Expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill and Extension February 23, 2024
in 2024
Jim Monke
The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of agricultural and food
Specialist in Agricultural
programs. It provides an opportunity for policymakers to address a broad range of agricultural
Policy
and food issues about every five years. On November 19, 2023, Congress enacted a one-year

extension (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102) of the current farm bill (the Agriculture Improvement
Megan Stubbs
Act of 2018; P.L. 115-334). The 2018 farm bill expired on September 30, 2023, and with the
Specialist in Agricultural
2023 crop year (crops harvested in 2023). The extension continues authorizations until
Conservation and Natural
September 30, 2024, and for the 2024 crop year.
Resources Policy

Recent farm bills have faced legislative hurdles for enactment, such as insufficient votes to pass
the House floor, presidential vetoes, and delays resulting in short-term extensions. The 2002 farm
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Specialist in Nutrition
bill expired at the end of 2007, and parts were extended in the spring of 2008. The 2008 farm bill
Assistance Policy
expired at the end of 2012 and was extended for one year in 2013. The 2014 farm bill was not

extended because the 2018 farm bill was enacted during the period between the end of the fiscal
year and the end of the calendar year. In 2023, no markups or legislative action occurred to

reauthorize the farm bill besides the extension.
The timing and consequences of the farm bill expiring vary by program across the breadth of the act. There are two new
principal expiration dates: September 30, 2024, and December 31, 2024. The major issues and consequences for expiration
are the following:
• For programs with mandatory funding that is provided by the farm bill and for provisions that expire at the
end of FY2024, authority to operate may cease.
• For programs with a fiscal year authorization that are funded with discretionary appropriations, or for
programs with mandatory spending authorized but not appropriated by the farm bill—such as the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—an appropriations act or continuing resolution could
allow operations to continue.
• For the farm commodity and dairy support programs that expire after the 2024 crop year, the consequences
of expiration begin on January 1, 2025, when inactive and outdated laws—commonly called “permanent
law”—would be restored for dairy, the first commodity affected in the new crop year.
• Some programs had their expiration dates extended beyond the expiration of the farm bill by other
legislation. P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, extended some—but
not all—conservation programs through FY2031.
• Some programs, such as crop insurance, are permanently authorized, do not expire, and would not be
affected by farm bill expiration.
For the farm commodity programs that face consequences after January 1, 2025, permanent law refers to a set of non-
expiring provisions from the 1938 and 1949 farm bills that remain in statute but are temporarily suspended by each recent
farm bill. Permanent law does not recognize relationships in productivity gains and technological advances in agriculture. It
is inconsistent with modern government policies that reduce the effects of market intervention and that meet U.S. obligations
in the World Trade Organization. Permanent law would support dairy, wheat, rice, cotton, and corn but would not support
soybeans, peanuts, and sugar, among other commodities. If the permanent law suspension were to expire, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) would be required to implement permanent law, which is likely more expensive to the
government and consumers than the current farm bill. Under permanent law, USDA would be required to support eligible
commodities at levels that exceed 2024 market prices. USDA has found during previous farm bill reauthorizations that
billions of dollars of additional government expenditures could occur if the suspension were to expire.
The one-year extension during 2024 continues all of the 2018 farm bill authorities that were in effect at the end of FY2023
for all of FY2024 and the 2024 crop year. The extension provides $177 million of mandatory funding, with offsets, to 19 of
the 21 programs from the 2018 farm bill that did not have continuing funding.

Congressional Research Service

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Farm Bill Expiration: Timing and Effects Vary
The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of agricultural and food
programs. It provides an opportunity for policymakers to periodically address a broad range of
agricultural and food issues about every five years. In the past, farm bills have focused primarily
on farm commodity program support for a handful of staple commodities—corn, soybeans,
wheat, cotton, rice, dairy, and sugar. In recent decades, farm bills have expanded in scope. A
nutrition title was added in 1973, and other prominent titles include conservation, horticulture,
credit, research, rural development, and bioenergy programs.1
Recent farm bills have faced legislative hurdles for enactment, such as insufficient votes to pass
the House floor, presidential vetoes, and delays resulting in short-term extensions. The 2002 farm
bill was the last farm bill to be enacted before its fiscal year expiration. The 2008 and 2014 farm
bills were each enacted during extensions of the previous farm bill. The 2018 farm bill was
enacted without an extension during a period after its fiscal year expiration and before the farm
commodity programs reverted to outdated laws that could have taken effect.2
The timing and consequences of farm bill expiration vary by program across the breadth of the
act. The current farm bill (the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018; P.L. 115-334), as extended
for one year (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102), has provisions that begin to expire on October 1,
2024.
This report first explains timing and budget factors affecting the consequences of expiration. It
explains the extension of the farm bill and when extensions have been enacted. Then it illustrates
the concepts of expiration by discussing the authorizations for the farm commodity programs and
agricultural conservation programs, as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) and other nutrition programs that could be most affected by an expiration. Other farm bill
programs that may be affected by expiration are identified in a final heading.
Timing of Expiration
There are two principal expiration dates for the farm bill as extended: the end of the fiscal year
(September 30, 2024) and the end of the crop year (December 31, 2024).
Expiration by Fiscal Year
Expiration of a farm bill on September 30 matters for programs with fiscal year authorizations.
The effects may vary among the mandatory spending programs—including nutrition,
conservation, and other agricultural programs—and may affect some programs’ operations, as
explained through this report. The fiscal year date also affects programs with authorizations of
appropriations to receive discretionary funding but with fewer consequences.
Expiration by Crop Year
Farm commodity support programs are authorized on the basis of crop years. A crop year refers
to the calendar year during which a crop is harvested.3 The 2018 farm bill, as extended, authorizes

1 CRS In Focus IF12047, Farm Bill Primer: What Is the Farm Bill?, by Renée Johnson and Jim Monke.
2 CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-2023, by Jim Monke.
3 The end of a crop year is the last month in which a commodity is typically harvested. A marketing year is the 12
months following harvest during which a crop is typically sold and is eligible for commodity program benefits. Dairy is
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

1

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

the farm commodity programs through the 2024 crop year. The first commodity harvested with a
2025 crop year is dairy, which coincides with the calendar year beginning on January 1, 2025.
Funding Sources Affect the Consequences of Expiration
Some farm bill programs are designed to use discretionary spending (provided by appropriations
acts), and others receive mandatory funding. These differences affect the consequences of
expiration and extension.
Discretionary Funding
Discretionary programs include most rural development, credit, and research programs, as well as
some conservation and nutrition programs.4
In addition to setting policy parameters, farm bills provide authorizations of appropriations for
discretionary programs. Subsequent annual appropriations acts may or may not provide funding.
Appropriated levels may be different from authorizations of appropriations. Budget enforcement
for discretionary spending is through appropriations acts and budget resolutions.
Without a new farm bill or extension, some discretionary programs may not appear to have
statutory authority to receive appropriations.5 However, appropriations practice allows programs
to continue to operate when they receive appropriations.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has determined that there is no constitutional or
statutory requirement for appropriations to have a prior authorization.6 Congress distinguishes
between the processes of authorizing and appropriating, but this is a congressional construct.7
GAO states that “the existence of a statute imposing substantive functions upon an agency that
require funding for their performance is itself sufficient legal authorization for the necessary
appropriations.” For expired authorizations, GAO states that “appropriation of funds for a
program whose funding authorization has expired … provides sufficient legal basis to continue
the program.” Bills containing unauthorized appropriations may require waivers of House and
Senate rules to avoid being subject to a point of order on the floor.8
Mandatory Funding
Programs that rely on mandatory funding are perhaps the most at risk for interruption if a farm
bill expires. A mandatory funded program may have an expiring program authority or an expiring
funding authority. Without reauthorization or an extension, such programs generally cease to
operate or undertake new activities following a farm bill expiration. The farm commodity

