending exceeding $100 million (including child
nutrition), since most of SNAP and child nutrition are exempt from sequestration, and OMB has
exempted most of crop insurance. The table shows that user-fee funded accounts and trust funds
(including disaster payments) are subject to sequestration.
Table 5 presents sequestration amounts at the account or agency level, as outlined in the OMB
report. But sequestration actually is implemented at the more detailed level of “programs,
projects, and activities” (PPAs). PPAs are defined in different ways, but for accounts in
appropriations acts, PPAs are delineated in the appropriation itself or in the accompanying
appropriations committee reports. Other PPAs are delineated in the President’s budget.26
Once the uniform sequestration rate is applied at the PPA level, executive branch agencies may
take various actions to implement the reductions. These actions may include transferring funds
between accounts (which is limited by statute and generally is not available to agencies without
specific legislative or appropriations action), reprogramming funds within an account among one
or more PPAs (usually subject to appropriations committee notification), managing procurement
and contracting options, and furloughing agency personnel.27
To date, USDA has indicated how it intends to manage sequestration in two letters sent to
Congress: one outlining furloughs and estimated effects prior to sequestration28 and one in
response to congressional questions after sequestration.29
Implementing sequestration at the PPA level may restrict the flexibility of the Administration to
manage the reductions (e.g., requiring furloughs of employees, or canceling some desired
activities while preserving portions of other activities). On the other hand, in the absence of new
budget directions from Congress, sequestration at the PPA level preserves the intended allocation
of resources that Congress more recently appropriated, albeit at a prorated basis.


25 2 U.S.C. 906 (j).
26 2 USC 902 (k)(2); Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, Section 256(k)(2), P.L. 99-177.
27 CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
28 USDA Secretary Vilsack, Letter on impacts of sequestration to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman
Mikulski, February 5, 2013, at http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/ht-
full.cfm?method=hearings.download&id=cda06eef-0c7b-4d77-819e-d8fefb5f32db.
29 USDA Secretary Vilsack, “Letter on impacts of sequestration to Senator Grassley,” March 8, 2013, at
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/Signed-Copy-to-Sen-Grassley.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Table 5. Sequestration of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Accounts
(FY2013, dol ars in mil ions)
Sequesterable
Sequestration rate:
Budget
5.0% discretionary
Amount
Account
Authority
5.1% mandatory
Sequestered
Offices of Secretary and Chief Economist
27
5.0%
1
Office of Inspector General
86
5.0%
4
Buildings, facilities, and rental payments
232
5.0%
12
National Appeals Division
13
5.0%
1
Office of Civil Rights
21
5.0%
1
Hazardous materials management
4
5.0%
0
Department Administration
86
5.0%
4
Office of Communications
8
5.0%
0
General Counsel
40
5.0%
2
Agricultural Research Service
1,102
5.0%
55
National Institute of Food & Agriculture
1,213
5.0%
61
Economic Research Service
78
5.0%
4
National Agricultural Statistics Service
160
5.0%
8
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
825
5.0%
41
Other spending authority
18
5.0%
1
User fees (mandatory)
266
5.1%
14
Agricultural Marketing Service
84
5.0%
4
Section 32
792
5.1%
40
Other mandatory accounts
76
5.1%
4
Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards
38
5.0%
2
User fees (mandatory)
41
5.1%
2
Food Safety & Inspection Service
1,010
5.0%
51
User fees (discretionary)
45
5.0%
2
Farm Service Agency: Salaries and Expenses
1,254
5.0%
63
FSA Farm Loan Program
408
5.0%
20
Grassroots mediation; source water protection
8
5.0%
0
Risk Management Agency: Salaries & Expenses
75
5.0%
4
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
58
5.1%
3
Commodity Credit Corporation
6,460
5.1%
329
Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund
1,372
5.1%
70
Tobacco Trust Fund
960
5.1%
49
Conservation Operations
842
5.0%
42
Conservation mandatory programs
3,357
5.1%
171
Watershed and Flood Prevention
180
5.0%
9
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Sequesterable
Sequestration rate:
Budget
5.0% discretionary
Amount
Account
Authority
5.1% mandatory
Sequestered
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
15
5.0%
1
Water Bank Program
8
5.0%
0
Rural Development Salaries and Expenses
183
5.0%
9
Rural Housing Service
1,529
5.0%
76
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
179
5.0%
9
Rural Energy for America Program (mandatory)
22
5.1%
1
Rural Utilities Service
591
5.0%
30
Nutrition Programs Administration
140
5.0%
7
WIC Program
6,659
5.0%
333
Child Nutrition Programs
49
5.1%
2
SNAP, Food & Nutrition Act Programs
93
5.1%
5
Commodity Assistance Programs
73
5.0%
4
Mandatory accounts
21
5.1%
1
Foreign Agric. Service: Salaries and Expenses
177
5.0%
9
Public Law (P.L.) 480
1,475
5.0%
74
McGovern-Dole Food for Education
185
5.0%
9
CCC Export Loan Salaries
3
5.0%
0
Food and Drug Administration
2,521
5.0%
126
User fees (discretionary)
1,328
5.0%
66
Other accounts (mandatory)
327
5.1%
17
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
206
5.0%
10
Mandatory accounts
13
5.1%
1
Subtotal of mandatory accounts
13,907
5.1%
709
Subtotal of discretionary accounts
23,129
5.0%
1,156
Total, Agriculture and Related Agencies
Appropriations
37,036

