Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

March 31, 2022 R47057

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill
March 31, 2022
The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of agricultural and food
programs. Although freestanding legislation or components of other major laws sometimes create
Genevieve K. Croft,
or change agricultural policies, the periodic farm bill provides a predictable opportunity for
Coordinator
policymakers to address agricultural and food issues in a comprehensive manner. The Agriculture
Specialist in Agricultural
Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334)—the most recent farm bill—generally
Policy
expires at the end of FY2023. The 2018 farm bill succeeded the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014

farm bill; P.L. 113-79).

There is no fixed format for the farm bill. Its breadth has grown from the original two titles of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-10) to the 12 titles of the 2018 farm bill. The issues addressed in the 2018 farm
bill encompass agricultural commodity supports, credit, trade, conservation, research, rural development, foreign and
domestic food programs, and many other policies and programs. Provisions in the 2018 farm bill modified certain commodity
programs, expanded crop insurance, amended conservation programs, reauthorized and revised nutrition assistance, and
extended authority to appropriate funds for many U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) discretionary programs through
FY2023.
When the 2018 farm bill was enacted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the total cost of its mandatory
programs would be $428 billion over its five-year duration (FY2019-FY2023). Four titles accounted for 99% of the 2018
farm bill’s mandatory spending: Nutrition (Title IV), Commodities (Title I), Crop Insurance (Title XI), and Conservation
(Title II). At enactment, the Nutrition title, which includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
comprised 76% of the estimated total, with the remaining portion mostly addressing agricultural production and conservation
issues across other titles.
Historically, omnibus farm bill legislation has focused on commodity-based revenue support policy—namely, the methods
and levels of federal support provided to agricultural producers. The 2018 farm bill reauthorized and amended various
components of U.S. farm safety net programs, which include commodity support programs, the federal crop insurance
program, and permanent disaster assistance programs. Certain agricultural interest groups point to additional policy
priorities—covering a range of equity issues across the farm sector—and call for enhanced support for small- and medium-
sized farms, specialty crops, organic agriculture, local and regional food systems, healthy and nutritious foods, research,
conservation, and rural development, among other priorities.
Debate over the next farm bill may include a wide range of other policy priorities and issues in addition to commodity-based
revenue support. These include topics raised in prior farm bill debates and more recent issues. Among long-standing issues
are the overall budget outlook and the scope and structure of nutrition programs within the farm bill. Among recent issues is
the federal government’s role in supporting beginning, veteran, and historically underserved farmers and ranchers. New to the
next farm bill debate might be a variety of agriculture sector impacts associated with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
19) pandemic. These include agricultural supply chain challenges, price inflation, international trade, industry consolidation,
and whether, and to what extent, to continue temporary policies enacted in pandemic response laws.
The Biden Administration has prioritized climate change as an overarching federal policy priority. Debate over the next farm
bill may include policies related to agriculture and climate change—how federal programs and policies can or should support
agriculture’s adaptation to changing climatic conditions, as well as agriculture’s potential contributions to climate change
mitigation.
Congressional Research Service

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Report Topics and CRS Authors
Issue
CRS Analyst
Report Coordinator/Overview
Genevieve K. Croft
Budget Situation and Outlook
Jim Monke
Farm Economy
Stephanie Rosch
Commodity Support
Stephanie Rosch
Joel L. Greene
Crop Insurance
Stephanie Rosch
Disaster Assistance
Megan Stubbs
Animal Agriculture
Joel L. Greene
Horticulture and Specialty Crops
Renée Johnson
Organic Agriculture
Renée Johnson
Hemp
Renée Johnson
Local, Urban, and Innovative Production
Renée Johnson
Conservation
Megan Stubbs
Nutrition
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Kara Clifford Bil ings
Trade and Export Promotion
Anita Regmi
International Food Assistance
Amber D. Nair
Credit
Jim Monke
Rural Development
Lisa S. Benson
Research, Extension, and Education
Genevieve K. Croft
Forestry
Katie Hoover
Energy
Kelsi Bracmort

Congressional Research Service

1

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Introduction
The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of agricultural and food
programs.1 Although freestanding legislation or components of other major laws sometimes
create or change agricultural policies, the periodic farm bill provides a predictable opportunity for
policymakers to address agricultural and food issues in a comprehensive manner. In recent years,
Congress has renewed the farm bill every four to six years.2
The farm bill has no fixed format. Over time, farm bill legislation has grown in complexity and
scope. The law generally recognized as the first omnibus farm bill—the Agricultural Adjustment
Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-10)—consisted of two titles and the equivalent of 24 printed pages. The
most recent farm bill—the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334,
H.Rept. 115-1072)—comprised 12 titles and about 529 pages of text. In legislation enacted
between those two laws, the farm bill has developed from addressing specific farm commodity
supports and soil conservation to encompassing additional issues, such as nutrition, trade, rural
development, research, credit, horticulture, bioenergy, and other topics.
The omnibus nature of the bill can create broad coalitions of support among sometimes-
conflicting interests for policies that individually might not survive the legislative process. It also
can stir competition for available funds, particularly among producers of different commodities or
stakeholders with differing priorities—for example, urban versus rural interests. In recent years,
the diversity of groups involved in the debate has grown along with the topical breadth of the
farm bill. These entities now include national farm groups, commodity associations, state
organizations, nutrition and public health officials, and advocacy groups representing
conservation, recreation, rural development, local and urban farming facilities, faith-based
interests, land-grant universities (LGUs), and certified organic production.
The consequences of allowing a farm bill to expire, as has occurred in the past, may motivate
legislative action. When a farm bill expires, not all programs are affected equally. Some programs
cease to operate unless reauthorized, while others might continue to pay old financial obligations
as provided under current law. The farm commodity programs, for example, would expire and
revert to permanent law dating back to the 1940s. Nutrition assistance programs require periodic
reauthorization, but appropriations can keep them operating. Many discretionary programs would
lose statutory authority to receive appropriations, though annual appropriations could provide
funding and implicit authorization. Other programs have permanent authority and do not need to
be reauthorized (e.g., crop insurance).3
This report provides background on each of the major titles included in the 2018 farm bill and
previews some of the issues that may factor into the debate over the next farm bill. Many CRS
analysts contributed to the writing of this report. The table on the previous page provides a list of
agricultural policy topics and the CRS analysts who cover them.

1 For more background on the farm bill, see CRS Report RS22131, What Is the Farm Bill?.
2 As of this writing, there have been 18 farm bills, including the one in 1933 (2018, 2014, 2008, 2002, 1996, 1990,
1985, 1981, 1977, 1973, 1970, 1965, 1956, 1954, 1949, 1948, 1938, and 1933). See also CRS Report R45210, Farm
Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-2018.
3 For more information on the consequences of expiration, see CRS Report R45341, Expiration of the 2014 Farm Bill.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 14 link to page 54 Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

The 2018 Farm Bill
The 2018 farm bill—enacted in December 2018 and generally expiring at the end of FY2023—is
the most recent farm bill.4 It succeeded the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 farm bill; P.L. 113-79).
The 2018 farm bill contains 12 titles (see text box).5 Provisions in the 2018 farm bill modified
some of the farm commodity programs, expanded crop insurance, amended conservation
programs, reauthorized and revised nutrition assistance, and extended authority to appropriate
funds for many U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) discretionary programs through FY2023.
The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334) Functions and Major Issues, by Title

Title I, Commodities. Provides farm payments when crop prices or revenues decline for major
commodity crops, including wheat, corn, soybeans, peanuts, and rice. Includes disaster programs to help
livestock and tree fruit producers manage production losses due to natural disasters. Other support includes
margin insurance for dairy, marketing quotas, minimum price guarantees, and import quotas for sugar.

Title II, Conservation. Encourages environmental stewardship of farmlands and improved management
practices through various working lands programs, as well as changes in land use through land retirement and
easement programs.

Title III, Trade. Supports U.S. agricultural export programs and export credit guarantee programs, as well
as international food aid programs that provide emergency and nonemergency foreign food aid. Other
provisions address issues related to World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations.

Title IV, Nutrition. Provides nutrition assistance for low-income households through programs, including
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) and
emergency food assistance programs. Also supports food distribution in schools.

Title V, Credit. Offers direct government loans to farmers/ranchers and guarantees on private lenders’
loans. Sets eligibility rules and policies.