the exception because milk is produced or “harvested” daily, and the current Dairy Margin Coverage program pays
producers monthly if a payment is triggered. The dairy crop year and marketing year run from January 1 until
December 31.
4 Discretionary funded farm bill nutrition programs include the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and
administrative funds for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The Special Supplemental Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) consists of discretionary funding as well but is not part of the farm bill.
5 An authorization of appropriations is a recommendation from an authorizing committee to the appropriations
committee via a law. It is nonbinding and has no bearing on budget enforcement for an authorizing bill. Appropriators
may choose not to fund a program or may choose to exceed the authorization. Authorization amounts may be specific
or indefinite (“such sums as necessary”).
6 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Chapter 2, “The Legal
Framework” (4th ed., 2016 rev.), p. 2-55, at https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/red-book.
7 CRS Report R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues, coordinated by Edward C. Liu.
8 GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Chapter 2, p. 2-80.
Congressional Research Service

2

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

programs, conservation programs, and nutrition programs that are the primary subjects of this
report represent nearly 92% of the mandatory spending available in the farm bill. The crop
insurance and disaster programs represent over 7% of the mandatory spending available.
A farm bill authorizes mandatory spending for entitlement programs and pays for it with
multiyear budget estimates when the farm bill is enacted. Budget enforcement is through
“PayGo” budget rules, baseline projections, and scores of the effects of proposed bills. The
baseline is a projection of future federal spending on mandatory programs under current law. It is
a benchmark against which proposed changes in law are measured (i.e., the score of a bill).9
Two categories of mandatory funded programs exist regarding expiration—programs with a
budget baseline and programs without a budget baseline.10 Both categories may face similar
disruption from a farm bill expiration. Not having a baseline, however, imposes budgetary costs
to reauthorize or extend a program.
For example, when Congress enacted the one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill, the expedient
compromise was for the extension bill to be budget-neutral. The major farm bill programs that
had a budget baseline were able to be extended at no additional projected budgetary cost.
Extending programs without a budget baseline would have needed budgetary offsets to provide
continued mandatory funding. Congress decided not to extend mandatory funding for programs
without a baseline.
Extension of the Farm Bill
During 2023, no markups or legislative action occurred to reauthorize the farm bill. On
November 19, 2023, Congress enacted a one-year extension (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102) of
the 2018 farm bill, which had expired on September 30, 2023, and with the 2023 crop year (crops
harvested in 2023). The extension continues authorities that were in effect at the end of FY2023
for all of FY2024 and the 2024 crop year.
(a) Extension. The authorities … of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and each
provision of law amended by that Act (and for mandatory programs at such funding levels),
as in effect on September 30, 2023, shall continue, and the authorities shall be carried out,
until the later of September 30, 2024, or the date specified in the provision of that Act or
the provision of law amended by that Act. (b) Discretionary Programs … that are funded
by discretionary appropriations … shall be subject to the availability of appropriations. (c)
Commodity Programs. In general, the provisions of law applicable to a covered
commodity, a loan commodity, sugarcane, or sugar beets for the 2023 crop year … shall
be applicable to the 2024 crop year [and] dairy margin coverage … is amended by striking
2023 and inserting 2024 (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102).
The extension of mandatory spending programs that have a budget baseline does not incur any
budgetary cost.11 This applied to most of the spending in the farm bill and for most of the
programs in the farm commodity title, conservation title, and nutrition title. The extension also
provided $177 million of new mandatory funding, while extending the authority, for 19 of the 21
programs in the 2018 farm bill that did not have a budget baseline. During the extension, such
programs generally receive one-fifth of their five-year allocation that was in the 2018 farm bill
and remain without baseline when the extension expires at the end of FY2024. The extension

9 CRS In Focus IF12233, Farm Bill Primer: Budget Dynamics, by Jim Monke.
10 CRS In Focus IF12115, Farm Bill Primer: Programs Without Baseline Beyond FY2024, by Jim Monke.
11 CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 5 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

fully offset the new mandatory funding by rescinding unobligated balances in the Biorefinery
Assistance account remaining from the 2014 and 2018 farm bills.12
Historical Examples of Extension
Extensions of a prior farm bill while its successor was being written were historically atypical but
are now common in three of the past four reauthorizations (extensions during 2008, 2013 and
2024).13
When the 2002 farm bill expired, portions of it were extended six times in spring 2008 for less
than a year in total. The first of those extensions continued authority for many expired programs
for about three months (P.L. 110-161, Division A, §751). Because final agreement was pending
on a new farm bill, five more extensions each covered periods of a week to a month (P.L. 110-
196, P.L. 110-200, P.L. 110-205, P.L. 110-208, and P.L. 110-231). With a few exceptions, these
extensions continued the 2002 farm bill provisions, including the dairy and sugar programs, but
not the price and income support programs for the other supported farm commodities that had not
yet been harvested.
When the 2008 farm bill expired in 2012, some farm bill programs ceased new operations after
October 1, 2012, and others continued under appropriations acts. Because the 112th Congress was
about to end legislatively, a one-year extension of all provisions that were in effect on September
30, 2012, was enacted to cover FY2013 and the 2013 crop year (P.L. 112-240, Title VII).
Programs without a budget baseline (see “Mandatory Funding”), however, did not continue in
FY2013 because no additional mandatory funding was provided during the extension.14 When the
one-year extension expired at the end of 2013, Congress did not renew the extension because a
conference agreement was near.
Congress did not pass any extensions of the 2014 farm bill in fall 2018. When the fiscal year
provisions of the 2014 farm bill began expiring on October 1, 2018, regular appropriations acts
allowed many programs to continue operations without specifically addressing farm bill
expiration. The 2018 farm bill was enacted on December 20, 2018, before permanent law for the
farm commodity programs would have taken effect on January 1, 2019.
With no markups or floor action in 2023 to reauthorize the farm bill, Congress enacted a one-year
extension in November 2023 after the 2018 farm bill had expired.
Farm Commodity Support Programs
Farm commodity programs in the farm bill (Title I) support farm income by making payments
and reducing financial risks from uncertain weather and market conditions. They include the
Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) program, Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP), the Price Loss
Coverage (PLC) program, the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program, and the Dairy Margin
Coverage (DMC) program. These programs make payments when market-based receipts fall