1,866
Source: CRS, using OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2013, March 1,
2013, at http://www.whitehouse.
gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fy13ombjcsequestrationreport.pdf.
Because the 10-year window of the baseline to write a new farm bill generally begins in FY2014,
the sequestration occurring to FY2013 may not affect the 10-year baseline that is available to
write a new farm bill as immediately or as much as might be expected. The Office of
Management and Budget’s report on sequestration imposes sequestration amounts on FY2013
only. Under budget enforcement rules, this reduces the budget limits and expectations for
government-wide discretionary totals in future years, but the baseline for mandatory programs is
being sequestered on a year-by-year basis. Thus, the effect of sequestration on future fiscal years’
mandatory outlays may or may not be reflected in CBO baselines that are released later this year.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Budget Reconciliation
Another example of an approach to deficit reduction is budget reconciliation.30 The reconciliation
process was started in in 2012, but did not proceed beyond the House. A similar approach could
be used in the 113th Congress, but would require a joint budget resolution between the House and
Senate to be enforced.
In the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives passed a budget resolution for FY2013 on
March 29, 2012, that required the House Agriculture Committee to report by April 27, 2012,
recommendations to the House Budget Committee for a reconciliation bill (H.Con.Res. 112,
Section 201). The House Agriculture Committee identified $35.8 billion of reductions from
nutrition programs in its jurisdiction over a 10-year period, more than the $33.2 billion
requirement in H.Con.Res. 112. The Agriculture Committee’s recommendation was
incorporated into H.R. 5652, which was passed by the House on May 10, 2012.
The House Agriculture Committee’s reconciliation package was focused on nutrition programs
alone rather than a more comprehensive farm bill that was discussed earlier regarding the score of
S. 3240. The House Budget Committee report noted that reductions in nutrition programs could
be used to meet reconciliation goals, but left the allocation decision to the authorizing
committee.31
The Senate did not pass a budget resolution for FY2013, instead opting to use the budget levels
intended for FY2013 under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). Without a Senate
budget resolution, the budget reconciliation process that was started in the House stalled.
Separate from the budget reconciliation process, the House Budget Committee’s FY2013 budget
resolution (H.Con.Res. 112) recommended $179 billion of cuts over 10 years to programs in the
House Agriculture Committee’s jurisdiction.32 These cuts were not required to be enacted or
considered by the Agriculture Committee, but were part of the broader long-term House Budget
Committee plan for deficit reduction. The non-binding resolution proposed $29 billion of cuts
over 10 years to agriculture programs such as direct payments, crop insurance, and export
assistance;33 $134 billion of cuts to nutrition assistance programs;34 and an unspecified reduction
of $16 billion, likely from conservation programs.35 For agriculture, the FY2013 budget
resolution was very similar to FY2012 (H.Con.Res. 34).
Nutrition Title Share of Farm Bill Baseline
The proportion and size of the farm bill budget contained in the nutrition title has increased over
time. When the 2008 farm bill was enacted, the nutrition title was 67% of the 10-year total ($406

