Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Jim Monke
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
October 21, 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 budget situation for the farm bill is more difficult this year than for recent farm bills because
of attention to the federal debt. 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. Uncertainty persists about broader deficit reduction plans, some of
which have targeted agricultural and nutrition programs with mandatory funding. Much of that
uncertainty affects the farm bill but is beyond the control of the agriculture committees.
Moreover, some popular 2008 farm bill programs do not have a baseline that would provide
continued funding and thus will require budgetary offsets to continue.
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 nutrition, and
how to allocate it 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 estimate (projection) at a particular
point in time of what federal spending on mandatory programs likely would be under current law.
In May 2013, CBO projected that the current farm bill programs, if they were to continue beyond
the 2008 farm bill, would cost $973 billion over the next 10 years (FY2014-FY2023). About $764
billion of this amount is for nutrition programs and the other $208 billion is divided among
various agriculture-related programs. This baseline estimate already has been reduced by $6.4
billion over the same period because of the budget sequestration ordered on March 1, 2013.
When new bills are proposed that affect mandatory spending, their impact (or score) is measured
as a difference from the baseline.
• The Senate-passed farm bill (S. 954) would reduce farm bill baseline spending by
$17.9 billion (-1.8%) over 10 years.
• The House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2642, as combined from the texts of H.R. 2642 and
H.R. 3102) would reduce spending by $51.9 billion (-5.3%) over 10 years.
For nutrition programs, the
• Senate bill’s reduction in nutrition is $3.9 billion (-0.5%) over 10 years;
• House bill’s reduction in nutrition is $39.0 billion (-5.1%) over 10 years.
For the agriculture-related (non-nutrition) portion of the bill, the
• Senate bill’s reduction in agricultural programs is $13.9 billion (-6.7%) over 10 years,
• House bill’s reduction in agricultural programs is $12.9 billion (-6.2%) over 10 years.
Congressional Research Service
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Contents
Budget Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
Farm Bill Spending Is a Subset of Agricultural Appropriations ................................................ 1
What Is the CBO Baseline? ....................................................................................................... 3
CBO Baseline for Farm Bill Programs ...................................................................................... 5
Budget Sequestration ............................................................................................................... 10
Sequestration in FY2013 ................................................................................................... 10
Sequestration in the FY2014-FY2023 Baseline ................................................................ 10
Scores of the 2013 House and Senate Farm Bills .......................................................................... 12
Baseline Projection .................................................................................................................. 12
Scores of the Bills .................................................................................................................... 12
Net Projected Outlays .............................................................................................................. 15
Additional Observations .......................................................................................................... 17
Nutrition and the Farm Safety Net as Shares of the Farm Bill Baseline ........................... 17
Farm Bill Programs Without Baseline............................................................................... 18
Possible Expiration and Reversion to Permanent Law ..................................................... 19
Budget Sequestration......................................................................................................... 20
Perspective on Scores and Broad Deficit Reduction Proposals ........................................ 20
Effect on Discretionary Spending ..................................................................................... 21
Figures
Figure 1. Agriculture Appropriations Relationship to Farm Bill Baseline ...................................... 2
Figure 2. Ten-Year Mandatory Baseline for Farm Bill Titles .......................................................... 6
Figure 3. Mandatory Baseline for Farm Bill Titles, FY2014-FY2023 ............................................ 6
Figure 4. Ten-Year Mandatory Baseline for Non-Nutrition Agricultural Programs ........................ 9
Figure 5. Ten-Year Scores of the Senate and House 2013 Farm Bills ........................................... 13
Figure 6. Score of the 2013 Senate Farm Bill S. 954, by Title and Fiscal Year ............................. 16
Figure 7. Score of the 2013 House Farm Bill H.R. 2642, by Title and Fiscal Year ....................... 16
Figure 8. Ten-Year Farm Bill Baseline, and Proposed Outlays under the 2013 Senate and
House Farm Bills (S. 954 and H.R. 2642) .................................................................................. 17
Tables
Table 1. Baseline for Mandatory Farm Bill Programs, FY2014-FY2023........................................ 7
Table 2. Impact of Sequestration on the May 2013 CBO Baseline for FY2014-FY2023 ............. 11
Table 3. 2013 Farm Bill Budget: Baseline, Scores, and Proposed Outlays, by Title ..................... 14
Table 4. Score of Mandatory Programs in the Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954) ................ 22
Table 5. Score of Mandatory Programs in the House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
as combined with H.R. 3102) ..................................................................................................... 26
Table A-1. Broad Deficit Reduction Proposals That Affect Farm Bill Programs .......................... 31
Congressional Research Service
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Appendixes
Appendix. Broad Deficit Reduction Proposals .............................................................................. 31
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 32
Congressional Research Service
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
he budget is one of the main issues affecting the development of a new farm bill,
particularly in a Congress that is focused on deficit reduction. How much funding is
Tavailable? How much might go towards deficit reduction? How much will continue?
The “farm bill” is an omnibus bill that Congress has returned to about every five years to
establish agricultural and food policy.1 The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) expired in 2012 and was
extended for one year2 while Congress continues to seek agreement on a reauthorization bill.
In 2013, the Senate passed a farm bill (S. 954) on June 10. The House passed a farm bill without
a nutrition title (H.R. 2642) on July 11, 2013, and a nutrition title (H.R. 3102) on September 19.3
The House subsequently combined (via H.Res. 361) the texts of H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3102 on
September 28. The net budgetary reductions in the bills range from nearly $18 billion to $52
billion over 10 years, and stark budgetary differences exist among titles between the bills.
Budget Background
Farm Bill Spending Is a Subset of Agricultural Appropriations
Federal spending on agriculture can be divided several ways. Understanding budget terminology
and the methods of determining federal spending are important when analyzing the farm bill.
The federal budget for agriculture-related programs was about $139 billion in FY2013; farm bill
programs are a subset of that amount. The total can be divided several ways using terms such as
mandatory and discretionary spending, with overlapping parts based on committee jurisdiction.
Of the $139 billion total agriculture appropriation (Figure 1),
• about $119 billion was for mandatory programs (entitlements that are authorized both
inside and outside the farm bill),
• of which about $99 billion was for mandatory programs authorized in the farm
bill (the farm bill “baseline,” discussed by component later), and
• $20 billion was for child nutrition programs that are authorized outside the farm
bill and not in the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee,
• and $20 billion was for discretionary programs (partially authorized in the farm bill).
Discretionary spending (the green pie slice and breakout column in Figure 1) 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
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 specific policies proposed, see CRS Report R43076, The 2013 Farm Bill: A Comparison of the
Senate-Passed (S. 954) and House-Passed (H.R. 2642, H.R. 3102) Bills with Current Law
Congressional Research Service
1
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 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. Agriculture Appropriations Relationship to Farm Bill Baseline
(appropriated annual budget authority in billions of dollars)
Source: CRS, based on FY2013 Agriculture Appropriations Act, P.L. 113-6.
Notes: This graph is based on appropriations bill amounts and jurisdiction. Amounts reflect rescissions, but not
sequestration. The amount for “other” is departmental administration, net of limitations and rescission offsets.
The graph excludes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Authorizing committee jurisdiction generally
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).
SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; CCC = Commodity Credit Corp.; WIC = Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; CSFP = Commodity Supplemental Food
Program; FDA = Food and Drug Admin.; FSA = Farm Service Agency; FSIS = Food Safety Inspection Service;
APHIS = Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
For mandatory spending (the salmon-colored pie slices in Figure 1), the Agriculture
appropriations bill carries—but does not pay for, nor generally determine—the amounts.
Mandatory spending is controlled by authorizing legislation and—for farm bill programs—is
under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees.4 The primary mandatory
4 Over time, authorizing committees began providing mandatory funds to programs that generally may have been
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). For
more on CHIMPS, see CRS Report R42596, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
2
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
spending categories carried in the Agriculture appropriations bill are the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps), Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC), crop insurance, some Section 32 programming, and child nutrition.
• SNAP is designed primarily to increase the food purchasing power of eligible low-
income households to help them buy a nutritionally adequate low-cost diet.
• 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 titles of the farm bill.
• Crop insurance is a risk management tool that offers subsidized premiums to farmers
and administrative payments and reinsurance to private insurance companies.
• Section 32 is a separate account—funded by customs receipts—created to assist non-
price-supported commodities; not all farm bills have included Section 32 provisions.
• 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, among other programs.
Differences over what is included in the Agriculture appropriations bill compared to the farm bill
primarily can be attributed to certain 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 Commodity Futures Trading Commission is in the jurisdiction of both the House
and Senate Agriculture Committees, and the House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee (but not the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee).
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 rest of this report focuses on mandatory spending.
What Is the CBO Baseline?
Funding to write new legislation (e.g., the next farm bill) is based on Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) baseline projections of the cost of current laws (e.g., existing farm bill programs)
and budgetary assumptions about whether programs will continue. These amounts are shown in
the CBO baseline projections for mandatory spending (what is available) and in the budget scores
of proposed bills (changes to the baseline). CBO develops the baseline and scores of bills under
the supervision of the House and Senate Budget Committees. This process sets the mandatory
budget for the farm bill.5
5 For more information, see CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
Congressional Research Service
3
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
The CBO baseline is an estimate (projection) at a particular point in time of what future federal
spending on mandatory programs would be under current law.6 CBO periodically re-estimates the
baseline to incorporate changes in economic conditions. When CBO updates the baseline (no
changes to current law), the revision does not trigger budget enforcement mechanisms that
require an increase to be paid for or allow savings to be claimed. Instead, the update shows how
changing economic conditions affect projected 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.7 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.
From a budget perspective, programs with a continuing baseline are assumed to go on under
current law, and have their own funding available for reauthorization if policymakers want them
to continue. 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 because8
• 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.9
6 The most recent, detailed CBO baseline projection for agriculture is from May 2013. The baseline for the CCC (for
farm commodity programs, conservation programs, and trade programs) and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is
available at http://cbo.gov/publication/44202. The baseline for SNAP is available at http://cbo.gov/publication/44211.
7 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.
8 For more, see a later section and CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
9 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).
Congressional Research Service
4
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
CBO Baseline for Farm Bill Programs
The May 2013 CBO baseline for mandatory farm bill programs is $973 billion for the 10-year
period FY2014-FY2023 (Figure 2).10 This baseline reflects a reduction of $6.4 billion over the
10-year baseline because of the effects of sequestration (discussed later in this section).
Most of the $973 billion post-sequestration baseline is for domestic nutrition assistance programs
($764 billion, or 79%), primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).11 The
rest, about $208 billion, is divided among various agriculture-related programs, primarily crop
insurance ($84 billion, or 8.6%), farm commodity price and income supports ($59 billion, or
6.0%), and conservation ($62 billion, or 6.3%). Less than 1% of the baseline is for mandatory
spending on international trade ($3.4 billion), horticulture programs ($1.1 billion), and the
miscellaneous title ($1.4 billion for the Noninsured Assistance Program, NAP).
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 to about $95 billion per year in 2023. 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).
Table 1 also shows an alternative total that is slightly smaller. Some programs have baseline for
expected outlays that remain 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
$949 million smaller. The alternative 10-year total is thus $972 billion, and the alternative total
for the non-nutrition agricultural programs still rounds to $208 billion.
Figure 4 shows the baselines for the individual programs comprising the $208 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.12 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 payments.
10 CBO, “May 2013 Baseline for the 2008 Farm Bill Programs and Provisions, by Title,” unpublished, May 2013. See
also “Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023,” May 14, 2013, at http://cbo.gov/publication/44172.
11 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).
12 For background, see CRS Report R42759, Farm Safety Net Provisions in a 2013 Farm Bill: S. 954 and H.R. 2642.
Congressional Research Service
5
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 May 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 May 2013 CBO baseline.
Congressional Research Service
6
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-
Farm Bill Titles and Programsa
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2018
FY2023
I
Commodity Programs (CCC)
5,309
6,184
6,628
6,001
5,766
29,888
58,765
Direct
payments
4,538
4,538
4,538
4,538
4,538
22,692
45,384
Counter-cyclical, ACRE, Marketing loans
170
1,142
1,548
979
755
4,594
8,414
MILC and other dairy assistance
34
34
36
32
26
161
284
Economic assistance to cotton mil s
46
48
48
48
47
237
473
WTO Settlement with Brazila 147
0
0
0
0
147
147
Interest and operating expenses
45
90
130
144
143
552
1,259
Other
329
331
328
259
257
1,504
2,805
II Conservation
5,203
5,412
5,660
5,895
6,203 28,373 61,567
Conservation Reserve Program
2,174
2,207
2,291
2,258
2,314
11,244
23,350
Conservation Security/Stewardship Prog.
1,057
1,333
1,523
1,760
1,978
7,651
18,906
Environmental Quality Incentives Prog.
1,233
1,365
1,474
1,524
1,565
7,161
15,240
Farmland Protection Program
147
148
147
148
150
740
1,490
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
67
73
71
75
74
360
754
Wetlands Reserve Programa 370
145
21
1
0
537
537
Agricultural Water Enhancement Prog.
60
59
57
56
56
288
568
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program
48
49
48
48
47
240
475
Agricultural Management Assistance
11
13
11
11
10
56
106
Grassland Reserve Programa 29
14
12
9
8
72
112
Emergency 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 cooperator
35
35
35
35
35
173
345
Specialty crop technical assistance
9
9
9
9
9
45
90
IV Nutrition
(SNAP)b 80,020
79,457
79,481
78,204
76,767
393,930
764,432
V Creditc -178
-197
-205
-211
-220
-1,011
-2,240
VI Rural
Development
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
7
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
5- and 10-year totals
FY2014-
FY2014-
Farm Bill Titles and Programsa
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
XI Crop
Insurance
6,380
8,325
8,227
8,276
8,386 39,592 84,105
Premium
Subsidy
4,477
5,830
5,770
5,819
5,919
27,815
59,545
Delivery
Expenses
1,047
1,380
1,354
1,343
1,335
6,459
13,175
Underwriting
Gains
856
1,115
1,103
1,113
1,132
5,318
11,384
XII Miscellaneous
141
141
141
141
141
705
1,410
Noninsured Crop Assistance Program
141
141
141
141
141
705
1,410
Total—Farm Bill Baseline
97,447
99,797
100,402
98,776
97,519 493,941
972,905
Nutrition
80,020
79,457
79,481
78,204
76,767
393,930
764,432
Non-nutrition
17,427
20,340
20,920
20,573
20,752
100,011
208,473
Alternate total
Minus baseline of programs not continuinga -670
-186
-35
-10
-8
-909
-949
Remainder for all continuing programs
96,777
99,611
100,367
98,766
97,511
493,032
971,956
Remainder for non-nutrition programs
16,757
20,154
20,885
20,563
20,744 99,102 207,524
Source: CRS, using the May 2013 CBO baseline.
a. Some programs have outlays listed during the baseline period but are not considered to have funding
(budget authority) to continue beyond the end of the 2008 farm bill. Other programs and titles in the 2008
farm bill are not listed because they do not have future budget baseline, even though they received
mandatory funding in FY2008-FY2012. 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, if included, would add $246 billion of
baseline over 10 years (http://cbo.gov/publication/44186).
c. The Credit title has negative outlays that reflect receipts into the Farm Credit System Insurance Fund.