Title VI, Rural Development. Supports rural business and community development programs. Establishes
planning, feasibility assessments, and coordination with other local, state, and federal programs. Programs
include grants and loans for infrastructure, economic development, broadband, and telecommunications.

Title VII, Research, Extension, and Related Matters. Offers a wide range of agricultural research and
extension programs that expand academic knowledge about agriculture and food and help farmers and
ranchers become more efficient, innovative, and productive.

Title VIII, Forestry. Supports forestry management programs run by USDA’s Forest Service.

Title IX, Energy. Encourages the development of farm and community renewable energy systems through
grants, loan guarantees, and feedstock procurement initiatives. Also facilitates the production, marketing, and
processing of advanced biofuels and biofuel feedstocks, as well as research, education, and demonstration
programs.

Title X, Horticulture. Supports specialty crops—fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and floriculture and
ornamental products—through initiatives, including market promotion, plant pest and disease prevention, and
research. Also provides support to certified organic agricultural production and locally produced foods.

Title XI, Crop Insurance. Amends the permanently authorized federal crop insurance program.

Title XII, Miscellaneous. Covers other types of programs, including livestock and poultry production and
limited-resource and socially disadvantaged farmers.
Farm Policy Considerations for Congress
As Congress considers a new farm bill, it does so in an economic setting of increasing farm-
sector incomes (see “Farm Economy and International Environment”) and general disruption and

4 For more information on the major provisions of the 2018 farm bill, see CRS Report R45525, The 2018 Farm Bill
(P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side-by-Side Comparison.
5 For a listing of the titles and subtitles of the 2018 farm bill, see the Appendix.
Congressional Research Service

3

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

uncertainty associated with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The next farm
bill is expected to address many competing policy priorities. Efforts to manage farm bill costs,
given overall constraints on federal spending, may create heightened competition and tension
among a range of U.S. farm policy stakeholders. There is also uncertainty regarding how the
Biden Administration will implement its farm policy priorities.
Congress has considered the scope and structure of nutrition programs during many farm bill
debates. Farm bills since 1973 have included reauthorization of the Food Stamp Program
(renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] in the 2008 bill). SNAP
currently accounts for the overwhelming majority of total farm bill spending. The partnership
between nutrition programs and farm programs generally generates rural and urban support for
the farm bill as a whole. Increased food insecurity associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, as
well as temporary increases in federal nutrition funding via pandemic response laws, has renewed
focus on farm bill nutrition assistance programs.
Historically, omnibus farm bill legislation has focused on commodity-based revenue supports—
namely, the mechanisms and levels of federal support provided to agricultural producers.
Congress may face competing calls to focus on commodity-based revenue support and to address
a range of equity concerns within the food and agriculture sector. With each farm bill, Congress
typically reauthorizes and amends various components of U.S. farm safety net programs, which
include commodity support programs and have incorporated the federal crop insurance program
(FCIP) and, more recently, added permanent disaster assistance programs. In recent farm bill
debates, certain interest groups have pointed to additional policy priorities outside of traditional
commodity-based production agriculture. These interest groups call for enhanced support for
small- and medium-sized farms, specialty crops, organic agriculture, local and regional food
systems, healthy and nutritious foods, research, conservation, and rural development, among
other priorities. Various groups also call for consideration of the federal government’s role in
supporting beginning, veteran, and historically underserved farmers and ranchers.
New to the next farm bill debate may be a variety of issues highlighted by the COVID-19
pandemic and disruptions in trade. These include agricultural supply chain challenges, price
inflation, the effects of international trade disputes, industry consolidation, and to what extent (if
at all) to continue temporary policies enacted in pandemic response laws.
Further, the Biden Administration has prioritized climate change as an overarching federal policy
priority. Debate over the next farm bill may include consideration of policies related to
agriculture and climate change—how federal programs and policies can or should support
agriculture’s adaptation to changing climatic conditions, as well as agriculture’s potential
contributions to climate change mitigation. Legislation that would advance the Administration’s
climate policy priorities in food and agriculture has been introduced in the 117th Congress. If the
majority party in the House or Senate changes with the 2022 elections, congressional policy
priorities for a new farm bill in the 118th Congress also may change.
Budget Situation and Outlook
Budget Basics
Federal spending for agriculture is divided into two main categories: mandatory and discretionary
spending. In the farm bill, mandatory spending—which does not require a separate
appropriation—is authorized primarily for farm commodity programs, crop insurance,
Congressional Research Service

4

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

conservation, and nutrition assistance programs.6 Discretionary spending is authorized for
everything else that is not considered mandatory spending. Programs with discretionary
spending—including most rural development, research, and credit programs—are authorized in
the farm bill but are funded separately in annual appropriations acts. Some research, bioenergy, or
rural development programs may have both types of funding, but their primary funding source is
discretionary.
Mandatory spending programs usually dominate the farm bill debate and budget. The farm bill
provides mandatory spending and determines its policy by following a framework of laws for
budget enforcement that use a projected baseline and scores from the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO).
The CBO baseline represents budget authority and is a projection at a particular point in time of
what future federal spending on mandatory programs would be assuming current law continues.
This baseline is the benchmark against which proposed changes in law are measured. Having a
baseline essentially gives programs built-in future funding if policymakers decide that the
programs are to continue.
The impact (score) of a proposed bill that alters mandatory spending is measured in relation to the
baseline. Changes that increase spending relative to the baseline have a positive score; those that
decrease spending relative to the baseline have a negative score. Budget neutral refers to having a
zero score. Increases in overall cost beyond the baseline may be subject to budget constraints,
such as pay-as-you-go requirements.7 Reductions from the baseline may be used to offset a bill’s
other provisions that have a positive score or used to reduce the federal deficit. The annual budget
resolution determines whether a farm bill would be held budget neutral or whether it would be
directed to reduce spending or authorized to increase spending.
Farm Bills in Perspective
Farm bills over the past two decades have ranged from positive to negative scores relative to their
baseline funding. The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) had a positive score, increasing spending by
$73 billion over 10 years, which was allowed by a budget resolution during a budget surplus.8
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) was budget neutral, although it added $9 billion to outlays over
10 years by using offsets from a tax-related title within the omnibus legislation.9 The 2014 farm
bill had a negative score, reducing spending by $16 billion over 10 years.10 The 2018 farm bill
achieved budget neutrality by using $3 billion of reductions from an account in the Rural
Development title (Title VI) to offset increases in other titles.11
Farm bills have 5-year and 10-year budget projections according to federal budgeting practices.
When the 2018 farm bill was enacted, the projected cost for the five-year span of the act was
$428 billion (FY2019-FY2023). The projected 10-year cost was $867 billion (FY2019-FY2028).

6 Crop insurance is funded through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) is a mandatory entitlement paid through the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Farm commodity
programs, conservation, and many other farm bill mandatory programs are funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC).
7 For information on pay-as-you-go, see CRS Report R41157, The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010: Summary and
Legislative History.
8 CRS Report RL31704, A New Farm Bill: Comparing the 2002 Law with Previous Law (available upon request).
9 For information on the 2008 farm bill, see CRS Report RL34696, The 2008 Farm Bill: Major Provisions and
Legislative Action.
10 For information on the 2014 farm bill, see CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
11 For information on the 2018 farm bill, see CRS Report R45425, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2018 Farm Bill.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Four titles accounted for 99% of the 2018 farm bill’s mandatory spending: Nutrition (Title IV;
primarily SNAP), Commodities (Title II), Crop Insurance (Title XI), and Conservation (Title II).
Figure 1 shows how the relative proportions of farm bill spending have shifted in inflation-
adjusted terms over the past two decades and in projections for the next 10 years. Conservation
spending has steadily risen. Crop insurance has been variable but generally is rising as program
benefits and enrollment have expanded. Farm commodity program spending has been variable
but generally has declined except for recent supplemental spending. Nutrition assistance rose
after the 2009 recession, waned for several years as the economy recovered, and rose again at the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since FY2019, supplemental funding has increased outlays for
farm and nutrition assistance.
Figure 1. Selected Farm Bill Programs and Supplemental Assistance