12 Ibid.
13 CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-2023, by Jim Monke.
14 CRS Report R41433, Programs Without a Budget Baseline at the End of the 2008 Farm Bill, by Jim Monke. While
the one-year extension in 2013 included new authorizations of appropriations for some of the programs without a
baseline, those authorizations went unfunded in appropriations acts.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 21 link to page 4 link to page 21 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

below support levels (government-set reference prices, revenue guarantees, or margin guarantees
above input costs).15
The last year authorized for the 2018 farm bill’s commodity programs, as extended, is the 2024
crop year—that is, crops harvested during calendar year 2024 and marketed during the 12 months
following harvest.16 Government supports for crops harvested in the 2024 crop year may be
payable until the end of the crop’s marketing year, which for corn and soybeans would end in
September 2025.17 These obligations on the 2024 crop would continue despite farm bill
expiration.
Regarding the consequences of expiration, the first commodity harvested in the 2025 crop year
(and thus not covered by the extension of the 2018 farm bill) is dairy on January 1, 2025, since
some cows are milked every day of the year. New plantings of other commodities harvested in
2025—such as wheat, corn, cotton, and rice—would not be affected until harvest in the summer
or fall of 2025, when their respective marketing years would begin.
Possible Reversion to Permanent Law
Farm bills have revised and superseded policy since the first farm bill in 1933. However, a set of
non-expiring provisions from the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agricultural Act of
1949—commonly known as “permanent law”—remain in statute suspended and inactive.
Each farm bill since the 1960s and 1970s contained a temporary suspension of permanent law.18
Some see the existence of permanent law—and the policy and budget consequences that could
result from restoring permanent law if the suspension expired—as assurance that Congress would
revisit the farm commodity programs when a farm bill expires. Recent farm bills have retained
permanent law and continued to suspend it. Some Members have proposed bills over the past
three decades to repeal or replace permanent law (see options and discussion in the Appendix).
Description of Permanent Law
The commodity support provisions of the 1938 and 1949 acts are commonly viewed as so
fundamentally different from current policy and potentially costly to the federal government that
Congress has been reluctant to let permanent law take effect. Permanent law is generally
considered inconsistent with modern farming practices, marketing systems, and international
trade agreements. Permanent law provides support based on a parity price from the 1910-1914

15 CRS In Focus IF12218, Farm Bill Primer: Farm Safety Net Programs, by Stephanie Rosch; CRS In Focus IF12114,
Farm Bill Primer: PLC and ARC Farm Support Programs, by Stephanie Rosch; CRS In Focus IF12140, Farm Bill
Primer: MAL and LDP Farm Support Programs, by Stephanie Rosch; and CRS In Focus IF12202, Farm Bill Primer:
Support for the Dairy Industry, by Joel L. Greene.
16 See footnote 3. For example, for wheat, barley, and oats, the crop year is June 1-May 31; for cotton, peanuts, and
rice, it is August 1-July 31; for sugar beets, it is September 1-August 31; for corn, sorghum, and soybeans, it is October
1-September 30. The dairy program is authorized for the calendar year. For wool, mohair, and sugarcane, the marketing
year is January 1-December 31; for honey, it is April 1-March 31.
17 Under the extension of the 2018 farm bill, Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC)
payments for the 2024 crop year are to be disbursed in October 2025, which is in FY2026. Additionally, Marketing
Assistance Loans (MALs) are loans of nine-month duration, which may begin as late as May 31, 2025, for 2024 corn
and soybean crops, and such loans may have benefits payable as late as February 2026.
18 For example, 7 U.S.C. §9092, updated in the 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334, §1702): “(a) The following provisions of
the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 … [and] the Agricultural Act of 1949 shall not be applicable to the 2014
through 2023 crops … and shall not be applicable to milk … through December 31, 2023.” See full text in the
Appendix. The extension in 2024 directs that the provisions shall not be applicable to the 2024 crops, including milk.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 link to page 10 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

period that does not recognize productivity gains and technological advances in agriculture.19
Permanent law also does not utilize modern government policy and marketing approaches to
reduce market distortions. Permanent law may require the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to purchase or take possession of commodities to raise market price levels. In contrast,
modern farm bills allow supply and demand to determine market prices and make direct
payments to producers in the event of low prices.
Not all commodities supported by the 2018 farm bill would be included under permanent law.
Permanent law would support dairy, wheat, rice, cotton, corn, and other feed grains.20 Support
would not continue for soybeans and other oilseeds, peanuts, wool, mohair, sugar beets and
sugarcane, dry peas, lentils, and small and large chickpeas.21
Permanent Law and the “Dairy Cliff”
Dairy is often mentioned concerning farm bill expiration because it would be the first commodity to revert to
permanent law, and it signals the scale of potential market and budget consequences.
Permanent law would compel USDA to purchase dairy products (whole milk, butterfat, and products of such
commodities) in quantities sufficient to raise demand so that the farm price of milk would rise to the desired
support level. Under permanent law, the mandated purchase price for milk would be $50.25 per hundredweight
(cwt., or100 pounds) based on January 2024 data, about 2.5 times (or 144% higher than) the current market price
of milk ($20.60/cwt. for all milk; Table 1).
The high purchase price under permanent law could result in the government outbidding commercial markets for
a sizeable share of dairy output. This level of intervention in the market would be expensive to the government,
expensive for consumers, and disruptive to the marketplace by changing the available shares of fluid milk, butter,
cheese, and nonfat dry milk and subsequently raising the retail price of milk. While farmers may be paid more, the
disruption may jeopardize the market for milk and dairy products. The possibility that fluid milk prices could more
than double became known as the “dairy cliff” in December 2012 during the time of the budgetary “fiscal cliff”
(see CRS Report R42884, The “Fiscal Cliff” and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, coordinated by Mindy R.
Levit).
Parity Price Support Levels and Production Controls
The parity prices used in permanent law refer to the relationship between prices that farmers
receive for their products and prices they paid for inputs during a benchmark period of 1910-
1914.22 Permanent law requires USDA to set support prices that would guarantee producers
between 50% and 90% of the parity price depending on the commodity (Table 1).23
Permanent law uses nonrecourse loans to support wheat, rice, cotton, corn, and other feed grains.
This is similar to the commodity marketing loan program authorized in the 2018 farm bill.24 At
harvest, a farmer can receive a loan for their production valued at the loan rate (price) by pledging

19 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS), Possible Economic Consequences of
Reverting to Permanent Legislation or Eliminating Price and Income Supports, AER-526, January 1985, pp. 1-2, at
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/40547/50862_aer526a.pdf?v=7772.8. See also USDA-NASS, “Prices
Paid and Received: Parity Ratio by Year,” https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Agricultural_Prices/parity.
php.
20 Feed grains refers to any of the several grains most commonly used to feed livestock, including corn, grain sorghum,
oats, rye, and barley.
21 Parity-based supports once existed for wool, mohair, and peanuts but were repealed.
22 Parity prices are computed pursuant to provisions in Title III, §301(a), of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as
amended by the Agricultural Acts of 1948, 1949, and 1956. Permanent law requires USDA to regularly estimate and
publish parity prices (see USDA-NASS, Agricultural Prices, monthly).
23 7 U.S.C. §1441; 7 U.S.C. §1444; 7 U.S.C. §1444b; 7 U.S.C. §1445; 7 U.S.C. §1446.
24 CRS In Focus IF12140, Farm Bill Primer: MAL and LDP Farm Support Programs, by Stephanie Rosch.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