Congressional Research Service
8
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
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 May 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; NAP = Noninsured Crop Assistance
Program. Includes baseline for expiring programs (*) that do not have baseline to continue, as noted in Table 1.
The crop insurance baseline is larger than for the farm commodity programs, and 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 in 10-year baseline. The Trade title has $3.4
billion, mostly 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 Miscellaneous title has $1.4 billion of continuing 10-year baseline
for the Noninsured Assistance Program (NAP). 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 continuing baseline. The Credit title is not shown
because it has a negative baseline, reflecting receipts into a Farm Credit System insurance fund.
Congressional Research Service
9
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Budget Sequestration
Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board spending reductions under which
budgetary resources are permanently canceled to enforce statutory budget goals. The current
sequestration requirement was included in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25).13
Many of these rules were in 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).
Some farm bill programs are exempt from sequestration.14 The nutrition programs and the
Conservation Reserve Program are exempt from sequestration.15 Other programs, including prior
legal obligations in crop insurance and some of the farm commodity programs,16 may be exempt,
as determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Sequestration in FY2013
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,17 OMB
ordered budget sequestration on March 1, 2013.18 The sequestration rate for FY2013 is 5.0% from
non-defense discretionary spending and 5.1% from non-defense mandatory programs.19 (These
rates are lower than initially forecast20 due to savings in the American Taxpayer Relief Act.)
The March 1, 2013, OMB report on sequestration indicates that about $1.9 billion will be
sequestered in FY2013 from accounts in Agriculture and related agencies appropriations—$1.2
billion from discretionary accounts and $700 million from mandatory accounts. Nearly all of the
$23 billion of discretionary agriculture budget authority was subject to sequestration. About $14
billion of the mandatory budget was sequesterable. This latter amount is a fraction of $100 billion
total mandatory amount since most of SNAP and child nutrition are exempt from sequestration,
and OMB exempted most of crop insurance. User-fee funded accounts and trust funds (including
disaster payments) are subject to sequestration.
Sequestration in the FY2014-FY2023 Baseline
The May 2013 CBO baseline for farm bill programs, which was released after OMB ordered
sequestration for FY2013, incorporates a sequestration effect beyond FY2013. The May baseline
13 See CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011 .
14 See CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules.
15 2 U.S.C. 905 (g)(1)(A).
16 2 U.S.C. 906 (j).
17 See CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, and CRS
Report R42884, The “Fiscal Cliff” and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
18 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).
19 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.
20 OMB, Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act, September 2012, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/stareport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
is $6.4 billion less over FY2014-FY2023 than it would have been without sequestration.21 Table
2 shows how the sequestration is allocated across years, titles, and programs in the farm bill
baseline. These are the amounts that by which a hypothetically greater baseline (as if there were
no sequestration) were reduced to reach the post-sequestration baseline amounts in Table 1.
Table 2. Impact of Sequestration on the May 2013 CBO Baseline for FY2014-FY2023
(millions of dollars)
Fiscal year
5- and 10-year totals
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014-18 2014-23
Title I - Commodity Programs
Direct Payments
-408
-408
-408
-408
-408
-2,040
-4,080
Title II - Conservation
Conservation Stewardship Program
-84
-73
-73
-73
-73
-420
-750
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
-46
-65
-81
-95
-108
-412
-1,046
Wetlands Reserve Program
-19
-9
-2
0
0
-42
-42
Farm and Ranchland Protection Program
-5
-10
-12
-13
-15
-55
-130
Grassland Reserve Program
-1
-1
-1
0
0
-4
-4
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program
-3
-3
-4
-4
-4
-19
-39
Cheasapeake Bay Watershed Program
-2
-2
-3
-2
-3
-13
-28
Agr
icultural Man
agement As
sistance
-1
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
-2
-3
-3
-4
-6
-18
-48
Subtotal, Title II
-163
-166
-179
-191
-209
-984
-2,088
Title III - Trade
Market Access Program
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-60
-110
Foreign Market Development Program
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-12
-22
Food for Progress Act
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-12
-22
Emerging Markets Program
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-6
-11
T
echnical As
sistance for
Specialty Crops
*
*
*
*
*
-2
-4
Subtotal, Title III
-15
-15
-15
-15
-15
-92
-169
Title X - Horticulture
Specialty Crop Block Grants
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-16
-31
Total Changes in Direct Spending
-589
-592
-605
-617
-635
-3,130
-6,364
Source: CBO estimates of the 2013 farm bill drafts prior to markup for the Senate farm bill (http://cbo.gov/
publication/44175, May 13, 2013) and the House bill (http://cbo.gov/publication/44177, May 13, 2013).
21 The effect of sequestration on the baseline is explained in the initial CBO estimates of the farm bill drafts prior to
markup for the Senate farm bill (p. 2 and Table 4, at http://cbo.gov/publication/44175, May 13, 2013) and the House
bill (p. 2 and Table 4, at http://cbo.gov/publication/44177, May 13, 2013).
Congressional Research Service
11
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Scores of the 2013 House and Senate Farm Bills
In 2013, in the 113th Congress, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees reported farm bills
out of committee, and floor action has occurred. A final agreement and enactment is pending.22
• The Senate Agriculture Committee reported its bill (S. 954) on May 14, 2013, by a
vote of 15-5, and the Senate passed it on June 10 by a vote of 66-27.
• The House Agriculture Committee reported its bill (H.R. 1947) on May 15, 2013, by
a vote of 36-1. The House rejected it on June 20, 2013, by a vote of 195-234.
• The House considered a revised farm bill (H.R. 2642) without a nutrition title using
the text of H.R. 1947 and incorporating adopted amendments from H.R. 1947. The
House passed it on July 11, 2013, by a vote of 216-208.
• The House passed a stand-alone nutrition bill (H.R. 3102) on September 19, 2013, by
a vote of 217-210. The House subsequently combined (via H.Res. 361) the text of
H.R. 3102 into H.R. 2642 for purposes of resolving differences with the Senate.
Baseline Projection
CBO projects that the mandatory programs of the 2008 farm bill, if they were to continue, would
cost $973 billion over the next 10 years (FY2014-FY2023). This consists of $764 billion for
nutrition programs, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and $208
billion for non-nutrition agriculture-related programs. This “baseline” already has been reduced
by $6.4 billion to reflect the effects of sequestration over the 10-year baseline, all of which has
come from the agriculture-related portion since SNAP is generally exempt from sequestration.