Source: Created by CRS using Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Details About Baseline Projections for
Selected Programs,” July 2021 baselines; and USDA, Budget Appendix (various years).
Notes: P-EBT = Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program;
MFP = Market Facilitation Program; CFAP = Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. Adjusted for inflation to
2021 dol ars using the gross domestic product price deflator. For comparison, includes selected supplemental
outlays outside the farm bil for trade assistance (MFP), coronavirus assistance (CFAP), and P-EBT.
Supplemental spending is not part of the farm bill baseline but may be important to note because
of its size in recent years. In FY2019 and FY2020, the Trump Administration used its discretion
to provide supplemental funding through the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) in response to
tariff policies that disrupted U.S. agricultural exports. Then in FY2020 and FY2021, Congress
and the executive branch provided supplemental funding during the pandemic through the
Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) and the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

CBO updates its government spending projections, at least annually, based on new information
about the economy and program participation.12 However, any reductions in projected farm bill
spending after its enactment do not generate savings that can be credited elsewhere. Similarly,
any increases in projected farm bill spending after enactment do not require additional resources
from Congress. Mandatory programs operate as entitlements, with eligibility and formulas that
are followed once enacted.
Future Baseline
As of this writing, the official baseline to write the next farm bill does not exist. CBO is expected
to release its official “scoring baseline” for the 2023 legislative session in early 2023, which
would cover the 10-year period FY2024-FY2033. Presently, the July 2021 CBO baseline is the
best indicator of future funding availability.
Figure 2. Baseline for Farm Bill Programs, by Title
($ billions; $1,033 billion over 10 years, FY2022-FY2031)

Source: Created by CRS using CBO, “Details About Baseline Projections for Selected Programs,” July 2021
baselines (for the commodities, conservation, trade, nutrition, and crop insurance titles); and CRS Report
R45425, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2018 Farm Bill; and amounts indicated in law for programs in other titles.
Notes: Excludes changes not yet incorporated, such as to the Thrifty Food Plan. Supplemental trade and
pandemic assistance are not part of the baseline.
Using the July 2021 CBO baseline projection that covers the major farm bill programs, and
funding indicated in law for other farm bill programs not included in the annual projection, an
estimated current baseline for farm bill programs is $527 billion over the next 5 years (FY2022-
FY2026) and $1,033 billion over the next 10 years (FY2022-FY2031; Figure 2).13 New CBO
baselines later in 2022 and again in 2023 would update these amounts and add future fiscal years.

12 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Details About Baseline Projections for Selected Programs,” various updates,
at https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/baseline-projections-selected-programs.
13 Calculated using amounts for the 2018 farm bill’s nutrition, crop insurance, conservation, commodity programs, and
trade titles from CBO, “Details About Baseline Projections for Selected Programs,” July 2021 baselines, at
Congressional Research Service

7

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

According to CBO’s July 2021 baseline, the Nutrition title has become nearly 80% of the 2021
baseline, compared with about 76% when the 2018 farm bill was enacted, mostly due to higher
outlays during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 10-year baseline for SNAP is $815 billion as of July
2021, compared with $664 billion when the 2018 farm bill was enacted. For agriculture programs
that make up the rest of the farm bill, baseline amounts also are higher than when the 2018 farm
bill was enacted ($218 billion over 10 years as of 2021, compared with $203 billion over 10 years
in 2018).
Figure 3. Baseline for Agriculture Programs in the Farm Bill
($ millions; excluding Nutrition title, $218 billion over 10 years, FY2022-FY2031)

Source: Created by CRS using CBO, “Details About Baseline Projections for Selected Programs,” July 2021
baselines (for programs in the commodities, conservation, trade, and crop insurance titles); and CRS Report
R45425, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2018 Farm Bill; and amounts indicated in law for programs in other titles.

http://www.cbo.gov/about/products/baseline-projections-selected-programs. Amounts for other 2018 farm bill titles
(including Horticulture; Research, Extension, and Related Matters; Energy; and Miscellaneous) are compiled using the
CBO cost estimate of the 2018 farm bill, available at CBO, H.R. 2, Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, December
11, 2018, at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54880.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 12 link to page 13

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Compared with past farm bills, the 2018 farm bill included more programs that have a budget
baseline. Figure 3 shows the baseline for individual agricultural programs in the farm bill,
excluding the Nutrition title. The 2014 and 2018 farm bills added permanent baseline for several
of the relatively smaller budget programs, such as those shown for the research, horticulture,
energy, and miscellaneous titles.14
Figure 4. Farm Bill Programs Without a Baseline Beyond FY2023
Total mandatory funding during the 2018 farm bill (FY2019-FY2023)

Source: Created by CRS using CBO, H.R. 2, Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, December 11, 2018, at
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54880; and the text of P.L. 115-334.
Notes: Programs are identified as having budgetary outlays at any time during FY2019-FY2023 but no new
budget authority beyond FY2023. Programs are noted as table notes b and c in Table 3 of CRS Report R45425,
Budget Issues That Shaped the 2018 Farm Bill.
Some of these smaller and newer programs had been counted as “programs without a baseline”
when past farm bills were written, meaning they received mandatory funding in a farm bill but
did not retain baseline beyond that farm bill to pay for reauthorization. As Congress prepares for
the next farm bill, there are fewer programs without a baseline than for previous reauthorizations.
Nineteen programs received mandatory funding in the 2018 farm bill but do not have a baseline
beyond their expiration at the end of FY2023 (Figure 4), compared with 39 programs when the
2014 farm bill expired in 2018.15 The availability of baseline for more programs and the smaller

14 For example, see the several instances of table notes d in Table 3 of CRS Report R45425, Budget Issues That Shaped
the 2018 Farm Bill, for programs without baseline that obtained future funding beyond the end of the farm bill.
15 For details on specific programs, see CRS Report R44758, Farm Bill Programs Without a Budget Baseline Beyond
FY2018.
Congressional Research Service

9

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

number of programs without a baseline may make it easier for Congress to balance budget
considerations in the next farm bill than in the 2018 farm bill.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Jim Monke, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-2018, by Jim Monke

CRS Report R45425, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2018 Farm Bill, by Jim Monke

CRS Report R44606, The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), by Megan Stubbs

CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process, by Bil Heniff Jr.
Farm Economy and International Environment
The U.S. farm sector experienced large changes in farm income between 2010 and 2021. From
2010 to 2014, the sector experienced a period of unusually high incomes driven by strong
commodity prices and agricultural exports. From 2015 to 2018, incomes were generally below
long-run historical averages due to declining commodity prices. In 2018 and 2019, retaliatory
tariffs imposed on exports of certain agricultural commodities affected U.S. farm sector income.
Widespread flooding led to record-high prevented planting levels that curbed some crop
production in 2019, and drought conditions led to production declines for certain crops in 2021.
Beginning in 2020, the U.S. farm sector experienced additional challenges related to the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Despite these challenges, U.S. farm sector income increased for the third consecutive year in
2021 and exceeded long-run historical averages in 2020 and 2021. Farm sector income in 2021
was the highest since 2013. Adjusted for inflation, 2021 cash receipts for sales of livestock and
animal products were the highest since 2015. In 2021, cash receipts for all crops were the highest
since 2014, although cash receipts for fruits, vegetables, and nuts declined for the fourth
consecutive year. Continuing a trend since the late 1990s, median farm household income
exceeded median U.S. household income in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
Direct payments from federal programs were a key factor driving farm incomes in 2019-2021. In
2020, farmers received record-setting total payments of $45.7 billion. In 2021, total payments
amounted to $27.1 billion—$7.0 billion above the inflation-adjusted average for federal direct
payments from 1996 to 2021. Most of these payments came from ad hoc programs created to
respond to retaliatory tariffs and the COVID-19 pandemic, including the MFP and CFAP.
Commodity support programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill provided relatively low
payment levels because commodity price declines were not sufficiently severe or prolonged to
trigger payments from key support programs. Households with large-scale family farm businesses
(i.e., gross cash farm income of $350,000 or more) received the majority of government direct
payments to farmers. Households with smaller-scale family farm businesses (i.e., gross cash farm
income less than $350,000) earned negative income from their farm businesses on average and
received a small share of government direct payments. This discrepancy in the share of payments
between larger and smaller farm businesses is consistent with formulas for revenue support
program payments, which are based on historical production volume.
As of March 2022, prices are higher than in recent years for many agricultural commodities, and
total agricultural exports are at record levels. Trade agreements signed by the United States since
2019—including the Phase One Agreement with China, the “Stage One” U.S.-Japan Agreement,
Congressional Research Service