the crop as collateral. If market prices remain below the loan rate during the nine-month duration
of the loan, the producer may forfeit the collateral of a nonrecourse loan, surrender the crop to the
government, and keep the principal amount. Historically, grain forfeitures were expensive and
challenging for USDA to manage. To avoid forfeiture problems from the government taking
possession of large quantities of grain, USDA has permanent authority allowing farmers to repay
nonrecourse loans for less than the principal (loan rate), plus interest, similarly as with marketing
loans in the modern commodity program.25 The approach of encouraging producers to market
their commodities to repay the loans yet receive a supported price has reduced government
storage costs and improved the market for processors.
Production controls also exist for wheat and cotton. Permanent law would require USDA to
announce acreage allotments and to hold producer referenda on implementing marketing quotas.
This can result in farmers not planting land in order to qualify for support payments. A two-thirds
affirmative vote for marketing quotas results in the highest levels of support and mandatory
acreage and quantity restrictions.
Table 1. Parity Prices and Permanent Law Support Prices
Permanent Law Provisions
Farm
Market
Permanent Law
2018
Prices
Parity Price
Support Price
Farm Bill
Received
(December
(minimum of
Support
(December
Commoditya
Description
2023)
statutory range)
Priceb
2023)
All Milk, Cwt.
Purchase milk and butterfat products at
$67.00 75% of parity = $50.25 Margin-basedc
$20.60
75%-90% of parity.
Wheat, Bu.
Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases.
$20.20 75% of parity = $15.15
$3.38
$6.79
Acreage allotments.d If marketing quotas
are approved, loan rate = 65%-90% of
parity.e If quotas are not approved, loan
rate = 50% parity. If quotas are not
announced, loan = 75%-90% parity.
Upland cotton, Lb. Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases.
$2.46
65% of parity = $1.60
$0.52
$0.732
Acreage allotments. If quotas are
approved, loan rate = 65%-90% of parity.
If quotas are not approved, loan rate =
50% parity. If quotas are not announced,
loan rate = 65%-90% of parity.
Rice, Cwt.
Permanent authority repealed by 1981
$48.00 50% of parity = $24.00
$7.00
$17.50
farm bill but restored by 1996 farm bill.
Loan rate = 50%-90% of parity.
Corn, Bu.
Nonrecourse loans and direct purchases.
$15.10 50% of parity = $7.55
$2.20
$4.80
Acreage allotments are not authorized.
Loan rate = 50%-90% of parity.
Sorghum, Cwt.
Support for sorghum, barley, oats, and
$26.70 50% of parity = $13.35
$3.93f
$8.70
rye is set based on the feeding value of
Barley, Bu.
each in relation to corn.
$18.20 50% of parity = $9.10
$2.50
$6.68
Oats, Bu.
$11.20 50% of parity = $5.60
$2.00
$3.98
Rye, Bu.
$22.10
50% of parity = 11.05
none
$7.18g
Honey, Lb.
Purchases of honey at 60%-90% of parity.
$7.81 60% of parity = $4.69
$0.69
$2.97h

25 The repayment provision was added to permanent law in §1009 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. §1308a).
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 10 link to page 12 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Source: CRS, using USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Prices, January 31, 2024;
marketing loan rates in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334); and policy for implementing
permanent law from USDA, The Effects of Failure to Enact a New Farm Bill: Permanent Law Support for Commodities
and Authorization Lapse of Other USDA Programs, 2012, available at https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/
p/e/r/m/o/Permanent_Law_Authorization_memo.pdf.
Notes: Cwt. = hundredweight; Bu. = bushel; and Lb. = pound.
a. Permanent law mandates support for the commodities listed in the table. Parity support is not provided for
oilseeds or sugar. Wool, mohair, and peanuts were formerly included, but their supports were repealed.
b. The 2018 farm bill support prices listed in this table are the marketing loan rates that are coupled to
production and are most similar to policy under permanent law. Reference prices for PLC are decoupled
from production. Minimum support prices under permanent law also exceed PLC reference prices for all
commodities.
c. The 2018 farm bill does not specify a support price for milk. The DMC program makes payments if the
margin of the milk market price minus feed costs falls below certain guaranteed levels. See CRS In Focus
IF12202, Farm Bill Primer: Support for the Dairy Industry, by Joel L. Greene.
d. An acreage allotment is a share of the national acreage needed to produce sufficient supplies of a particular
crop and is based on a farm’s previous production.
e. Marketing quotas may limit farm sales of certain commodities and must be approved by a two-thirds
referendum of eligible producers. Quotas were intended to ensure a normal supply of the commodity.
Producers who market in excess of their quotas pay penalties on the excess and are ineligible for
government price-support loans.
f.
The 2018 farm bill marketing loan rate for sorghum is $2.20/bu. For comparison to the parity price in
hundredweight, the marketing loan rate is $3.93/cwt. ($2.20*100/56).
g. The most recent market price published for rye is the 2022 marketing year (Agricultural Prices, August 2023).
h. The market price for honey is implied from the “price as a percent of parity” published in Agricultural Prices.
Government Costs Under Permanent Law
A likely consequence of implementing permanent law would be greater federal outlays for
agricultural commodity support than under the 2018 farm bill. Support levels under permanent
law, even at the lower end of the range directed in statute, exceed both market prices and 2018
farm bill marketing loan prices for all the supported commodities at the end of 2023 (Table 1).
Figure 1 shows the gap between permanent law support prices and market prices or 2018 farm
bill marketing loan rates for five of the major supported commodities.
Congressional Research Service

8

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Figure 1. Permanent Law Relative to Current Market Prices and the 2018 Farm Bill

Source: CRS using USDA-NASS, Agricultural Prices, January 31, 2024; and P.L. 115-334.
Note: The graph shows the gap between permanent law support prices and market prices or 2018 farm bill
marketing loan rates. The 2018 farm bill support prices shown in this figure are the marketing loan rates (prices)
that are coupled to production most similar to the policy under permanent law. The 2018 farm bill does not
specify a support price for milk; support is based on the margin of the milk market price minus feed costs.
Columns are sorted by the percent that November 2023 market prices are of the permanent law support prices.
Official government estimates of the cost of reverting to permanent law have been rare. In 1979,
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the effect on dairy policy.26 In 1985, USDA
analyzed more comprehensively the possible economic consequences of permanent law.27 USDA
found that significant market intervention and increased government expenditures could occur.
USDA estimated that permanent law for dairy could cost $6.5 billion per year in 1990.28
In 2013, the White House indicated that permanent law for dairy could cost $12 billion per year
and result in milk prices doubling.29 This statement is consistent with the methodology and
economic relationships in the 1985 study by applying 2013 prices and production levels.
Estimated outlays would be between $10 billion and $12.5 billion per year for dairy.30

26 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Consequences of Dairy Price Support Policy, March 1979, at https://www.cbo.
gov/sites/default/files/96th-congress-1979-1980/reports/79doc637.pdf.
27 USDA ERS, Possible Economic Consequences of Reverting to Permanent Legislation or Eliminating Price and
Income Supports, AER-526 (1985), pp. 65-67 and pp. 21-35.
28 The 1985 ERS report estimated that USDA would need to remove (that is, purchase) 13%-17% of milk production to
raise market prices to support levels that would be mandated under permanent law (p. 33). The market effect of that
demand based on price elasticity would have nearly doubled market prices from about $13/hundredweight (cwt.) in
1985 to a parity-based support price of $24/cwt. in 1990. The report estimated that removing 270 million cwt. (17.5%
of 154 billion pounds of milk produced) would cost about $6.5 billion per year (p. 34).
29 White House, The Economic Importance of Passing a Comprehensive Food, Farm, and Jobs Bill, November 2013,
pp. 24, 27, at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/farm_bill_report_211.pdf. See also Ron
Nixon, “With Farm Bill Stalled, Consumers May Face Soaring Milk Prices,” New York Times, December 20, 2012, at
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/us/milk-prices-could-double-as-farm-bill-stalls.html.
30 Using the same economic responsiveness as in the 1985 USDA study (for the ratio of milk to remove from the
market to double prices, a midpoint of 15%), removing 300 million cwt. (15% of 200 billion pounds of milk produced
in 2013) would cost over $11 billion per year at a parity-based dairy support price of $37/cwt.
Congressional Research Service