Scores of the Bills
Compared to this post-sequestration baseline, the Senate farm bill (S. 954) would reduce
spending by $17.9 billion (-1.8%) over 10 years.23 The House farm bill (H.R. 2642, as combined
from H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3102) would reduce spending by $51.9 billion (-5.3%) over 10 years.24
For nutrition programs, the Senate bill’s reduction is $3.9 billion (-0.5%) over 10 years; the
House bill’s reduction in nutrition is $39.0 billion (-5.1%) over 10 years.25
For the agriculture-related (non-nutrition) portion of the bill, the Senate bill’s reduction is $13.9
billion (-6.7%) over 10 years. The House bill’s reduction is $12.9 billion (-6.2%) over 10 years.26
22 In 2012, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees marked up drafts for a 2012 farm bill. The Senate passed S.
3240 on June 21, 2012, by a vote of 64-35. The House Agriculture Committee reported H.R. 6083 on July 11, 2012, by
a vote of 35-11; however, House floor action never occurred. A one-year extension was enacted (P.L. 112-240).
23 CBO cost estimate of S. 954 as reported (http://cbo.gov/publication/44248, May 17, 2013).
24 The earlier House Agriculture committee-reported bill, H.R. 1947, which failed on the House floor, would have
reduced spending by $33.4 billion over 10 years, with $20.5 billion from nutrition. CBO cost estimate of H.R. 1947 as
reported (http://cbo.gov/publication/44271, May 23, 2013).
25 CBO cost estimate of H.R. 3102 as introduced (http://cbo.gov/publication/44583, September 16, 2013).
26 CBO cost estimate of H.R. 2642 as introduced (http://cbo.gov/publication/44414, July 11, 2013), and a supplemental
CBO score of Title I of H.R. 2642, as passed (unpublished).
Congressional Research Service
12
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
The net reduction in each bill is composed of some titles receiving more funding than in the past,
while other titles would receive less funding. The latter provide budgetary offsets to pay for titles
with increased spending, and the rest contributes to deficit reduction. Figure 5 illustrates the
budgetary impacts of changes to each title in each bill. Table 3 contains the data in tabular form
and includes an estimate of the proposed outlays under the draft legislation.
• Under the Senate bill, seven titles would receive a combined $7.3 billion increase
relative to their baselines, and four titles would offer a combined budgetary reduction
of $25.2 billion. The net reduction is $17.9 billion over the 10-year period.
• Under the combined House bills, seven titles would receive a combined $10.6 billion
increase relative to their baselines, and three titles would offer a combined budgetary
reduction of $62.5 billion. The net reduction is $51.9 billion over the 10-year period.
Figure 5. Ten-Year Scores of the Senate and House 2013 Farm Bills
(change in outlays over FY2014-FY2023 in billions of dollars by farm bill title, relative to baseline)
Source: CRS, using CBO cost estimates of S. 954 (http://cbo.gov/publication/44248, May 17, 2013), H.R. 2642
(http://cbo.gov/publication/44414, July 11, 2013), H.R. 3102 (http://cbo.gov/publication/44583, September 16,
2013), and a supplemental CBO score of Title I of H.R. 2642, as passed (unpublished).
Notes: Incorporates into the Horticulture title in each bill the scores of promotion orders classified as revenue.
Congressional Research Service
13
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Table 3. 2013 Farm Bill Budget: Baseline, Scores, and Proposed Outlays, by Title
(outlays in millions of dollars, 10-year total FY2014-FY2023)
CBO Score of Bill
Outlays Proposed
(change to baseline)
(Baseline + Score)
CBO
Senate
House
Senate
House
2013 Farm Bill Titles
baseline
S. 954
H.R. 2642
S. 954
H.R. 2642
I Commodities
58,765
-17,442
-18,701
41,323
40,064
II Conservation
61,567
-3,511
-4,827
58,056
56,740
III Trade
3,435
150
150
3,585
3,585
IV Nutrition
764,432
-3,944
-38,999
760,488
725,433
V Credit
-2,240
0
0
-2,240
-2,240
VI
Rural
Development
13 228 96 241 109
VII
Research
111 781 760 892 871
VIII
Forestry
3 10 5 13 8
IX Energy
243
880
0
1,123
243
X Horticulture
1,061
250
a 555
a 1,311 1,616
XI Crop
Insurance
84,105
4,999
8,914
89,104
93,019
XII Miscel aneous
(NAP)
1,410
-294
161
1,116
1,571
Total
972,905 -17,893 -51,886
955,012
921,019
Nutrition (Title IV)
764,432
-3,944
-38,999
760,488
725,433
Non-nutrition
208,473
-13,949
-12,887
194,524
195,586
Source: CRS, using the CBO baseline (May 2013, at http://cbo.gov/publication/44177) and CBO cost estimates
of S. 954 (http://cbo.gov/publication/44248, May 17, 2013), H.R. 2642 (http://cbo.gov/publication/44414, July 11,
2013), H.R. 3102 (http://cbo.gov/publication/44583, September 16, 2013), and a supplemental CBO score of Title
I of H.R. 2642, as passed (unpublished).
a. Incorporates into the Horticulture title the scores of promotion orders that are classified as revenue.
One of the most noticeable budget differences between House and Senate bills is the reduction
proposed for the nutrition title, with the Senate bill reducing it by $3.9 billion over 10 years and
the House bill reducing it by $39.0 billion. This $35.1 billion difference between the Senate and
House bills has emerged as one of the most important political issues for the farm bill in 2013.27
For crop insurance and the farm commodity programs—together considered by many the farm
“safety net”28—the combined reduction is larger in the Senate bill than in the House bill: a
combined reduction of $12.4 billion in the Senate bill and $9.8 billion in the House bill. Although
the House bill makes a bigger net reduction to the farm commodity programs than the Senate bill,
it increases crop insurance by more than the difference. For the commodity programs, both bills
recognize nearly $47 billion of savings by repealing direct payments, counter-cyclical payments,
and the average crop revenue election (Table 4 and Table 5). But both create new counter
cyclical-type payment programs in their place and reauthorize certain disaster assistance
27 See CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits.
28 See CRS Report R42759, Farm Safety Net Provisions in a 2013 Farm Bill: S. 954 and H.R. 2642.
Congressional Research Service
14
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
programs that together cost relatively more in the Senate bill ($29.6 billion) than in the House bill
($27.6 billion). For crop insurance, the House bill increases benefits more than the Senate bill,
providing $3.9 billion more in new funding than the Senate bill. The net result for the combined
safety net is that the House bill would spend $2.7 billion more than the Senate bill. That is,
proposed 10-year safety net outlays in the combined farm commodities and crop insurance titles
would be about $133.1 billion under the House bill, and $130.4 billion under the Senate bill.
Conservation changes are similar in many regards between the bills, though the House bill saves
$1.3 billion more than the Senate bill in Title II. Most of the other titles receive more funding in
the Senate bill than in the House bill, particularly the energy title. The horticulture title budget
fares relatively better in the House bill than in the Senate bill.