10

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

and the U.S. Mexico-Canada Agreement16—were key factors supporting certain agricultural
exports in 2020 and 2021. The Phase One Agreement with China expired at the end of 2021,
creating uncertainty about future Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural commodities.
Farmers, like other U.S. business operators, are coping with COVID-19-related impacts on supply
chains, including delays and high shipping costs. Inflation in the overall U.S. economy is
contributing to higher costs for farm inputs—particularly fuel, natural gas, and chemical inputs.
The prices consumers pay for food at grocery stores increased by 6.5% in 2021,17 which
compares with an average annual increase of 1.5% over the prior decade. In 2021, meat, poultry,
fish, and eggs as a category recorded the highest retail food price increases, rising by 12.5%.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Stephanie Rosch, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Product

CRS Report R47051, U.S. Farm Income Outlook: 2021 Forecast, by Stephanie Rosch
Agricultural Production
The 2018 farm bill contained a variety of programs that provide support to crop and livestock
producers. Among these, certain programs target specific commodities, production practices (e.g.,
organic agriculture), or marketing practices (e.g., local foods). Other programs provide price,
income, or other forms of support (e.g., animal health protections) for producing or marketing
specific commodities.
Farm safety net programs, which include the commodity support programs, FCIP, and permanent
disaster assistance programs discussed in this section, account for the majority of the farm bill
budget baseline, excluding food and nutrition programs. These farm safety net programs provide
direct payments to farmers during times of low market prices, natural disasters, and other adverse
events. Most farmers and ranchers are eligible for at least one farm safety net program. Federal
crop insurance is available for most field crops (e.g., corn, wheat), certain horticultural crops, and
certain livestock and animal products. Certain field crops, dairy, and sugar are eligible for farm
commodity support programs. Horticultural crops and livestock also may receive support from
the permanent disaster programs.
Commodity Support Programs
Agricultural commodity support began with 1930s Depression-era efforts to raise farm household
income when commodity prices were low because of prolonged weak consumer demand.
Although initially intended to be a temporary effort, commodity support programs have been
retained and expanded to cover many more crops than the few originally targeted. Congress has
shifted away from the original approach of providing support through supply control and
commodity stocks management to the current approach of direct income and price support

16 For background on these agreements, see CRS In Focus IF11412, U.S.-China Phase I Deal: Agriculture; CRS Report
R46576, “Stage One” U.S.-Japan Agreement: Agriculture; and CRS Report R45661, Agricultural Provisions of the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
17 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Economic News Release: Consumer Price Index Summary,” updated January 12,
2022.
Congressional Research Service

11

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

payments. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) provides financing for commodity support
programs, and all such programs receive mandatory indefinite appropriations of “such sums as
necessary.”18 Annual program outlays depend in part on commodity prices, such that outlays
increase as commodity prices decrease.
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
The 2018 farm bill suspended various out-of-date price support programs authorized under
permanent law and authorized multiple commodity support programs through the 2023 crop year.
These programs provide support to producers of eligible commodities and to processors of cotton
and sugar. For certain commodity support programs, various producer eligibility criteria limit
who can participate and provide for maximum payment limits.
Price Loss Coverage Program
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments augment farm revenues during periods of low market
prices. The PLC program makes payments when season-average market prices fall below a
statutorily determined reference price. Payments are proportional to historical planted acres (i.e.,
base acres) and historical crop yields. The program charges no participation fee. PLC coverage is
available for barley, chickpeas, corn, cotton (for seed), lentils, oats, peanuts, peas, rice, sorghum,
soybeans, wheat, and certain other oilseeds. PLC coverage cannot be combined with Agriculture
Risk Coverage (ARC) for the same commodity. The 2018 farm bill made certain changes to the
PLC program, including allowing the following flexibilities: reference price increases of 15%
under certain market conditions, for producers to update certain base acre holdings and historical
yields, and for producers to change crop enrollments annually between PLC and ARC.
Agriculture Risk Coverage Program
ARC payments augment farm revenues during periods of low crop revenues. There are two types
of ARC program coverage: county-level coverage (ARC-CO) and individual-level coverage
(ARC-I). ARC-CO makes payments to farmers when county-level revenue for a covered crop
falls below a guaranteed level that adjusts annually based on historical county revenues. ARC-I
makes payments to farmers when farm-level revenue falls below a guaranteed level that adjusts
annually based on historical farm revenues. Payments are proportional to historical planted acres.
The program charges no participation fee. The same commodities eligible for PLC are eligible for
ARC. The 2018 farm bill made certain changes to the program, including allowing producers to
update certain base acre holdings and historical yields and directing USDA to prioritize use of
FCIP data for calculating county yields.
Marketing Assistance Loan Program
The Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) program helps farmers manage their cash flow at harvest
time by guaranteeing that farmers can earn at least a minimum revenue for commodities used as
MAL collateral. The MAL program offers producers or processors, depending on the crop, nine-
month, nonrecourse loans for qualifying stored commodities. The loans are valued at commodity-
specific MAL rates established in the 2018 farm bill. When market prices fall below the MAL

18 Annual outlays for commodity support programs vary based on program enrollments and market conditions. Benefits
provided to program participants are calculated according to formulas specified in statute. By providing mandatory
indefinite appropriations for these programs in the farm bill, Congress assures that sufficient funds will be available to
meet program obligations without further legislative action. For more information, see CRS Report R44606, The
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
Congressional Research Service

12

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

rates, producers can repay the loans at the market price or surrender the commodity used as
collateral in lieu of repayment. Farmers receive the difference between the lower market price and
the higher MAL rate as a marketing loan gain payment. MAL coverage is available for the same
crops as ARC and PLC—excluding seed cotton—as well as upland and extra long staple cotton,
honey, mohair, processed sugar, and wool. The 2018 farm bill increased the statutory loan rate for
certain commodities, authorized recourse loans for certain lower quality commodities, and
changed how market prices are calculated for cotton, among other changes.
Loan Deficiency Payment Program
The Loan Deficiency Payment (LDP) program augments farm revenues during periods of low
market prices. When market prices fall below the MAL rates, the LDP program provides
payments to producers equal to the amount of MAL marketing loan gain payments. LDPs are
available for the same commodities eligible for MALs. Farmers cannot receive LDPs for
commodities used as collateral for MALs. The 2018 farm bill extended the existing program.
Cotton Policy
Congress did not include upland cotton in the list of commodities eligible for ARC and PLC
under the 2014 farm bill in response to a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement
case.19 Instead, cotton producers were eligible to receive ARC and PLC payments using “generic”
base acres.20 The 2014 farm bill also provided cotton producers with separate shallow loss
coverage through the FCIP.21 The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) authorized ARC
and PLC support for cotton grown for seed. The 2018 farm bill provided support for seed, upland,
and extra long staple cotton producers through the ARC, PLC, MAL, and LDP programs. The
2018 farm bill also continued certain import quotas on upland cotton, adjustment assistance for
domestic textile mills using upland cotton, and special competitiveness payments for domestic
users and exporters of extra long staple cotton.
Dairy Margin Coverage Program
In the 2014 farm bill, Congress shifted the way U.S. dairy policy supports milk prices—from
USDA buying dairy commodities to a margin protection program providing payments to dairy
producers when the difference between the milk price and a calculated feed ration falls below a
producer-selected margin. Actual margins remained higher than initially estimated when the 2014
program was established, resulting in few support payments to producers experiencing weak net
returns on milk. In response, the 2018 farm bill established the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC)
program, which lowered producer-paid premium rates for annual milk production of 5 million
pounds or less, increased available margin coverage to $9.50 per hundredweight (cwt.), and
covered a larger quantity of milk production than the 2014 farm bill. In addition to the DMC
program, the 2018 farm bill established a milk donation program to reimburse costs for fluid milk