9

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

For 2024, applying the same methodology suggests a possible, albeit unofficial, cost estimate of
between $15 billion and $19 billion per year to support dairy at permanent law support prices.31
By comparison, the CBO projection for dairy outlays under the 2018 farm bill in FY2024 is $428
million.32 These estimates for a cost to implement permanent law may not be precise due to the
use of economic parameters (price elasticities) from the 1985 study. However, the magnitude of
the potential difference between continuing 2018 farm bill policy and implementing permanent
law may be sufficient to illustrate how government costs may increase—billions of dollars for
one particular commodity.
Implementing Permanent Law
If the suspension of permanent law expires, USDA would be required to begin implementing the
permanent law statutes. USDA outlined how it would implement permanent law when the farm
bill faced expiration in 2012.33 To actually implement the law, however, USDA might need time
to write and publish new regulations. The market effects from implementing permanent law may
be gradual and take effect over weeks or months.34
The high support prices under permanent law could result in the government outbidding
commercial markets for a sizeable share of the supported commodities, especially milk. This
level of government intervention in the market could be expensive to the government, expensive
for consumers, and disruptive to the marketplace. While farmers may be paid more at expense to
the government, the market disruption may jeopardize market supply-and-demand relationships
for agricultural commodities.
Crop Insurance and Disaster Programs
The federal crop insurance program protects producers against losses in crop revenue or yield
through federally subsidized policies that are purchased by producers. The program is
permanently authorized and funded by the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C.
§1501 et seq.). The program does not expire with the 2018 farm bill.35
Producers who grow crops that are ineligible for crop insurance may be eligible for risk coverage
through USDA’s Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), which has permanent
authority under Section 196 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. §7333).36
Previous farm bills also authorized four agricultural disaster programs for livestock and fruit
trees—Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP); Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP);
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP); and

31 Using the same economic responsiveness as in the 1985 USDA study for the ratio of milk to remove from the market
to double prices, removing 15% of 225 billion pounds of milk produced in 2022 (NASS, Milk Production, June 21,
2023), or 337 million cwt., may cost about $17 billion per year at a parity-based dairy support price of $50.25/cwt.
32 CBO, Baseline Projections for USDA Mandatory Farm Programs, February 2024, at https://www.cbo.gov/data/
baseline-projections-selected-programs#25.
33 USDA, The Effects of Failure to Enact a New Farm Bill: Permanent Law Support for Commodities and
Authorization Lapse of Other USDA Programs, September 2012, at https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/p/e/
r/m/o/Permanent_Law_Authorization_memo.pdf.
34 Andrew M. Novakovic, “Is Reverting to the 1949 Agricultural Act Really a Possibility for Dairy Price Supports?,”
December 2013, available at https://www.thebullvine.com/ing-1949-agricultural-act-possibility-dairy-price-supports.
35 CRS In Focus IF12201, Farm Bill Primer: Federal Crop Insurance Program, by Stephanie Rosch.
36 CRS In Focus IF12101, Farm Bill Primer: Disaster Assistance, by Megan Stubbs.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Tree Assistance Program (TAP). These four programs are permanently authorized (7 U.S.C.
§9081).37
Conservation Programs
USDA administers close to 20 agricultural conservation programs that are directly or indirectly
available to assist producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural
lands.38 These programs address natural resource concerns on private agricultural and forested
lands through technical and financial assistance. Many conservation programs have different
expiration dates for program authority and funding authority. Therefore, they may be affected
differently by expiration of the 2018 farm bill, as extended.39
For many conservation programs, program authority is permanent. Therefore, the funding
authority is of interest since, if expired, the lack of funding authority could affect the program’s
operation. Discretionary spending is authorized through the farm bill for some conservation
programs. However, since appropriations law allows the continued operation of a program where
an appropriation has occurred, programs that rely on mandatory funding are most impacted when
funding authority expires.40 Without reauthorization or an extension, these mandatorily funded
programs would cease to operate or undertake new activities following the expiration of funding
authority.
Most farm-bill-authorized conservation programs have had program and funding authority that
runs for the duration of a farm bill, typically four to six years.41 Many of the programs authorized
in the 2018 farm bill were originally authorized through FY2023, and as extended through
FY2024. However, P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),
extended some conservation programs and their funding authority for the IRA’s 10-year budget
window—through FY2031. This has resulted in some farm bill conservation programs expiring at
the end of FY2024 and others at the end of FY2031. Table 2 includes the expiration date of most
farm bill conservation programs by type of funding authority—mandatory or discretionary.

37 CRS In Focus IF12101, Farm Bill Primer: Disaster Assistance, by Megan Stubbs.
38 CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs, by Megan Stubbs.
39 CRS Report R47478, Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill, by Megan Stubbs.
40 CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, coordinated by James V. Saturno.
41 CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-2023, by Jim Monke.
Congressional Research Service

11

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Table 2. Conservation Program Funding Authority Expiration Dates
Expiration of Funding
Authority
s

d
n

024
031
Fu
on
ti
, 2
2
0
, 0
me
ira
3
3
Ti
t.
t.
p
p
e-
Exp
Program
Se
Se
On
No
Programs Authorized to Receive Mandatory Funding
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)

X

Agricultural Management Assistance

X
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
X

CRP – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
X

CRP – CLEAR30
X

CRP – Farmable Wetlands
X

CRP – Grasslands
X

CRP – Soil Health and Income Protection Program (SHIPP)
X

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

X

CSP – Grassland Conservation Incentive
X

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

X

EQIP – Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)

X

EQIP, CIG – On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials

X

Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program

X

Grassroots Source Water Protection Program

X

Regional Conservation Partnership Program

X

Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program

X

Programs Authorized to Receive Discretionary Funding
Emergency Conservation Program

X
Emergency Forest Restoration Program

X
Emergency Watershed Protection program

X
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program
X

Healthy Forest Restoration Program
X

Water Bank Program

X
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

X
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
X

Wetlands Mitigation Banking
X

Source: CRS using various statutory authorities.
Congressional Research Service

12

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Notes: Some mandatory farm bill conservation programs were authorized to receive specific amounts of one-
time mandatory funding. In some cases, no fiscal year is specified or only one fiscal year is identified. Funds are to
remain available until expended. These funds are referred to in the table as “One-Time Funds.”
The IRA extended only some policy provisions within the funded conservation programs.
Therefore, some programs that are extended through FY2031 contain policy provisions that
expire at the end of FY2024. Without reauthorization or extension, policy provisions expiring in
FY2024 would no longer apply to funds provided for the overall program that continues. For
example, under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the following policy
provisions were either extended through FY2031 or will expire at the end FY2024:
Expires in FY2024
• Livestock funding. Requires 50% of funding to be used for payments related to
livestock practices.
• Payment limits. Limits total EQIP payments to $450,000 per person or legal
entity for the duration of the 2018 farm bill.
• Organic payment limits. Limits total EQIP payments related to organic
production to $140,000 per person or legal entity for the duration of the 2018
farm bill.
Extended to FY2031
• Wildlife habitat funding. Requires 10% of funding to be used for payments
related to wildlife habitat.
• Air quality funding. Requires $37.5 million annually to be used for payments
for air quality concern practices.
• On-farm conservation innovation trials. Requires $25 million annually to be
used to carry out on-farm conservation innovation trials.
SNAP and the Other Nutrition Programs
As discussed earlier, expiration and extension of SNAP (and most of the related nutrition
programs in the farm bill) particularly hinge on whether funding is provided in an explicit
extension or in an appropriations act, including a continuing resolution. In the case of the 2018
farm bill’s nutrition title, as extended, certain provisions of law include a September 30, 2024,
expiration date. These are primarily authorizations of appropriations, but several are program
authorizations, policies, or funds. The impact on operations is based on factors related to
programs’ authorizing statutes, appropriations actions, and the terms of a farm bill extension (if
applicable).42
The 2018 farm bill reauthorized a number of domestic food assistance programs, including SNAP
(formerly food stamps), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR), the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP), Community Food Projects,