Figure 6 (for the Senate bill) and Figure 7 (for the House bill) illustrate the same budgetary
changes by farm bill title, but for each year. Table 4 (Senate) and Table 5 (House) present the
detailed cost estimates of each bill, relative to the baseline, as estimated by CBO.29 These year-
by-year tables and figures reveal additional differences between the House and Senate bills.
For example, net budgetary savings from the commodity title would not begin until FY2015, the
second year of the scoring window. Agricultural disaster payments begin in FY2014, and the
repeal of direct payments is not felt until FY2015 because direct payments for the 2013 crop year
(authorized under the extension of the 2008 farm bill and according to statute) are to be paid in
FY2014, which is the first year of the new farm bill budget window. Payments for the new farm
commodity program do not occur until FY2016. Later, a cumulative limit on new farm program
payments in the House bill is scored so that it reduces outlays in FY2020 (revealing more of the
repeal of direct payments) and defers those payments until FY2021 (balancing the program over
those two years). Also, changes to both crop insurance and conservation grow gradually over
time, with more of the effect in the second five years. In fact, conservation has additional
spending in the first three years, relative to the baseline, before savings occur in years 4-10.
Net Projected Outlays
In terms of total net projected outlays (that is, the baseline plus the score), the Senate bill would
spend an estimated $955 billion over 10 years, of which $195 billion is for the agriculture-related
portion. The House bill would spend $921 billion over 10 years, of which $196 billion for the
agriculture-related portion.30
Figure 8 illustrates these amounts relative to the current law baseline. The first stacked bar is the
same $973 billion baseline distribution from Figure 2. The Senate bill’s $17.9 billion reduction
over 10 years would reduce expected outlays to $955 billion over the FY2014-FY2023 period
(the second bar). The House bills’ combined $51.9 billion reduction would reduce expected
outlays to $921 billion (the third bar).
29 Since CBO has not released a section-by-section score of H.R. 2642, the details that are provided in able 5 generally
are the CBO score of H.R. 1947. Because of the similarities between H.R. 1947 and H.R. 2642, the scores are the same
at the title level except for the farm commodity and horticulture titles; differences are noted within able 5.
30 The net spending by the farm bill proposals over the next 10 years, if the bills were enacted, would be the same
whether one quotes pre- or post-sequestration estimates. Both the baseline and the score would increase by the same
amount if sequestration were repealed, leaving the net spending the same.
Congressional Research Service
15
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Figure 6. Score of the 2013 Senate Farm Bill S. 954, by Title and Fiscal Year
(change in outlays in billions of dol ars by farm bil title, relative to baseline)
Source: CRS, using CBO cost estimates of S. 954, May 17, 2013.
Figure 7. Score of the 2013 House Farm Bill H.R. 2642, by Title and Fiscal Year
(change in outlays in billions of dol ars by farm bil title, relative to baseline)
Source: CRS, using CBO cost estimates of H.R. 2642 (July 11, 2013), H.R. 3102 (September 16, 2013), and a
supplemental CBO score of Title I of H.R. 2642, as passed (unpublished).
Congressional Research Service
16
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Figure 8. Ten-Year Farm Bill Baseline, and Proposed Outlays under the 2013 Senate
and House Farm Bills (S. 954 and H.R. 2642)
(outlays over FY2014-FY2023 in billions of dollars by farm bill title)
Source: CRS, using the CBO May 2013 baseline, and CBO cost estimates of S. 954 (May 17, 2013), H.R. 2642
(July 11, 2013), and H.R. 3102 (September 16, 2013).
Additional Observations
Nutrition and the Farm Safety Net as Shares of the 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
billion out of a $604 billion 10-year projected total).31 Five years later, it is 79% of the total ($764
billion out of a $973 billion 10-year projected total).
This trend does not mean, however, that the nutrition programs have grown at the expense of the
agricultural programs. Likewise, over this period, Congress has not changed the farm bill to
increase nutrition spending relative to agricultural programs.
In the CBO baseline, each program is evaluated separately to determine its own expected costs
using the formulas in current law. Baseline projections rise and fall based on changes in economic
conditions, even without any action by Congress. The following bullets and text box highlight
31 See CRS Report R41195, Actual Farm Bill Spending and Cost Estimates.
Congressional Research Service
17
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
changes in budgetary expectations for SNAP and farm safety net supports from enactment of the
2008 farm bill to the 2013 CBO baseline.
• In recent years, during the recession, the nutrition program baseline rose because
food assistance needs increased as the automatic safety net triggered greater
payments to more beneficiaries according to formulas in the existing law. The
average annualized increase in the SNAP baseline over five years was +13.5%.
• At the same time, the crop insurance baseline increased as expected agricultural
market prices rose and caused the insured value of crops (and thus premium
subsidies) to grow. The average annualized increase in the crop insurance baseline
over five years was +12.3%.
• Conversely, farm commodity program baseline fell as those market prices rose and
less counter-cyclical price support was expected. The average annualized change in
the farm commodity program baseline over five years was -7.2%. The average
annualized change in the combined farm safety net over five years was +1.5%.
Thus, the CBO baseline reflects current economic 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.
Changes in the SNAP and Agriculture Program Baseline: FY2008-FY2013
2008 Baseline
After Enactment
of 2008 Farm Bill
2013 Baseline
Average
annualized
$ billion
$ billion
change from
Farm bill titles
10 years Percent 10 years Percent
2008-2013
Total: all farm bill programs
604
100%
973
100%
+10.0%
Nutrition
406
67%
764
79%
+13.5%
Non-nutrition
198
33%
208
21%
+1.1%
Crop insurance
47
8%
84
9%
+12.3%
Farm commodities
86
14%
59
6%
-7.2%
Subtotal, farm safety net
133
22%
143
15%
+1.5%
Conservation
55
9%
62
6%
+2.4%
Inflation (GDP price index)
109
118
+1.6%
Source: CRS, using CBO May 2013 baseline and CRS Report R41195, Actual Farm Bill Spending and Cost Estimates.
Farm Bill Programs Without Baseline
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
Congressional Research Service
18
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
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.32
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. In lieu of mandatory funding, the
extension of the farm bill made numerous “authorizations of appropriations” to allow
discretionary funding for FY2013, but this did not provide funding. Discretionary funding,
subject to availability in a tight budget environment, conceptually could have been provided (but
was not) by the appropriations committees in the FY2013 Agriculture appropriation (P.L. 113-6).
Many of the programs without baseline would receive mandatory funding in the five-year farm
bills being developed in the 113th Congress. The Senate-passed farm bill would provide more than
$4.5 billion of mandatory funding (over five years) for 25 of the programs. The combination of
House-passed farm bills would provide about $4.9 billion of mandatory funding (over five years)
to 14 of the programs.33
Also, Table 4 and Table 5 indicate which programs in a new farm bill might become future
concerns because of this issue. The scores for the second five-year period of the budget horizon
(FY2019-FY2023) reveal which programs would receive baseline funding beyond the expected
five-year life of a new farm bill and which would receive baseline only for the initial five-year
window of the bill. 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 is an issue for all of the programs in the Senate bill’s energy and rural
development titles, the farmers market promotion program, and outreach for socially
disadvantaged farmers, among other programs. The House bill has similar issues, such as for
organic research and extension, the beginning farmers development program, the farmers market
promotion program, and value-added marketing grants, among other programs.