19 For more information on cotton and the WTO dispute, see CRS Report R45143, Seed Cotton as a Farm Program
Crop: In Brief.
20 The 2014 farm bill renamed cotton base acres as “generic” base acres. Farmers were eligible to receive Agriculture
Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments per generic base acre if they planted crops that were
otherwise eligible to receive ARC and PLC payments.
21 The federal crop insurance program’s (FCIP’s) shallow loss coverage is an area-based insurance product that is used
in combination with a regular individual crop insurance policy to partially offset the cost of the regular policy’s
deductible.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 42 Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

donations by producers, processors, and cooperatives; amended the formula for the Class I skim
milk price used to calculate the Class I price under Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMOs);
and reauthorized the Dairy Forward Pricing Program, the Dairy Indemnity Program, and the
Dairy Promotion and Research Program through FY2023.
Sugar Program
Congress extended the U.S. sugar program’s existing nonrecourse loans under the MAL program,
as well as marketing allotments, and the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP) provisions in the
2018 farm bill.22 The 2018 farm bill raised the loan rate by one cent to 19.75 cents per pound for
raw cane sugar and by 1.29 cents to 25.38 cents per pound for refined beet sugar. USDA is
required, to the maximum extent possible, to operate the U.S. sugar program at zero cost to the
federal government by avoiding sugar loan forfeitures to the CCC. The sugar program uses
domestic marketing allotments and import limitations to maintain prices above loan forfeiture
levels. Marketing allotments to domestic sugar beet and sugar cane processors limit the amount of
sugar marketed for domestic human consumption, while U.S. sugar imports are limited through a
tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system that allows for sugar imports at low tariff rates and out-of-quota
imports at rates that are usually prohibitive to imports. USDA sets the annual TRQ volume of
sugar that meets U.S. WTO obligations. The U.S. Trade Representative allocates the TRQs to
various countries and may reallocate unused, country-specific TRQs during the marketing year. A
separate bilateral agreement with Mexico regulates the volume of sugar imported from that
country. FFP requires USDA to purchase surplus sugar to sell to ethanol producers. The 2008
farm bill established the program, which was activated once, in 2013.
Issues and Options
Distribution of Payments Across Eligible Commodities
When constructing the 2018 and prior farm bills, Congress has considered the distribution of
support payments across eligible commodities. Different regions tend to produce different mixes
of commodities, which raises the potential for geographic disparities in support payments. Under
the 2018 farm bill, commodity support program outlays varied across crops depending on the
extent of historical and annual production, market prices, the selection of programs that producers
chose to enroll in each year, and program payment trigger levels set in statute. Certain
commodities were more likely to receive payments from the MAL and PLC programs than other
commodities given the market prices prevalent in 2018 when the farm bill was enacted and the
payment triggers specified in statute. Congress could consider whether the payment triggers for
the MAL and PLC programs are appropriate in view of the prevailing levels of commodity prices
under the current farm bill.
Timeliness of ARC and PLC Payments
Farmers receive ARC and PLC payments at least one year after the crop has been harvested due
to technical requirements for calculating average prices over the crop marketing year. This delay
may reduce the utility of these payments in addressing farmers’ cash flow needs during years
when prices are low. The delay in payments also may affect the farm bill’s budget score by
shifting one year of payments outside of the 10-year scoring window.

22 In this report, FFP is the acronym for both this program, the Feedstock Flexibility Program, and Food For Peace. For
information on Food for Peace, see “International Food Assistance.”
Congressional Research Service

14

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Payment Limits and Eligibility Criteria
Commodity support programs approach payment limitations, eligibility criteria, or both in
different ways or not at all. ARC and PLC limit the maximum payments that an individual person
or legal entity can receive per year. ARC, PLC, MALs, and LDPs impose a means test by limiting
the maximum income that an individual can earn and remain eligible for program benefits. In
contrast, the FCIP does not limit payments or impose a means test for benefits. The limits on
commodity support program payments may raise questions about the size of farms that should
receive support, whether payments should be proportional to production or limited per individual,
and which farm owners and operators should receive payments. USDA has adopted payment
limits and eligibility criteria for certain ad hoc payment programs created since 2018, including
the MFP and CFAP, that differ from the payment limits and eligibility criteria applied to
commodity support programs authorized by the 2018 farm bill. Some policymakers have
advocated for tightening payment limits for commodity support programs to save money, to
respond to general public concerns about payments to large farms, and to reduce potential
incentives to expand large farms at the expense of small farms. Others have countered that larger
farms should not be penalized for the efficiencies they have achieved through economies of size.
Dairy Policy
For 2021, DMC paid about $1.2 billion to dairy producers though January 18, 2022, as low milk
prices and high feed costs resulted in an average producer margin of about $6.80 per cwt. During
2021, 77% of U.S. dairies participated in DMC, and producers who bought margin coverage
above 2020’s average margin, particularly at the $9.50 level, received significant payments for
covered milk production. Some in Congress may want to evaluate the program for ways to
incentivize greater participation and for whether DMC provides an adequate safety net for dairy
producers, who often face milk production costs that are higher than the price they receive for
milk, including particularly those dairies with fewer than 500 milk cows.
Most milk is priced through the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system, and some dairy
stakeholders believe reforming the system might improve milk pricing for producers. The 2018
farm bill amended the Class I skim milk price calculation. That formula change negatively
affected producer milk prices in 2020 and 2021 when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted milk
markets. The Dairy Pricing Opportunity Act of 2021 (S. 3292) would reverse the 2018 farm bill’s
change to the Class I skim milk price formula, and it calls on USDA to hold hearings to allow
dairy stakeholders to address their FMMO concerns. If Congress chooses to address producers’
FFMO concerns in the debate over the next farm bill, it could consider these and other proposals.
Sugar Policy
Sugar producers and sugar end users (e.g., confectioneries and bakeries) have differing views on
the U.S. sugar program. Sugar producers point out that the sugar program, unlike other farm
commodity support programs, supports domestic sugar production at no cost to the federal
government. Sugar end users contend that program restrictions on marketing allotments and
imports raise the costs of their manufactured products, which puts U.S. manufacturers at a
competitive disadvantage compared with imported sugar-intensive products while shifting the
cost of the sugar support program from the federal government to U.S. consumers.
During past farm bill debates, proposals to amend or end the sugar program have come before
Congress. In the 117th Congress, the Fair Sugar Policy Act of 2021 (H.R. 4680/S. 2466) would
amend the sugar program by lowering the loan rate of raw cane sugar from 19.75 cents per pound
currently to 18.75 cents; repealing marketing allotments for processors and the FFP; and allowing
Congressional Research Service

15

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

countries with TRQ allotments to supply sugar to the United States to share their allotments with
other exporting countries voluntarily and temporarily. Given the contentious history of sugar
policy, this bill or similar legislation to revise the program could become part of the farm bill
debate on U.S. sugar policy.
For Further Information
CRS Experts

Stephanie Rosch, Analyst in Agricultural Policy

Joel L. Greene, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R45730, Farm Commodity Provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334), by Randy Schnepf

CRS Report R46561, U.S. Farm Policy: Revenue Support Program Outlays, 2014-2020, by Randy Schnepf

CRS Report R46248, U.S. Farm Programs: Eligibility and Payment Limits, by Randy Schnepf and Megan Stubbs

CRS Report R45143, Seed Cotton as a Farm Program Crop: In Brief, by Randy Schnepf

CRS In Focus IF11188, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Dairy Programs, by Joel L. Greene

CRS Report R45044, Federal Milk Marketing Orders: An Overview, by Joel L. Greene

CRS In Focus IF10223, Fundamental Elements of the U.S. Sugar Program, by Mark A. McMinimy
Crop Insurance
The FCIP offers farmers the opportunity to purchase insurance coverage against financial losses
caused by a wide variety of perils, including certain adverse growing and market conditions. The
federal government subsidizes the premiums that farmers pay for these insurance policies to
encourage farmer participation, covering about 62% of the total premium on average for all
policies sold in 2021.23 Farmers can choose among many types of policies and policy options to
customize coverage to their farm businesses’ specific needs. Private-sector companies sell and
service the policies; USDA subsidizes, regulates, and reinsures the policies.
The FCIP is permanently authorized under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-430)
and the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-365). The Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation (FCIC)—the agency that finances FCIP operations—is funded with mandatory
appropriations of “such sums as necessary.” CBO projects that net spending for the FCIP will be
almost $49 billion for FY2021-FY2025 and more than $95 billion for FY2021-FY2030—
including expenditures to subsidize farmers’ policy premiums, compensate private insurance
providers for administrative and operating expenses, and reinsure losses from policies sold.24
The FCIP plays a prominent role in helping producers manage financial risk and provides
financial support to U.S. farmers in times of low farm prices and natural disasters. In crop year
2021, the program sold more than 2.2 million policies and insured crops and livestock valued at
more than $150 billion.25 In all, the FCIP provided coverage for 131 commodities and offered 33
different types of insurance coverage. Fourteen companies sold crop insurance to farmers through
the program, and farmers insured a record high 444 million acres in 2021.26