30 CRS Report 98-814, Budget Reconciliation Legislation: Development and Consideration.
31 H.Rept. 112-421, at p. 166.
32 H.Rept. 112-421, at p. 159.
33 Ibid., at pp. 67-68.
34 Ibid., at p. 100. See also footnote 35.
35 House Committee on Agriculture (minority), “FY2013 Budget—Implications for Agriculture,” March 28, 2012, at
http://democrats.agriculture.house.gov/inside/Pubs/
FY2013%20Republican%20Budget%20Implications%20for%20Agriculture.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

billion out of a $604 billion 10-year projected total).36 Five years later, it is 78% of the total ($761
billion out of a $976 billion 10-year projected total). This trend does not mean, however, that the
nutrition programs have grown at the expense of the agricultural programs.
In the CBO baseline, each program is evaluated separately to determine its own expected costs
using the formulas in law. Baseline projections rise and fall based on changes in economic
conditions. In recent years, the nutrition program baseline has risen because current and expected
food assistance needs increased as an automatic safety net during the recession. At the same time,
crop insurance baseline increased as expected crop market prices rose, causing the insured value
of crops and premium subsidies to grow. Conversely, farm commodity program baseline fell as
those market prices rose and less counter-cyclical price support is expected. The CBO baseline
thus reflects expectations under current law. The allocation of baseline among titles and the size
of each amount is not a zero-sum game when CBO updates the baseline projection over time.
Farm Bill Programs Without Baseline
The budget picture is further clouded by other factors. While some programs (like most farm
commodity programs and nutrition assistance) have assumed future funding, other programs
(mostly newer ones) do not. Thirty-seven programs that received mandatory funding throughout
nearly all titles of the 2008 farm bill do not continue to have assured funding for the next farm
bill. Continuing all of these programs could require an estimated $9 billion to $14 billion of
offsets from other programs. If Congress desires to continue some of these programs, finding the
offsets needed could be doubly difficult during a simultaneous baseline contraction from
sequestration or deficit reduction. Also, new pay-as-you-go budget rules enacted in 2010 (P.L.
111-139) restrict some of the budget-related maneuvers that were used in past farm bills to offset
new spending.37
The one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill in P.L. 112-240 did not provide any additional
mandatory funding for any of the 37 programs without baseline.38 In lieu of mandatory funding,
the farm bill extension made numerous “authorizations of appropriations” to allow discretionary
funding for FY2013, but this does not provide funding. Discretionary funding, subject to
availability in a tight budget environment, conceptually could be provided by the appropriations
committees in a supplemental appropriation, an omnibus appropriation, or a continuing resolution
that may be used to complete FY2013. The programs also could be funded with mandatory
funding in a five-year farm bill developed in the 113th Congress, though perhaps not for FY2013.
In fact, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees envisioned providing funding for many of
these programs in the five-year farm bills that were developed in 2012. For more information, see
CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.