For more background, see CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget
Baseline.
Possible Expiration and Reversion to Permanent Law
The farm commodity programs could become more expensive if left to expire and 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).
No official estimates exist for 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.
32 CRS Report R41433, Expiring Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline.
33 Ibid, in Table 1.
Congressional Research Service
19
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Budget Sequestration
CBO has said that if sequestration were repealed, the savings scored by the bills would be greater
by the amount of sequestration.34 That is, if the baseline were increased by the $6.4 billion
adjustment that has already occurred (restoring the baseline to what would have been $979
billion), then the farm bill proposals would reduce spending by $24 billion (Senate bill) and $58
billion (House bills combined) over the next 10 years.
Such larger amounts of spending reductions sometimes have been referenced in the press,
especially for the Senate bill, an earlier House bill (H.R. 1947), and the 2012 farm bill proposals.
While the bills would save these amounts if there were no sequestration, the sequestration
reductions have occurred without any farm bill action and would remain in effect notwithstanding
other action. Unless separate sequestration reversal legislation is enacted, the marginal effects of
the farm bill proposals are the official CBO scores such as in Table 3.
Moreover, since restoring the sequestration reduction to the baseline would increase the savings
in the bills by the same amount as sequestration adjustment, the net spending by the two farm bill
proposals (baseline plus score) over the next 10 years would be the same whether one quotes pre-
or post-sequestration estimates.
Perspective on Scores and Broad Deficit Reduction Proposals
Several government-wide deficit reduction proposals have included agricultural programs (see the
Appendix). These proposals sometimes are seen to have affected the level of savings in the
current farm bill proposals, either in the total amount or in the components.
The $24 billion in savings in S. 954—if sequestration reductions were restored—is consistent
with the score of the 2012 Senate farm bill proposal ($23.1 billion) and the savings proposed by
the House and Senate Agriculture committees for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction (a.k.a. the Super Committee) in the fall of 2011. The reduction in S. 954 from the
nutrition title (which is not affected by sequestration) is 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 $12.4 billion of net savings in S. 954 from the
farm commodity program and crop insurance.
For the House bill, the evolution of scores begins with the July 2012 score of $35.1 billion of
savings for H.R. 6083 being consistent with the $33.2 billion of reconciliation instructions in the
FY2013 House budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 112) 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 more than half of the savings in
the subsequent farm bill proposals have been from nutrition programs.
In 2013, H.R. 1947 proposed to make $33.4 billion of reductions, about the same as year’s
proposals on first blush. But the bill’s effective reduction before the adjustment for sequestration
implied a greater than last year, sometimes stated as high as $39 billion. Compared to the 2012
34 The effect of sequestration on the baseline is explained in the initial CBO estimates of the farm bill drafts prior to
markup for the Senate farm bill (p. 2 and Table 4, at http://cbo.gov/publication/44175, May 13, 2013) and the House
bill (p. 2 and Table 4, at http://cbo.gov/publication/44177, May 13, 2013).
Congressional Research Service
20
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
House proposal, H.R. 1947 raised the proposed nutrition reduction from $16.1 billion to $20.5
billion. When H.R. 1947 failed to pass the House, H.R. 3102 increased the proposed nutrition
reduction to $39 billion, and the combined reduction in H.R. 3102 and H.R. 2642 to $52 billion.
Thus, each iteration of the House proposal has taken the House bill further away from the Senate
proposal’s budget effect.
Effect on Discretionary Spending
Separate from the mandatory spending figures above, the CBO cost estimates include a projection
of discretionary appropriations that would be needed to carry out the authorized farm bill
programs. For S. 954 and H.R. 1947, CBO estimated that $30.1 billion and $27.4 billion of
discretionary appropriations, respectively, would be needed over the five-year period FY2014-
FY2018. (A corresponding estimate was not made for H.R. 2642, but it would be similar to that
for H.R. 1947 given the similarity in provisions between H.R. 1947 and H.R. 2642.)
However, not all of these amounts represent new programs or spending, since much of the totals
are for reauthorizing programs that already are appropriated in the annual Agriculture
appropriations bill (e.g., agricultural research). Moreover, these amounts would be subject to
annual decisions by the budget committees and the appropriations committees, and may not
actually be the indicated amounts.
Congressional Research Service
21
Table 4. Score of Mandatory Programs in the Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
(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
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-18,152
-40,842
Repeal Countercyclical Payments
0
0
-117
-182
-190
-215
-217
-207
-197
-194
-489
-1,519
Repeal Average Crop Revenue Election Payments
0
0
-1,336
-696
-462
-424
-413
-454
-429
-505
-2,494
-4,719
Popcorn as a Covered Commodity
0
9
11
12
10
10
10
10
11
11
42
94
Adverse Market Payments
0
0
399
433
419
369
360
362
357
361
1,251
3,060
Agricultural Risk Coverage
0
0
3,632
3,875
3,483
2,704
2,385
2,617
2,408
2,646
10,990
23,749
Nonr
ecourse M
arketing As
sistance Loans
0
6
7
5
5
4
4
6
6
5
23
48
Sugar
Program
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dairy Program
-34
-20
-9
34
57
14
94
58
59
49
28
302
Supplemental Agriculture Disaster Assistance
424
364
201
197
197
197
199
200
201
202
1,383
2,382
Administration a 82
6
-11
-11
-10
-10
-10
-11
-11
-11
56
3
a
Subtotal, Title I
472
-4,173
-1,761
-871
-1,029
-1,889
-2,126
-1,957
-2,133
-1,974
-7,362
-17,442
Title II - Conservation
Conservation Reserve Program
25
37
-31
-217
-324
-446
-364
-434
-458
-519
-510
-2,731
Conservation Stewardship Program
-7
-50
-87
-130
-173
-221
-265
-308
-351
-394
-447
-1,986
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
-39
-31
-8
-4
1
4
7
27
28
28
-81
13
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
57
191
289
319
214
112
76
66
57
57
1,070
1,438
Regional Cons
ervation Par
tnership
Program
3
5
6
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
26
61
Other Cons
ervation P
rograms
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
CRS-22
Fiscal year
5- and 10-year total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Repeal of Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
-17
-35
-44
-53
-61
-70
-79
-79
-79
-79
-210
-596
Subtotal, Title II
190
135
143
-62
-318
-604
-608
-711
-786
-890
88
-3,511
Title III - Trade
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
75
150
Title IV - Nutrition
Food Dist
ribution on Indian Rese
rvations
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
29
60
Standard Utility Allowances
-90
-400
-440
-450
-450
-450
-450
-450
-460
-470
-1,830
-4,110
Retail Food Stores
-7