23 CRS calculations using data from USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA), “Summary of Business,” database,
downloaded January 11, 2022, at https://prodwebnlb.rma.usda.gov/apps/SummaryOfBusiness/ReportGenerator.
24 CRS calculations using CBO, Baseline Projections: USDA’s Farm Programs, July 2021.
25 USDA, RMA, “Summary of Business” database.
26 USDA, Office of Inspector General, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/Risk Management Agency’s Financial
Congressional Research Service

16

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Selected Farm Bill Provisions
The Crop Insurance title (Title XI) of the 2018 farm bill made several minor modifications to the
FCIP that CBO projected would reduce FCIP outlays relative to baseline levels by $104 million
during the FY2019-FY2028 period.27 Changes that were projected to increase budgetary outlays
included authorizing catastrophic coverage for grazing crops and grasses; allowing separate
coverage for crops that are grazed and mechanically harvested in the same season; redefining the
term beginning farmer or rancher for whole-farm revenue protection policies; and waiving
certain requirements for hemp coverage proposals submitted by the private sector. Changes that
were projected to reduce budgetary outlays included increasing the administrative fee for
catastrophic coverage; authorizing multicounty enterprise units; reducing funds for certain
research and development contracts and partnerships; reducing funds for review, compliance, and
program integrity; and changing how producer benefits are reduced when producing crops on
native sod. The 2018 farm bill also added hemp to the list of crops eligible for FCIP premium
subsidies; made hemp eligible for post-harvest loss coverage; and directed USDA to conduct
research for developing FCIP coverage for priority topics, commodities, and areas.
Issues and Options
Over the last three farm bills, Congress has expanded the FCIP to cover more commodities and
more types of risks. Although crop insurance market penetration for row crops has been high
historically, opportunities exist to expand participation, especially for specialty crops, livestock,
and animal products.
Numerous stakeholders have proposed reducing the cost of the FCIP by capping underwriting
gains for private-sector insurers, reducing premium subsidies for producers, introducing premium
subsidy eligibility criteria based on the producer’s adjusted gross income, and other proposals.
Additionally, the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA)—the agreement between the FCIC and
private-sector firms that sell FCIP policies that specifies how the cost of reinsuring the FCIP is
shared between the private-sector firms and USDA—has been in place since 2011. To identify
additional opportunities to reduce the cost of operating the program, Congress may consider
requiring greater transparency about the actual cost of federal underwriting and the share of costs
borne by the private sector.
The number of private-sector insurers participating in the FCIP has decreased over time, largely
due to consolidation in the insurance industry. Congress may choose to examine the drivers of
this consolidation, as well as any implications of consolidation on outreach to producers in
underserved areas and on insurers’ willingness to market new types of crop insurance coverage.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Stephanie Rosch, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R46686, Federal Crop Insurance: A Primer, by Stephanie Rosch

CRS Report R45291, Federal Crop Insurance: Delivery Subsidies in Brief, by Isabel Rosa

CRS In Focus IF11919, Federal Crop Insurance for Hemp Crops, by Renée Johnson

Statements for Fiscal Years 2021 and 2020, Audit Report 05401-0013-11, November 2021.
27 For detailed budget analysis of modifications to the FCIP in the 2018 farm bill, see CRS Report R45525, The 2018
Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side-by-Side Comparison.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 20 link to page 20 Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Disaster Assistance
In addition to direct farm support, farm bills authorize programs designed to help farmers and
ranchers recover from the financial effects of natural disasters. These programs are permanently
authorized but generally amended in omnibus farm bills.
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) permanently authorized four agricultural disaster programs for
livestock and fruit trees.
 Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP). LIP provides payments to eligible
livestock owners and contract growers for livestock deaths in excess of normal
mortality or sold at reduced price caused by an eligible loss condition (e.g.,
adverse weather, disease, or animal attack).
 Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP). LFP makes payments to eligible
livestock producers who have suffered grazing losses on drought-affected
pastureland or on rangeland managed by a federal agency due to a qualifying fire.
 Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish
Program (ELAP). ELAP provides payments to producers of livestock, honey
bees, and farm-raised fish as compensation for losses due to disease, adverse
weather, feed or water shortages, or other conditions not covered under LIP or
LFP.
 Tree Assistance Program (TAP). TAP makes payments to qualifying orchardists
and nursery-tree growers to replant or rehabilitate trees, bushes, and vines
damaged by natural disasters.
The programs provide compensation for a portion of lost production following a natural disaster
and receive mandatory funding amounts of “such sums as necessary” from the CCC. Total
payments under LIP, LFP, ELAP, and TAP vary each year based on eligible loss conditions.
Production losses from natural disasters also may be covered under the FCIP (see “Crop
Insurance”) and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). Producers who grow a
crop that is ineligible for crop insurance may apply for NAP. NAP offers coverage for
catastrophic losses—losses in excess of 50% of normal yield. Producers may purchase higher
coverage levels for less severe losses (referred to as buy-up coverage).28 Producers must purchase
NAP policies prior to a disaster event and purchase or renew coverage annually. The program is
authorized permanently and receives mandatory funding amounts of “such sums as necessary”
from the CCC.
Issues and Options
Over the past 20 years, Congress has authorized permanent disaster assistance programs and
expanded FCIP and NAP policies to reduce the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Following
enactment of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), Congress appropriated little in the way of
supplemental disaster assistance for agriculture for a number of years. This changed in 2018
when Congress authorized supplemental appropriations for agricultural production losses in 2017

28 Buy-up coverage is available in increments of 5% to cover between 50% and 65% of a crop.
Congressional Research Service

18

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

that were not covered by the FCIP or NAP.29 Congress appropriated additional supplemental
funding for natural disaster-related losses in 2018 through 2021, totaling more than $13 billion.30
Most of this funding was made available through ad hoc assistance, including the Wildfires and
Hurricanes Indemnity Program (WHIP) and block grants to states.
With the resurgence in ad hoc assistance, Congress might reassess the effectiveness of the
permanent disaster assistance programs as well as NAP and crop insurance coverage. By covering
the losses of farmers who chose not to purchase insurance, Congress could consider whether
WHIP and other ad hoc assistance creates a potential disincentive for future participation in the
FCIP or NAP. The scope and scale of supplemental disaster assistance since enactment of the
2018 farm bill has outpaced spending in some of the permanent disaster support programs, which
may call into question whether the permanent disaster assistance programs can or should be
expanded to cover additional losses or losses from events that are not currently covered. Overall,
the next farm bill could provide a platform for Congress to debate the role of the federal
government in supporting natural disaster-related losses for the farm industry, which is acutely
vulnerable to natural disasters and fluctuations in weather.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by Megan Stubbs

CRS In Focus IF10565, Federal Disaster Assistance for Agriculture, by Megan Stubbs

CRS In Focus IF11539, Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program (WHIP), by Megan Stubbs
Intersecting Issues and Options for Farm Safety Net Programs
In addition to addressing issues confined to individual aspects of commodity support programs,
crop insurance, or disaster assistance in the next farm bill, Congress also could consider
addressing issues that intersect multiple aspects of these farm safety net programs. A selection of
issues that intersect these program areas follow.
Farm Revenue Support Programs
In the next farm bill, Congress may consider whether the existing structure of farm revenue
support programs serves its intended goals—or whether it may potentially introduce unintended
outcomes. The U.S. farm sector produces commodities to supply domestic and international
demand for food, animal feed, fuel, fiber, and other industrial products. Farm revenue support
programs provide support to farmers, ranchers, and other types of agricultural operations to
partially offset the financial costs of risks, such as adverse weather and market conditions.
Shifting some of the financial costs of these risks from agricultural producers to the federal
government can help to stabilize farm revenues. Payments from farm support programs also may
improve farmers’ access to credit. Proponents of farm revenue support programs have asserted
that these programs are necessary to maintain a viable U.S. agricultural sector and an affordable