36 See CRS Report R41195, Actual Farm Bill Spending and Cost Estimates.
37 For example, timing shifts are no longer allowed to be counted as savings or revenue for statutory PAYGO (that is,
shifting the timing of existing program payments by delaying an outlay beyond the budget window or accelerating a
receipt into the budget window). P.L. 111-139, Section 4 (b)(1)(A); 2 U.S.C. 639 (a)(3)(C).
38 CRS Report R42442, Expiration and Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Possible Expiration and Reversion to Permanent Law
The farm commodity programs could become more expensive if outdated “permanent law”
provisions are resurrected. A set of non-expiring provisions from the 1938 and 1949 farm bills, as
amended, remain in statute, but have been suspended by the more recent farm bills. The current
suspension of permanent law, as extended in P.L. 112-240, expires after the 2013 crop year
(December 31, 2013, for dairy).
There are no official estimates of the budgetary effect of reverting to permanent law. But the
support levels under permanent law are likely to be above even the currently high market prices
for many commodities. This could result in greater subsidy outlays than under the current
baseline. For more information, see CRS Report R42442, Expiration and Extension of the 2008
Farm Bill.
Government-Wide Deficit Reduction Proposals
In recent years, increasing attention has been given to reducing government spending and
balancing the federal budget through comprehensive reforms. In February 2010, President Obama
created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, with bipartisan leaders, to
identify changes to balance the budget. Since then, several other government-wide proposals have
been made for deficit reduction, and most have included agriculture to some extent (Table 6).
In these government-wide deficit reduction proposals, cuts from the agriculture committees’
baseline range from $10 billion in the President’s Fiscal Commission, $11 billion in the “Gang of
Six” proposal, $30 billion in the Bipartisan Policy Center plan, $32 billion in the President’s
FY2013 budget, and $33 billion in House budget reconciliation instructions, to as much as $179
billion in the House-passed FY2013 budget resolution. These proposals often are compared to the
$23 billion reduction offered by the leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees
in November 2011 to the Joint Select Committee of Deficit Reduction.
Each of these proposals specifically recommended some reduction to the farm commodity
programs—often mentioning eliminating direct payments, but sometimes also with limits on farm
payments or reductions to crop insurance. Export promotion programs and certain conservation
programs also were commonly targeted. Only the House budget resolutions for FY2012 and
FY2013, and to a much smaller extent the agriculture committees’ bicameral recommendation to
the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, recommend reductions to the nutrition program
baseline. To date, none of these plans has been enacted. But together, they represent a range of
common ideas and the visibility for deficit reduction of the agriculture and nutrition baselines.

Congressional Research Service
28

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

Table 6. Broad Deficit Reduction Proposals That Affect Farm Bill Programs
Total
Individual
Farm Bill
Savings (-) or
Proposal
Reduction Detailed
Provisions Costs (+)
1. Bipartisan Policy Center
$30 billion
Reduce farm program spending by eliminating farm payments to
(Domenici-Rivlin Task Force,
[2012-2020]
producers with adjusted gross income greater than $250,000
Nov. 2010)
and setting a lower maximum payment for direct payments.
-$15 billion


Reduce subsidies to private crop insurance companies. Reduce
premium subsidy for farmers from 60% to 50%.
-$9 billion


Consolidate and cap certain agriculture conservation programs.
-$6 billion
2. President’s Fiscal
$10 billion
Reduce mandatory agricultural programs, including reductions in
Commission (Simpson-Bowles,
[2012-2020]
direct payments, limits on conservation programs (CSP and
Dec. 2010)
EQIP), and reductions for the Market Access Program.
-$15 billion


Extend disaster assistance programs in the 2008 farm bill.
+$5 billion
3. House Budget Resolution
$178 billion
Reduce direct payments, crop insurance subsidies, and export
for FY2012 (H.Con.Res.
[2012-2021]
assistance programs.
-$30 billion
34, Apr. 2011)

Convert SNAP into an allotment tailored for each state.
-$127 billion

Unspecified remainder, much of which is likely conservation.
-$21 billion
4. Gang of Six (July 2011)
$11 billion
Require agriculture committees to reduce mandatory spending,
[10 years]
and encourage them to protect SNAP (food stamps).
-$11 billion
5. President’s Deficit
$32 billion
Eliminate direct payments. (Ten-year baseline is $49 billion, but
Reduction Plan (Sept. 2011;
[2013-2022]
CBO assumes interaction effect from increased enrollment in
amounts updated in Feb. 2012
ACRE. Net effect is shown.)
-$30 billion
for FY2013 budget request)