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-39
-79
Funding of Emp
loyment and
Training P
rograms
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
26
Emergency Food Assistance
22
18
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
54
Retailer Tr
afficking
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
Hung
er-Free Comm
unities
6
14
19
20
22
14
5
0
0
0
81
100
Subtotal, Title IV
-55
-363
-408
-424
-429
-437
-446
-451
-461
-470
-1,679
-3,944
Title V - Credit
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Title VI - Rural Development
Value-Added Marketing Grants
0
5
8
12
13
13
8
4
0
0
38
63
Rural Microen
terprise
Program
1
2
3
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
12
15
Rural Water and Waste D
isposal
8
30
42
30
21
13
6
0
0
0
131
150
Sub
total, Title VI
9
37
53
45
37
28
15
4
0
0
181
228
Title VII - Research, Extension, and Related Matters
Organic Ag
riculture R
esearch and E
xtension
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
CRS-23
Fiscal year
5- and 10-year total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Fou
ndation for Food and Ag
riculture R
esearch
20
40
40
60
40
0
0
0
0
0
200
200
Subtotal, Title VII
45
84
99
141
123
74
61
53
50
50
492
781
Title VIII - Forestry
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
10
Title IX - Energy
Bior
efinery Ass
istance
0
30
47
55
44
25
12
3
0
0
176
216
Rural Energy for America Program
14
42
60
68
68
56
26
6
0
0
252
340
Biomass Research and Development
1
5
16
25
26
25
21
10
1
0
73
130
B
iomass Crop Ass
istance P
rogram
4
12
20
27
31
29
23
16
8
4
94
174
Other Energy P
rograms
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
Subtotal, Title IX
23
93
147
179
173
135
82
35
9
4
615
880
Title X - Horticulture
Farmers Market and Local Food Pr
omotion
20
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
Coordinated Plant 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
0
-2
-2
-3
-5
-7
-7
-10
-10
-5
-44
Subtotal, Title X outlays
32
39
41
42
43
23
21
22
20
20
197
304
Revenue: Organic Product Promotion Orders
0
-2
-4
-4
-5
-5
-7
-7
-10
-10
-15
-54
Subtotal, Title X
32
37
37
38
38
18
14
15
10
10
182
250
Title XI - Crop Insurance
Supplemental Coverage Option
14
141
187
208
256
266
287
286
300
303
806
2,247
Catastrophic Crop Insurance Rerating
-4
-38
-50
-52
-52
-53
-54
-55
-55
-56
-196
-469
Ent
erprise Units Irriganted/Nonir
rigated Crops
5
47
62
63
64
66
68
69
71
72
241
586
Adjustment in Average Producer History Yields
1
9
21
33
45
56
59
60
61
62
108
406
CRS-24
Fiscal year
5- and 10-year total
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Stacked Income Protection for Cotton
36
350
378
308
386
409
439
451
468
466
1,459
3,693
Peanut R
evenue Crop Ins
urance
3
26
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
119
269
Impleme
ntation
2
21
16
15
15
14
2
0
0
0
69
85
Be
ginning
Farmer Pro
visions
2
20
26
28
31
34
35
36
36
36
106
283
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
0
0
-2
-3
-5
-8
-8
-8
-8
-5
-42
Participation Effects of Commodity Programs
0
-28
-277
-331
-301
-241
-213
-224
-212
-210
-938
-2,038
Other
2
21
28
29
30
28
8
5
3
2
110
156
Subtotal, Title XI
61
563
409
311
477
579
629
626
669
673
1,821
4,999
Title XII - Miscellaneous
O
utreach for Social y Disadv
antaged
Farmers
5
8
10
10
10
5
2
0
0
0
43
50
Sheep Pro
duction and M
arketing 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
12
57
-26
-42
-42
-47
-50
-52
-52
-52
-41
-294
Net Impact on the Deficit
806
-3,514
-1,292
-669
-954
-2,127
-2,412
-2,422
-2,677
-2,633
-5,622
-17,894
Source: CBO cost estimate of S. 954 as reported by the Senate Agriculture committee (http://cbo.gov/publication/44248, May 17, 2013),
a. The “administration” entry for Title I combines savings from a payment limitations provision (-$94 mil ion over 10 years) and a provision for the cost of
implementation (+$97 million over the first two years). The net cost is $3 million over 10 years.
CRS-25
Table 5. Score of Mandatory Programs in the House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642, as combined with H.R. 3102)
(change in annual outlays in millions of dollars, relative to baseline)
Fiscal year
5- and 10-year totals
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Title I - Commodity Programs
Repeal Direct Payments
0
-4,095
-4,158
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-4,538
-17,329
-40,019
Repeal Countercyclical Payments
0
0
-117
-182
-190
-215
-217
-207
-197
-194
-489 -1,519
Repeal Average Crop Revenue Election Payments
0
0
-1,336
-696
-462
-424
-413
-454
-429
-505
-2,494
-4,719
Farm Risk Management Election
0
0
3,368
3,467
3,244
2,733
293
5,010
2,563
2,693
10,079
23,371
Nonr
ecourse M
arketing As
sistance Loans
4
6
7
5
5
4
4
6
6
5
27
52
Sugar P
rogram
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dairy Program b
-40
-1
20
10
32
80
99
54
83
81
21
418
b
Supplemental Agriculture Disaster Assistance c
897
364
314
296
295
297
300
302
303
306
2,166
3,674 c
Administration d 65
35
-8
-9
-8
-7
-7
-7
-6
-7
75
41
d
Subtotal, Title I
926
-3,691
-1,910
-1,647
-1,622
-2,070
-4,479
166
-2,215
-2,159
-7,944
-18,701
Title II - Conservation
Conservation Reserve Program
20
30
-191
-354
-396
-462
-451
-468
-502
-565
-891
-3,339
Conservation Stewardship Program
-11
-85
-147
-219
-290
-372
-446
-518
-591
-663
-752 -3,342
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
30
58
72
87
101
114
128
128
128
128
348
974
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
28
149
252
285
191
83
40
27
16
16
905
1,087
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
-1
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-13
-28
Other Cons
ervation Pr
ograms
47
100
85
48
17
4
4
4
4
4
297
317
Funding
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
Repeal of Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
-17
-35
-44
-53
-61
-70
-79
-79
-79
-79
-210
-596
Subtotal, Title II
106
224
34
-199
-431
-696
-797
-899
-1,017
-1,152
-266
-4,827
CRS-26
Fiscal year
5- and 10-year totals
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Title III - Trade
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
75
150
Title IV – Nutrition (originally H.R. 3102, “Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013”)
Retailers
-7
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-39
-79
Updating 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
Standard Utility Allowances
-190
-840
-940
-950
-950
-950
-950
-960
-970
-990
-3,870
-8,690
Repeal of state work program waiver authority
-600
-3,300
-2,900
-2,500
-2,100
-1,700
-1,600
-1,500
-1,400
-1,400
-11,400
-19,000
Repeal Bonus Program
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-48
-240
-480
Pilot
Projects to Reduce Depe
ndency
3
5
10
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
Assistance for Community Food Projects
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
Emergency Food Assistance
70
71
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
209
333
Nutrition Education
-29
-28
-29
-30
-30
-31
-32
-32
-33
-34
-146
-308
Retailer Tr
afficking
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
25
50
N
orthern
Mariana Islands Pilot P
rogram
1
1
10
10
9
2
0
0
0
0
31
33
Testing ap
plicants for con
trol ed sub
stances
*
*
*
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-10
-35
Disqualifications for certain convicted felons
*
*
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
-4
-5
-4
-21
Expungement of unused SNAP benefits
-5
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-45
-95
Pilots to promote work, increase accountability
28
23
18
12
4
-2
-9
-16
-23
-31
85
4
Interactions
15
105
100
95
80
70