29 The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) authorized $2.36 billion for agricultural losses in 2017.
30 The FY2019 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 116-20) authorized $3 billion for losses in 2018 and 2019, and the
FY2022 continuing resolution (P.L. 117-43) authorized $10 billion for losses in 2020 and 2021.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 8 link to page 10 Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

supply of food and fiber.31 Critics have countered that revenue support programs are harmful and
that they waste taxpayer dollars, distort producer behavior in favor of certain crops, inflate returns
to landownership, encourage concentration of production, and place producers who do not receive
farm support payments—including smaller domestic producers and farmers in lower-income
foreign nations—at a comparative disadvantage in applying for credit from private-sector lenders
and/or self-funding farm business investments.32 In addition, certain environmental groups and
agricultural economists have argued that subsidies encourage production on environmentally
fragile lands and result in pollution from runoff of fertilizer and pesticides.33 In contemplating a
new farm bill, Congress may want to consider how best to balance these competing perspectives.
Supplemental Funding
Nonfarm bill supplemental funding has increased significantly since passage of the 2018 farm
bill.34 Some of this supplemental funding duplicated payments from existing farm safety net
programs (e.g., supplemental payments in 2019 to augment regular prevented planting payments
through the FCIP). Other supplemental funding provided support that differed from the existing
farm safety net programs. This included price and income support for commodities not covered
under existing commodity support programs, including for livestock and specialty crops under
various USDA pandemic response programs, as well as MFP payments for losses due to trade
disputes that were not specifically compensated under existing farm safety net programs.
The farm bill safety net programs—revenue support programs, the federal crop insurance
program, and disaster assistance programs—have been established over time to provide a
measure of stability in the farm sector and to promote an adequate supply of certain agricultural
products while allowing commodity prices to respond to market signals. In view of the
prominence of supplemental payments to the farm sector in recent years, Congress may consider
what level of farm income is adequate to fulfill these policy objectives and whether the farm bill
safety net programs are sufficiently flexible to respond to changing circumstances. Congress also
may consider whether the combination of spending on farm revenue support programs and
supplemental spending runs a risk of exceeding annual spending limits on trade-distorting
domestic support payments that the United States has agreed to under WTO rules.35 An added
consideration for lawmakers is that any expansion in farm safety net programs under the existing
farm bill baseline may require making funding reductions for other farm bill priorities.
Animal Agriculture
Farm bills traditionally do not provide livestock and poultry producers with farm revenue support
programs like those for major crops, such as grains, oilseeds, and cotton. (The exception is dairy;

31 For example, see letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation to Chairmen Pat Roberts and Michael Conaway
and ranking members Debbie Stabenow and Collin Peterson of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, August
1, 2018, at https://www.fb.org/files/Farm_Bill_Conference_Letter_8-1-2018.pdf.
32 For example, see Scott Lincicome, “Examining America’s Farm Subsidy Problem,” Cato Institute, December 18,
2020, at https://www.cato.org/commentary/examining-americas-farm-subsidy-problem.
33 For example, see Union of Concerned Scientists, Subsidizing Waste: How Inefficient US Farm Policy Costs
Taxpayers, Businesses, and Farmers Billions, Policy Brief, August 2016; and Daniel Sumner and Carl Zulauf,
“Economic & Environmental Effect of Agricultural Insurance Programs,” The Council on Food, Agricultural &
Resource Economics, July 2012.
34 For additional supplemental funding discussion, see “Budget Situation and Outlook” and funding amounts
represented as “Non-farm bill” in Figure 1.
35 For more information on WTO rules and limits for domestic agriculture supports, see CRS Report R45305,
Agriculture in the WTO: Rules and Limits on U.S. Domestic Support.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 19 Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

see “Dairy Policy.”) Instead, the livestock and poultry industries look to the federal government
for leadership in protecting animal health; establishing transparent, science-based rules for trading
animal products; resolving foreign trade disputes; and assuring that supplies of domestic and
imported meat and poultry are safe.
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
The 2018 farm bill includes provisions in the Miscellaneous title (Title XII) that addressed animal
health, a sheep production and grant program, cattle grading, a statutory dealer trust, and the
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) guidance for small meat processors. It also
included animal welfare provisions that prohibited the slaughter of dogs and cats for human
consumption, extended a ban on animal fighting in U.S. territories, required USDA to submit a
report on the importation of dogs, and provided shelter assistance grants for pets of victims of
domestic violence.
The 2018 farm bill established the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program,
which authorized and funded USDA to enter into cooperative agreements with states, tribes,
universities, and livestock organizations to conduct activities to mitigate risks to U.S. livestock
from animal pests and disease. It also established the National Animal Health Vaccine bank to
stockpile vaccines to enable the United States to respond to animal diseases, particularly foot-
and-mouth disease (FMD), and expanded funding for the diagnostic National Animal Health
Laboratory Network.
The 2018 farm bill established three cattle- and carcass-grading training centers that were set up
in USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service in 2019. Other livestock-related provisions in the
enacted law authorized USDA to conduct studies on establishing a livestock dealer statutory
trust,36 as well as directed FSIS to provide a report on guidance and outreach to small meat
processors. USDA issued these reports in 2020, and the dealer trust was enacted into law in
Division N, Section 763, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
Issues and Options
The U.S. livestock and poultry sector is at risk of highly contagious animal disease outbreaks—
such as FMD, African swine fever (ASF), and highly pathogenic avian influenza—that would
disrupt U.S. farm animal production and live animal and livestock product exports. Increased
resources for border and herd monitoring and surveillance activities for ASF are priorities for the
hog industry, especially since ASF was found in the Western Hemisphere (the Dominican
Republic and Haiti) for the first time ever in 2021. In September 2021, USDA announced $500
million in additional CCC funding for ASF efforts, and Congress could consider further
expanding the preparedness programs initiated in the 2018 farm bill for animal disease threats.
COVID-19 outbreaks in some large meatpacking plants in 2020 and the related disruption to meat
processing have heightened ongoing concerns about concentration in the meat-processing sector,
leading to calls for increased processing capacity in the form of small- to medium-sized facilities.
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), Congress provided grants and loans
for food processors with small-sized facilities. The act also provided grant funding to enable
existing meat processors to upgrade their facilities to qualify for federal inspection, which would
allow them to ship meat products in interstate commerce. In response, USDA established the

36 In December 2020, Congress enacted the Dealer Statutory Trust in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L.
116-260). The dealer trust requires livestock dealers to hold all livestock purchased, and if livestock has been resold,
the receivables or proceeds from such sale, in trust for the benefit of all unpaid cash sellers of livestock until full
payment has been received by those sellers.
Congressional Research Service

21

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Meat and Poultry Inspection Readiness Grant program in June 2021 and the Pandemic Response
and Safety Grant Program in September 2021. In January 2022, the White House announced that
$1 billion in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA; P.L. 117-2) funds—including grants, loans,
worker support, overtime inspection costs for small plants, and innovation funds—would be
available for expanding meat processing. During the upcoming farm bill debate, Congress could
consider the effects of concentration on the meat processing supply chain, the effects of
concentration on prices producers receive for livestock and poultry, and on retail prices for
consumers. Congress could consider any trade-offs in expanding programs developed during the
pandemic for small- to medium-sized meat processors and/or creating new programs in order to
increase marketing opportunities for livestock producers.
During past farm bill debates, there was interest in addressing competition in the livestock and
poultry sectors. In Executive Order 14036, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,”
the Biden Administration directed USDA to consider proposing rules that would address
competition through the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act, 7 U.S.C. §181 et seq.). The rules
would address the scope of the P&S Act; practices that are unfair or unjustly discriminatory or
cause undue or unreasonable preferences or advantages; and the poultry tournament price system.
These rules would be similar to the marketing and competition rules, or “GIPSA rules,”37 that
USDA released in 2010 to implement provisions in the 2008 farm bill but that never were
finalized. As in the past, support among stakeholders in livestock and poultry industries for these
rules is likely to vary, and some may look to the farm bill as an opportunity to address their
concerns about competition.
The executive order on competition also directed USDA to consider proposing a rule for a
voluntary Product of the USA label for meat. In 2015, the WTO ruled that United States was in
violation of its WTO obligations in a country-of-origin labeling (COOL) dispute settlement case
involving cattle and hogs. Congress repealed mandatory COOL for beef and pork in December
2015, but some stakeholders have continued to advocate for the re-imposition of mandatory
COOL for beef and pork. Several bills introduced in the 117th Congress would restore mandatory
COOL (S. 2716 and H.R. 4421/S. 2332). Other bills would define voluntary labels for U.S. beef
products (H.R. 4973/S. 2623). As such, meat-origin labeling may become a subject of debate in
the upcoming farm bill.
The Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. §2131 et seq.) requires minimum care standards for most types
of warm-blooded animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially,
or exhibited to the public. Although farm animals are exempt, they are covered by other federal
laws addressing humane transport and slaughter. As in past farm bills, Congress may consider
addressing animal welfare issues for nonfarm animals. For example, bills introduced in the 117th
Congress would address adding requirements for commercial dog handlers (H.R. 2840/S. 1385),
adopting animals used in research (H.R. 5244/S. 1378), prohibiting the use of wild animals in
traveling acts (H.R. 5999/S. 3220), and importing healthy dogs (H.R. 4239/S. 2597). Congress
has used general provisions in appropriations acts to ban domestic horse slaughter, and Congress
could consider other horse-related measures during the debate over a new farm bill. For example,
a House-introduced bill (H.R. 3355) would ban selling, possessing, or transporting horses for
slaughter for human consumption and curtail the shipment of horses to Canada or Mexico for
slaughter. Other horse-related bills (H.R. 5441/S. 2295, and H.R. 6341) would strengthen the
Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §1821 et seq.).