Reduce crop insurance outlays by (1) reducing administrative
and overhead reimbursements to crop insurance companies and
(2) reducing premium subsidies to farmers.
-$7.7 billion

Extend disaster assistance programs in 2008 farm bill for five
years, through 2017.
+$8 billion

Reduce conservation payments by better targeting cost-effective
programs. Reduce CRP by $1 billion and EQIP by $1 billion.
-$2 billion
6. House and Senate
$23 billion
Specific proposal not released, but a draft indicates a plan could
Agriculture Committees, for
[10 years]
eliminate direct payments, develop a new farm safety net with
Joint Select Committee on
crop insurance, and make changes to conservation, nutrition,
Deficit Reduction (Oct. 2011)
and other farm bill programs. Reported savings included:



Farm commodity programs (net)
-$13 billion


Conservation programs
-$6 billion


Nutrition programs
-$4 billion
7. House Budget Resolution
$179 billion
Budget resolution (recommendations):
for FY2013 (H.Con.Res.
[2013-2022]
Reduce direct payments, crop insurance subsidies, and

112, Mar. 2012)
export assistance programs.
-$29 billion

Convert SNAP into an allotment tailored for each state.
-$134 billion

Unspecified remainder, likely in conservation programs
-$16 billion
$33.2
billion
Reconciliation instructions, by April 27, 2012:

[2013-2022]
By April 27, 2012, the Agriculture committee must
-$33.2 billion
recommend to the Budget committee specific cuts for a
$33.2 billion reduction over FY2012-2022; $8.2 billion over
FY2012-2013; and $19.7 billion over FY2012-2017.
Sources: CRS, compiled from the following documents:
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013

(1) Bipartisan Policy Center, “Restoring America’s Future,” Nov. 2010, pp. 106-110, at http://www.bipartisan
policy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20FINAL%20REPORT%20FOR%20PRINTER%2002%2028%2011.pdf;
(2) National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, “The Moment of Truth,” Dec. 2010, p. 45, at
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf;
(3) H.Rept. 112-58 (for H.Con.Res. 34, the FY2012 Budget Resolution), Apr. 2011, pp. 76, 108, and
152;
(4) Gang of Six, “A Bipartisan Plan to Reduce Our Nation’s Deficits,” July 2011, p. 3, at http://warner.senate.gov/
public//index.cfm?p=gang-of-six http://assets.nationaljournal.com/pdf/071911ConradBudgetExecutiveSummary.pdf;
(5) The White House, “Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future: The President’s Plan for Economic
Growth and Deficit Reduction,” Sept. 2011, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/
budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf; and USDA FY2013 Budget Summary, Feb. 2012, pp. 124-126, at
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY13budsum.pdf;
(6) House and Senate Agriculture Committees, letter to Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, Oct.
2011, at http://agriculture.house.gov/pdf/letters/jointletter111017.pdf; and press coverage of draft at http://www.
iatp.org/files/Ag%20Committees%20Bicameral%20Agreement%20Draft%202011%20Super%20Committee.pdf;
and Hagstrom Report, “Conrad: Farm Bill Content Now Moving Target,” Nov. 8, 2011, at http://www.hagstrom
report.com/news_files/110811_farmbill.html;
(7) H.Rept. 112-421(for H.Con.Res. 112, the FY2013 Budget Resolution), Mar. 2012, pp. 67-68, 100,
135, 159; and House Committee on Agriculture (minority), “FY2013 Budget-Implications for Agriculture,” March
28, 2012, at http://democrats.agriculture.house.gov/inside/Pubs/
FY2013%20Republican%20Budget%20Implications%20for%20Agriculture.pdf.

Author Contact Information

Jim Monke

Specialist in Agricultural Policy
jmonke@crs.loc.gov, 7-9664


Congressional Research Service
30

---