70
60
60
60
395
715
Subtotal, Title IV
-1,282
-5,309
-5,056
-4,657
-4,261
-3,865
-3,756 -3,,657
-3,566
-3,590
-20,565
-38,999
Title V -
Credit
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CRS-27
Fiscal year
5- and 10-year totals
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Title VI - Rural Development
Rural Econ. Devel
opment Loans and Grants
0
2
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
17
46
Value
-Added M
arketing Grants
0
18
15
15
2
0
0
0
0
0
50
50
Su
btotal, Title VI
0
20
20
20
7
5
6
6
6
6
67
96
Title VII - Research, Extension, and Related Matters
Organic Agr
iculture R
esearch and Ex
tension
10
16
20
20
20
10
4
0
0
0
86
100
Specialty Crop Research
26
40
53
54
60
63
65
65
65
65
232
555
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development
5
10
16
20
20
15
10
4
0
0
71
100
Acceptance of Facility for Agric. Research
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
5
Subtotal, Title VII
41
67
90
95
101
89
79
69
65
65
394
760
Title VIII - Forestry
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
Title IX -
Energy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Title X - Horticulture
Farmers Market and Local Food Pro
motion
30
30
30
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
150
150
Sp
ecialty Crop Block
Grants
9
16
18
18
24
29
30
30
30
30
83
232
Plant Pest and Disease Management
3
8
9
10
16
20
22
24
25
25
46
161
Organic Product M
arketing Order
0
1
4
6
8
8
9
10
13
16
19
76
Subtotal, Title X outlays
42
55
61
64
77
57
61
64
68
71
298
619
Re
venue: O
rganic Prod. Pro
motion
Orders
0
-2
-4
-4
-5
-5
-7
-7
-10
-10
-15
-54
Revenue: Christmas Tree Promotion Orders
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-10
Subtotal, Title X outlays and revenue
42
53
56
59
71
51
53
56
56
59
280
555
CRS-28
Fiscal year
5- and 10-year totals
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2014-18 2014-23
Title XI - Crop Insurance
Supplemental Coverage Option
26
254
335
366
433
454
484
484
502
511
1,414
3,850
Catastrophic Crop Insurance Rerating
-4
-38
-50
-52
-52
-53
-54
-55
-55
-56
-196
-469
Enterprise Units Irrigated and Nonirrigated
5
47
62
63
64
66
68
69
71
72
241 586
Adjustment in Avg. Producer History Yields
2
21
49
75
102
129
137
139
141
143
248
936
Equitable Relief for Specialty Crop Producers
127
36
37
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
205
205
Crop Production Native Sod Prairie Pothole
0
-4
-8
-11
-15
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
-38
-118
Coverage Level by Practice
0
2
17
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
60 168
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Provisions
2
20
26
28
31
34
35
36
36
36
106
283
Stacked Income Protection for Cotton
36
350
378
308
386
409
439
451
468
466
1,459
3,693
Peanut Re
venue Crop Ins
urance
3
26
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
119
269
Implem
entation
2
21
16
15
15
14
2
0
0
0
69
85
Participation Effects of Commodity Programs
0
-9
-87
-104
-92
-63
-52
-60
-54
-53
-291 -574
Subtotal, Title XI
199
725
805
744
923
1,024
1,093
1,101
1,145
1,155
3,396
8,914
Title XII - Miscellaneous
O
utreach to Social y Disadv
antaged
5
8
10
10
10
5
2
0
0
0
43
50
Noni
nsured Crop Ass
istance Pr
ogram
1
11
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
51
111
Sub
total, Title XII
6
19
23
23
22
17
14
12
12
12
94
161
Net Impact on the Deficit
54
-7,876
-5,922
-5,546
-5,174
-5,430
-7,772
-3,131
-5,499
-5,589
-24,464
-51,886
Nutrition programs (Title IV)
-1,282
-5,309
-5,056
-4,657
-4,261
-3,865
-3,756
-3,657
-3,566
-3,590
-20,565
-38,999
Non-nutrition programs (Other titles except IV)
1,336
-2,567
-866
-889
-913
-1,565
-4,016
-526
-1,933
-1,999
-3,899 -12,887
Source: CRS, using the CBO cost estimates of H.R. 2642 (http://cbo.gov/publication/44414, July 11, 2013), H.R. 3102 (http://cbo.gov/publication/44583, September 16,
2013), H.R. 1947 (http://cbo.gov/publication/44271, May 23, 2013), and a supplemental CBO score of Title I of H.R. 2642, as passed (unpublished).
CRS-29
Note: * = savings of less than $500,000. Since CBO has not released a section-by-section score of H.R. 2642, the section-by-section details in this table were compiled
from the CBO score of H.R. 1947, and a supplemental CBO score of Title I and Title X, as passed (unpublished). H.R. 1947 and H.R. 2642 were very similar except for
the absence of the nutrition title; the CBO scores of the titles for the two bills were the same except for the farm commodity and horticulture titles.
a. Since CBO has not released a section-by-section score of H.R. 2642, the section-by-section details for H.R. 2642 in this table were obtained from the CBO score of
H.R. 1947. Because H.R. 1947 and H.R. 2642 are very similar except for the nutrition title, the CBO scores of the titles for the two bills are the same except for the
farm commodity and horticulture titles. Differences are noted in the subtotals of the two affected titles, and remain unexplained.
b. The “dairy program” entry for Title I combines repeal of product price support and MILC (-$212 mil ion over 10 years), repeal of the dairy export incentives
program (-$50 million over 10 years), basic margin protection (+$463 million over 10 years), and supplemental margin protection (+217 million over 10 years).
c. The “supplemental agriculture disaster assistance” entry for Title I combines amounts for the Livestock Forage Program (+$2,920 million over10 years), Livestock
Indemnity Program (+$421 million over 10 year), Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Bees, and Farm Fish (+$233 million over 10 years), Tree Assistance Program
(+$103 million over 10 years), and payment limitations on these payments (-$3 million over 10 years).
d. The “administration” entry for Title I combines savings from a payment limitations provision (-$59 mil ion over 10 years) and a provision for the cost of
implementation (+$100 million over the first two years). The net cost is $41 million over 10 years.
CRS-30
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Appendix. Broad Deficit Reduction Proposals
In February 2010, President Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility
and Reform to identify changes to balance the budget. Since then, several other government-wide
proposals have been made and most have included agriculture to some extent (Table A-1).
In these government-wide deficit reduction proposals, cuts from the agriculture committees’
baseline range from $10 billion in the President’s Fiscal Commission, $30 billion in the
Bipartisan Policy Center plan, and $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 to the Joint Select Committee of Deficit Reduction.
Each of these proposals specifically recommended some reduction to the farm commodity
programs or crop insurance, and sometimes to export promotion and conservation. Only a subset
recommended reductions to nutrition programs. Together, they represent a range of common ideas
and the visibility of the agriculture and nutrition spending for deficit reduction.
Table A-1. 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. 34,
[2012-2021]
assistance programs.
-$30 billion
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
Congressional Research Service
31
Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013
Total
Individual
Farm Bill
Savings (-) or
Proposal
Reduction Detailed
Provisions Costs (+)
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. 112,
[2013-2022]
Reduce direct payments, crop insurance subsidies, and
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:
(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
32