42 For example, the extension in P.L. 112-240 for the most part continued the current law policies for the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the other programs in the SNAP account that had existed on or before
September 30, 2012. The exception was that the farm bill extension contained a change to the mandatory funding of the
SNAP-related Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program, reducing the program’s FY2013 funding by
$110 million. Also, the extension continued the FY2012 SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) mandatory funding,
which was reduced from $90 million to $79 million. Such funding has been used in previous appropriations acts to
offset additional discretionary appropriations (i.e., changes in mandatory program spending, or so-called CHIMPS).
Congressional Research Service

13

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

and nutrition assistance block grants for certain U.S. territories.43 The law also authorized and
provided funding for the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), which renamed
and expanded the 2014 farm bill’s Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grants. Regarding
expiration or extension, these programs fall into three categories:
1. programs that are permanently authorized and funded,
2. programs that can be continued by the enactment of further funding, or
3. programs or authorities that would expire unless extended by statute or explicit
appropriations for such purposes.
These categories are elaborated upon below. The majority of farm bill nutrition programs (and the
majority of nutrition spending) fall into the second category.
Programs Permanently Authorized and Funded
The 2008 farm bill included an expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP,
known as the “snack” program) and provided permanent funding through Section 32.44 (The 2014
bill added a time-limited pilot project, and the 2018 bill did not amend the program.45) The
program’s base operations were not impacted by periods of expiration after the 2008 farm bill and
would not be affected by an expiration after the current extension, September 30, 2024.
The 2018 farm bill authorized the GusNIP grant program and provided mandatory funding via the
Commodity Credit Corporation from FY2018 through FY2023 and “each year thereafter.”46
Under current law, this provides funding and continues operations for the grant program beyond
FY2024.
Programs Continued by the Enactment of Further Funding
Appropriations can allow a program to continue even if the underlying authorization or
authorization of appropriations has not been extended. Because many of the nutrition programs
authorize mandatory funding that is then provided via appropriations—in particular SNAP and
other programs funded by SNAP’s appropriations account—appropriated funds for the SNAP
account would allow continued operations for most of the programs in the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (one of the nutrition program statutes amended by the 2018 farm bill).

43 Note that the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Special Milk Program, and Special Supplemental Program
for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs are generally not reauthorized in a farm bill. These programs are
authorized by the Russell National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act statutes; these statutes were most
recently reauthorized by P.L. 111-296 (Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010). See CRS In Focus IF10266, Child
Nutrition Reauthorization (CNR): An Overview, by Kara Clifford Billings and Randy Alison Aussenberg.
44 Section 32 (of the act of August 24, 1935; 7 U.S.C. §612c) refers to a permanent appropriation of 30% of customs
receipts. Section 32 receives more than $20 billion annually, though most of it supports the child nutrition programs.
About $1.5 billion is available annually to support mostly commodities typically not covered by price support programs
(such as meats, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and fish). USDA often donates these surplus commodities to various
nutrition assistance programs. See CRS In Focus IF12193, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Account,
by Jim Monke.
45 The 2014 farm bill included authority and funding for a one-time pilot project for canned, frozen, or dried fruits and
vegetables. The pilot and evaluation have been completed. See Mathematica Policy Research for USDA Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS), Evaluation of the Pilot Project for Canned, Frozen, or Dried Fruits and Vegetables in the
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP-CFD), January 2017, at https://www.fns.usda.gov/evaluation-elementary-
schools-pilot-project-canned-frozen-or-dried-fruits-and-vegetables-fresh.
46 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (as amended by P.L. 115-334), §4405, codified at 7 U.S.C. §7517.
Congressional Research Service

14

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

After September 30, 2024, the following farm bill programs could continue to operate if funding
for the SNAP account were provided in appropriations acts, including continuing appropriations:
• SNAP and related grant programs (such as the SNAP Employment & Training
Program);
• purchase and distribution of TEFAP commodities (administrative funds could
continue with appropriations in the Commodity Assistance Program account);
• FDPIR;
• nutrition assistance funding for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands; and
• Community Food Projects.
For CSFP, in the Commodity Assistance Program account, the authority to make commodity
purchases and fund administrative costs can continue with funding.
GusNIP includes an authority for discretionary appropriations on top of the mandatory funding
provided. Although the discretionary authorization of appropriations currently appears to end in
FY2024, applying principles discussed earlier, discretionary appropriations could still be
provided beyond that date.
During the periods of expiration before enactment of the 2014 farm bill, for example, when
funding was provided, these programs continued to operate.47 In addition, during a partial
government shutdown in October 2013, there was a period when some Commodity Assistance
Program account operations were affected, but SNAP continued (discussed in the text box,
below).
Programs That Would Require Extension or Specific
Appropriations Language
Examples of two grant programs that the 2018 farm bill provided with annual funding through
FY2023 are the Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) and TEFAP Farm to Food
Bank Project Grants. Both of these programs were authorized by and received mandatory funding
from the farm bill through and including FY2023, and P.L. 118-22 extended their funding through
FY2024. Following their September 30, 2024, expiration, these grants would not be expected to
receive FY2025 funding unless the funding is extended or specifically provided from other
sources.
The SFMNP’s authorizing law (first enacted by the 2002 farm bill and most recently amended by
the 2018 farm bill) contains both the program’s authority and mandatory funding (an annual
transfer of $20.6 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation) through the end of FY2024.48
Some states may have carryover funding available to help, as the FY2023 appropriations law
includes language making FY2023 SFMNP grants available for expenditure until the end of

47 Funding was provided by the continuing resolution (P.L. 113-46) and the full-year appropriation (P.L. 113-76).
48 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (as amended by P.L. 115-334), §4402(a), codified at 7 U.S.C.
§3007(a).
Congressional Research Service

15

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

FY2024.49 In parts of FY2013 and parts of FY2014, expiration temporarily affected program
operations.50
While TEFAP operations continue with appropriations (discussed in the previous section), the
TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Project Grants expire on September 30, 2024. Project funds would
not carry over and would not be available for FY2025. The 2018 farm bill provided $4 million in
annual mandatory funding for the projects from FY2019 to FY2023 and required at least a 50%
nonfederal match (extended through FY2024).51
The nutrition title also includes a SNAP policy that would have expired September 30, 2023.
Within SNAP’s authorizing provisions, the 2018 farm bill added a provision that prevented
companies from charging “switching fees” for electronic benefit transfer (EBT) services.52 This
provision, through FY2024 as extended, barred a state or an agent or contractor of the state from
charging any fee for switching or routing SNAP benefits.53 Fees are typically established in
contracts between parties, so the impact of this provision expiring may depend on the duration of
expiration and the timing of existing contracts.
Other Agricultural Programs
Programs that rely on mandatory funding authorizations in the farm bill are the most impacted if
the farm bill expires. By size of funding levels, the expiring programs in farm bill Titles I
(Commodities), II (Conservation), and IV (Nutrition) could be the most impacted, as discussed
above, and represent nearly 92% of mandatory funding available in the farm bill. Other farm bill
titles, however, include examples of agricultural programs that could also be affected by
expiration after FY2024, including programs in farm bill Titles III (Trade), VII (Research), IX
(Energy), X (Horticulture), and XII (Miscellaneous). These programs represent about 1% of
mandatory funding in the farm bill. Without reauthorization or an extension, these programs may
not have authority to operate or continue to receive new budget authority after FY2023. This list
is generally representative but may not be exhaustive, and the consequences of expiration may
vary.
• Title III—Trade. Agricultural Trade Promotion and Facilitation, including the
Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, E
(Kika) de la Garza Emerging Markets Program and Technical Assistance for
Specialty Crops (7 U.S.C. §5623), Food for Progress (7 U.S.C. §1736o), and

49 A final FY2024 appropriations act remains pending. The FY2023 appropriation contained, “Provided further, [t]hat
notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective with funds made available in fiscal year 2023 to support the
Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by section 4402 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002, such funds shall remain available through September 30, 2024” (P.L. 117-328, Title I).
50 This program expired after September 30, 2012. Once P.L. 112-240 was enacted, the funding and authority to
operate the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) was extended through September 30, 2013. However,
it expired again when that extension ended. Due to the seasonal nature of the SFMNP, it is possible that expiration of
the farm bill during the fall and/or winter months may not significantly affect this program. When the 2014 farm bill
was enacted in February 2014, the SFMNP provision was backdated to October 1, 2013.
51 Section 4018(b) of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334) amended Section 202A(b) and Section
203D of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. In statute, these grants are referred to as “Projects to Harvest,
Process, Package, or Transport Donated Commodities.”
52 Section 4006(d) of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334) amended Section 7(h)(13) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008.
53 Switching was defined as “routing of an intrastate or interstate transaction that consists of transmitting the details of a
transaction electronically recorded through the use of an [EBT] card in one [s]tate to the issuer of the card that may be
in the same or different [s]tate.” The fees in question had been charged to retailers.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 5 Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

authority to replenish stocks of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (7 U.S.C.
§1736f-1).
• Title VII—Research, Extension and Related Matters. Organic Agriculture
Research and Extension Initiative (7 U.S.C. §5925b).
• Title IX—Energy. Biobased Markets Program (7 U.S.C. §8102) and Bioenergy
Program for Advanced Biofuels (7 U.S.C. §8105).
• Title X—Horticulture. Specialty Crop Block Grants (7 U.S.C. §1621 note),
Local Agriculture Market Program (7 U.S.C. §1627c), and National Organic
Certification Cost-Share (7 U.S.C. §6523).
• Title XII—Miscellaneous. Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach,
including the Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran
Farmers and Ranchers Program and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Grant Program (7 U.S.C. §2279); Animal Disease Prevention and
Management, including the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the
National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program, and the National
Animal Vaccine Bank (7 U.S.C. §8308a); Emergency Citrus Disease Research
and Development Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. §7632 note); Pima Cotton Trust Fund (7
U.S.C. §2101 note); Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (7 U.S.C. §7101
note); and Wool Research and Promotion (7 U.S.C §7101 note).54
Some of these other agricultural programs have baseline beyond their expiration in FY2024, and
others do not.55 While both types of programs could be similarly impacted from lack of
authorization, those without a baseline could incur budgetary costs to reauthorize or extend.56

54 The Pima Cotton Trust Fund, Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund, and Wool Research and Promotion program
operate on a calendar-year basis and expire after December 31, 2023.
55 See the heading “Mandatory Funding” for additional information on budgetary baseline. For examples of agriculture
programs that have a continuing budget baseline, see Figure 2 in CRS In Focus IF12233, Farm Bill Primer: Budget
Dynamics, by Jim Monke.
56 See CRS In Focus IF12115, Farm Bill Primer: Programs Without Baseline Beyond FY2024, by Jim Monke. Not all
of the programs without baseline in the aforementioned report are included in this report about expiration. For example,
some of the programs without baseline received one-time funding in FY2019 to remain available until expended. These
are not mentioned in this report, as their ability to operate has already been subject to the availability of unobligated
funding. FY2024 may not be a technical expiration date for the program, though the program remains a program
without baseline in terms of its reauthorization.
Congressional Research Service

17

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

Appendix. Legislative Options Given Existence of
Permanent Law for Farm Commodity Programs
The farm commodity support provisions of permanent law have remained in statute—inactive—
since the mid-20th century. Each recent farm bill has suspended permanent law for the duration of
the farm bill. Some see the existence of permanent law—and the possibility of returning to
permanent law—as assurance that Congress would revisit and reconsider changes to the farm
commodity programs about every five years when a farm bill expires. Given the consequences of
returning to permanent law, Congress has not let a farm bill remain expired long enough for
permanent law to take effect for any supported commodities.
Several legislative options relative to permanent law exist as a farm bill approaches expiration:
1. Retain permanent law and then do one of the following:
a. Do nothing (revert to permanent law).
b. Pass an extension (with a suspension of permanent law).
c. Pass a new farm bill (and reinstate the suspension of permanent law).
d. Suspend permanent law (without a new farm bill or extension).
2. Repeal permanent law and then do one of the following:
a. Do nothing (no new farm bill).
b. Pass an extension of the current farm bill.
c. Pass a new farm bill (with or without a new permanent law provision).
The existence of an inactive, outdated permanent law that could be automatically reactivated may
encourage Congress to take action. Many policymakers perceive inaction on a farm bill and
reversion to permanent law as having unacceptable consequences. If Congress were not to reach
agreement on a new farm bill, then a path of least resistance may be extending the current farm
bill with its suspension of permanent law—but this, too, requires legislative action, which may
pose political and budgetary challenges.
For those who seek significant changes to the farm commodity programs, repealing permanent
law would allow Congress to debate farm supports without the looming consequences of
reverting to permanent law. But repealing permanent law also requires legislative action. Some
believe that it is easier to negotiate and pass a new farm bill, with compromises and reforms, than
to deal with the question of repealing permanent law.
Suspension of Permanent Law
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, farm bills generally used and amended the 1938 and/or 1949
acts. Amendments were sometimes made permanent and sometimes applied only to specific
years. As farm commodity policy continued to evolve, farm bills in the 1970s gradually began to
move away from using the permanent law provisions with their parity-based price supports and
quotas.
As recently as the 1970 and 1973 farm bills, the farm commodity programs were generally
written into the 1938 and/or 1949 acts using provisions that were applicable only for the new
period of the farm bill.57 Thus, although those farm bills might not have directly suspended

57 For example, a form of suspension that occurs within the permanent law itself is in the 1970 farm bill (P.L. 91-524),
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

18

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

permanent law in the way of modern farm bills, they supplanted some portion of the permanent
law parity-based support system for the life of the farm bill, albeit from within the body of the
permanent law itself.
Beginning with the 1977 farm bill and continuing through the 2018 farm bill, direct suspension or
nonapplicability language began to be used regarding permanent law.58
The 2018 farm bill provision that suspends permanent law was an extension of the suspension in
the 2014 farm bill. The one-year extension during 2024 is a further extension of the suspension of
permanent law.
Suspension of Permanent Price Support Authority (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334, §1702)
Section 1602 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9092) is amended by striking
“2018” each place it appears and inserting “2023”.
And in the one-year extension (P.L. 118-22, Division B, §102(c)(4))
Subsections (a) and (b) of section 1602 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (i) shall not be
applicable to the 2024 crops … and (ii) shall not be applicable to milk through December
31, 2024; and section 1602(c) … shall not be applicable to the crops of wheat planted for
harvest in calendar year 2024.
The 2014 farm bill suspension to which these provisions refer specified the following provisions
of permanent law:
Suspension of Permanent Price Support Authority (7 U.S.C. §9092; P.L. 113-79, §1602)
(a) Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The following provisions of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 shall not be applicable to the 2014 through 2018 crops of covered
commodities (as defined in section 1111), cotton, and sugar and shall not be applicable to
milk during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through December
31, 2018: (1) Parts II through V of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C. 1326 et seq.). (2) In the
case of upland cotton, section 377 (7 U.S.C. 1377). 3) Subtitle D of title III (7 U.S.C. 1379a
et seq.). (4) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
(b) Agricultural Act of 1949. The following provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949
shall not be applicable to the 2014 through 2018 crops of covered commodities (as defined
in section 1111), cotton, and sugar and shall not be applicable to milk during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and through December 31, 2018: (1) Section
101 (7 U.S.C. 1441); (2) Section 103(a) (7 U.S.C. 1444(a)); (3) Section 105 (7 U.S.C.
1444b); (4) Section 107 (7 U.S.C. 1445a); (5) Section 110 (7 U.S.C. 1445e); (6) Section
112 (7 U.S.C. 1445g); (7) Section 115 (7 U.S.C. 1445k); (8) Section 201 (7 U.S.C. 1446);
(9) Title III (7 U.S.C. 1447 et seq.); (10) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), other than sections
404, 412, and 416 (7 U.S.C. 1424, 1429, and 1431); (11) Title V (7 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.);
and (12) Title VI (7 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.).
(c) Suspension of Certain Quota Provisions. The joint resolution, “A joint resolution
relating to corn and wheat marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of

where §501 reads, “Effective only with respect to the 1971, 1972, and 1973 crops of feed grains, section 105 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is further amended to read as follows: ‘Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law—(a)(1) The Secretary shall make available to producers loans and purchases on each crop of corn at
such level, not less than $1.00 per bushel nor in excess of 90 per centum of the parity price.’”
58 For example, direct suspension of permanent law can be found in the 1977 farm bill (P.L. 95-113) in §§409-410,
503-504, 601, and 703; in the 1981 farm bill (P.L. 97-98) in §§304-305, 402, and 501; in the 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-
198) in §§312, 402, and 502; in the 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) in §§302-305, 402, 502, and 801; in the 1996 farm
bill (P.L. 104-127) in §171; in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) in §1602; in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) in
§1602; in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) in §1602; and in the 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334), §1702.
Congressional Research Service

19

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

1938, as amended,” approved May 26, 1941 (7 U.S.C. 1330 and 1340), shall not be
applicable to the crops of wheat planted for harvest in the calendar years 2014-2018.
Proposals to Repeal Permanent Law
Proposals to repeal permanent law have been rare, though some bills have passed either the
House or the Senate. For example, a proposal to repeal permanent law advanced perhaps the
furthest during the development of the 1996 farm bill. Repeal provisions may have had more
saliency then because of a perceived intent that the farm commodity program in the 1996 farm
bill (known as “Freedom to Farm”) would significantly reduce or terminate supports after 2002.59
In the end, repeal was dropped during conference negotiations in 1996 in favor of continued
suspension.
More specifically regarding the 1995-1996 developments, the initial bill considered by the House
Agriculture Committee in 1995 would have continued to suspend permanent law (H.R. 2195,
Title IV). After not passing in committee, the text of that bill, including the suspension provision,
was incorporated into a broader House-passed budget reconciliation package (H.R. 2491, §1105).
However, the Senate-passed version of the 1995 reconciliation package included a provision to
repeal permanent law (S. 1357, §1101). The conference agreement for the reconciliation package
adopted the Senate approach for repeal (H.R. 2491, §1109). The conference agreement passed in
both the House and the Senate but was vetoed, albeit not because of the farm bill provisions.60
The next year, a stand-alone 1996 farm bill was introduced and passed in the House with the
provision to repeal permanent law (H.R. 2854, §109). The repeal provision was also in the
Senate-reported bill (S. 1541, §19). However, the Senate-passed version (S. 1541, §109) did not
repeal permanent law but continued to suspend permanent law. The conference agreement for the
1996 farm bill (H.R. 2854, §171) followed the Senate-passed version and continued the
suspension of permanent law.
From 1995 to 2001, other bills besides the farm bill proposed repealing permanent law but were
not formally considered.61 In 1995, several bills were introduced to restructure government
agencies. A bill was introduced to abolish USDA, eliminate all price support authorities
(including those of permanent law), and transfer certain powers to the Department of Commerce
(H.R. 1354, S. 586). A broader government-wide restructuring bill would have repealed
permanent law (H.R. 1923). A separate agricultural reform bill would have phased down
agricultural supports and eventually repealed permanent law (H.R. 2010). Two other bills to
repeal permanent law were introduced in 1995 (H.R. 2523 and H.R. 2787). In 1997-1998, H.R.
502 and S. 2573 would have repealed permanent law. Other bills to repeal permanent law were
H.R. 328 in 1999 and S. 1571 in 2001. None of these bills advanced beyond being introduced and
referred to committee.
Other bills in other Congresses have been introduced with targeted repeal provisions for certain
commodities but not comprehensive repeal. Those bills are not discussed here.

59 See Daryll E. Ray and Harwood D. Schaffer, “The 1996 ‘Freedom to Farm’ Farm Bill,” Agricultural Policy Analysis
Center, Article 703, January 2014, at https://www.agpolicy.org/weekpdf/703.pdf; and Otto Doering and Phil Paarlberg,
“Critical Questions About the Farm Crisis: Causes and Remedies,” Purdue Ag Econ Report, PAER 1999-05, March 13,
1999, at https://ag.purdue.edu/commercialag/home/paer-article/critical-questions-about-the-farm-crisis-causes-and-
remedies. See also discussion in H.Rept. 104-494, Conference Report for the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996.
60 CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-2023, by Jim Monke.
61 The listing of bills to repeal permanent law is not meant to be exhaustive. It is based on a full-text search of bills
since 1989 for the word repeal within 20 words of Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 or Agricultural Act of 1949.
Congressional Research Service

20

Expiration and Extension of the Farm Bill

In the 112th Congress during consideration of the 2012 farm bill, a Senate amendment was
submitted, but not actually introduced on the floor, to replace the suspension of permanent law
with the repeal of the suspended permanent law provisions (S.Amdt. 2379 to S. 3420).
In 2013, the House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2642) would have repealed the 1938 and 1949
permanent laws (§1602). As replacement, the House-proposed farm commodity program would
have become the new permanent law, as it would have applied to “the 2014 crop year and each
succeeding crop year” (§§1107, 1202, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1301). The Senate bill (S. 954)
continued the long-standing suspension of permanent law, as did the initial House-rejected bill
(H.R. 1947). The enacted 2014 and 2018 farm bills continued to suspend permanent law.

Author Information

Jim Monke
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy

Megan Stubbs

Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47659 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
21