37 GIPSA (the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration) was the USDA agency that administered the
Packers and Stockyards Act. A USDA reorganization in 2017 merged GIPSA into the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS).
Congressional Research Service

22

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

For Further Information
CRS Expert

Joel L. Greene, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R41673, USDA’s “GIPSA Rule” on Livestock and Poultry Marketing Practices, by Joel L. Greene

CRS Report RS22955, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling, by Joel
L. Greene

CRS Report R46672, Federal Statutes Protecting Domesticated and Captive Animals, by Erin H. Ward

CRS In Focus IF12002, Animal Use in Federal Biomedical Research: A Policy Overview, by Kavya Sekar and
Genevieve K. Croft
Other Horticultural Products
Beginning in 2008, enacted farm bill legislation has included a horticulture title covering
provisions supporting the fruit, vegetable, and other specialty crop industries, as well as USDA-
certified organic products, which cover both organic-certified crops and animal products. Over
the years, this title has included provisions supporting locally sourced products (not limited to
crops) and provisions establishing a USDA regulatory framework for hemp cultivation. Upon
enactment of the 2018 farm bill, CBO-projected outlays for the Horticulture title (Title X)
provisions totaled $1.0 billion (FY2019-FY2023), accounting for less than 0.5% of total projected
farm bill spending. Support for these sectors is not limited to the horticulture title; it is also
contained within other farm bill titles covering a range of programs administered by USDA.
Other 2018 farm bill provisions supporting these sectors are part of federal crop insurance and
disaster assistance, as well as federal programs supporting the agricultural research and extension,
conservation, rural development, trade, and nutrition titles.
Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Specialty Crops
The 2018 farm bill reauthorized and expanded funding for many of the existing USDA programs
supporting specialty crops—defined as “fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and
horticulture and nursery crops (including floriculture)” (7 U.S.C. §1621 note). In the Horticulture
title, provisions included Specialty Crop Block Grants to states, Specialty Crop Market News data
collection, food safety education initiatives, and chemical regulation and information collection.
Provisions in other 2018 farm bill titles included the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and other
USDA programs supporting emergency citrus disease research; USDA purchases of fresh fruits
and vegetables for use in domestic nutrition assistance programs; federal crop insurance and
supplemental disaster assistance; agricultural trade promotion; and other marketing programs in
various titles.
Issues and Options
In previous farm bills, produce industry groups, representing a range of crops and regional
interests, tended to support reauthorization and expansion of existing USDA programs. The next
farm bill could focus on other legislative priorities within the industry, such as ways to address
continued COVID-19-related supply chain disruptions, including access to workers and
distribution challenges. Some of these priorities may involve reforms outside the farm bill, but
others could be addressed by increasing grant funding, changing USDA procurement rules (e.g.,
H.R. 5309), and expanding research into mechanization technologies. Additional legislation
Congressional Research Service

23

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

pending before the 117th Congress would address seasonal import competition in certain regions
of the country (e.g., H.R. 4580 and H.R. 3926/S. 2080).
USDA-Certified Organic Agriculture
The 2018 farm bill reauthorized and expanded funding for provisions supporting agricultural
products certified and labeled as USDA Organic, indicating that those products are grown in
accordance with USDA regulations (7 C.F.R. §205) and verified by a USDA-accredited certifying
agent according to USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP). NOP is a voluntary certification
program for producers and handlers that uses approved methods and standards. The program
covers organically produced specialty crops, field crops, and animal products (e.g., meat and
dairy products), as well as nonfood consumer products. The Horticulture title of the 2018 farm
bill primarily focused on addressing perceived shortcomings in USDA’s organic certification by
making changes intended to enhance enforcement, limit program fraud, and fund technology
upgrades. Other provisions changed the eligibility and consultation requirements of the National
Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and reauthorized the National Organic Certification Cost-Share
Program and the Organic Production and Market Data collection. Provisions in other 2018 farm
bill titles included the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative in the Research,
Extension, and Related Matters title; transition assistance and incentives for organic production in
the Conservation title; and federal crop insurance and other marketing and promotion support in
other titles.
Issues and Options
The organic industry represents highly diverse interests with often divergent priorities. Some
shared priorities have focused on USDA not finalizing regulations to address transitioning dairy
cows to organic standards, livestock handling and poultry living conditions, and oversight and
enforcement of NOP-certified products. Some related legislative initiatives in the 117th Congress
focus on restoring funding for organic certification cost-share programs and ensuring organic
agriculture is part of ongoing U.S. agricultural climate solutions (e.g., H.R. 2803/S. 1251). In the
next farm bill, Congress might consider further structural changes to NOP, including establishing
a new framework for developing standards, elevating the role of the NOSB, and addressing the
current backlog in developing NOP standards (e.g., H.R. 2918). Other actions could advance
organic agriculture within USDA research, nutrition, and procurement programs (e.g., H.R.
5309), as well as improve crop insurance and risk management tools. Some producer groups are
pursuing an alternative certification regime under a Regenerative Organic label, in part to address
perceived NOP shortcomings related to animal welfare protections and objections by some that
soilless hydroponic growing systems qualify as USDA Organic.
Local, Urban, and Innovative Production
The 2018 farm bill reauthorized and expanded funding for many of the existing provisions
supporting locally sourced foods—both crops and animal products. No consensus exists for what
constitutes locally sourced foods. In most cases, USDA farm programs supporting local food
systems base their program eligibility on a statutory definition of locally or regionally produced
agricultural food products, which states that any food product that is raised, produced, and
distributed in “the locality or region in which the final product is marketed” where “the total
distance that the product is transported is less than 400 miles from the origin of the product; or …
the State” where the food was produced (7 U.S.C. §1932). The Horticulture title of the 2018 farm
bill created the Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP), which combined and expanded the
existing USDA farmers’ market, local food marketing, and value-added processing grant
Congressional Research Service

24

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

programs. Provisions in other farm bill titles enhanced crop insurance and disaster assistance for
urban and small-scale production and made changes to food programs and grants in the Nutrition
title. The 2018 farm bill created new support for urban food systems in the Research, Extension,
and Related Matters and in other titles, establishing an Office of Urban Agriculture and
Innovative Production at USDA and providing new grant authority to facilitate urban production,
harvesting, transportation, and marketing.
The 2018 farm bill also included provisions supporting historically underserved producers
(Miscellaneous, Title XII, Subtitle C). These provisions, which often support farming operations
within USDA programs that benefit local and urban farmers, also expanded USDA support for
beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers.
Issues and Options
Legislative priorities among groups representing, in general, small-sized local and urban
producers—and beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers—span
diverse food systems and community needs. Shared priorities include increasing access to USDA
programs and addressing equity and competition—often related to small-sized and limited-
resource producers. Priorities also often focus on agricultural sustainability and access to USDA
conservation funding, including for organic production systems. Several bills introduced in the
117th Congress would address these priorities. Ensuring climate-focused agricultural policies and
that locally sourced food systems are part of U.S. agricultural climate solutions (e.g., H.R.
2803/S. 1251) remain priorities for certain groups. The next farm bill also could provide
resources to improve agricultural and rural infrastructure and enhance supply chain resilience by
expanding access to farm credit and crop insurance and to USDA nutrition and procurement
programs (e.g., H.R. 2896, H.R. 5309), as well as addressing industry consolidation and antitrust
concerns (e.g., H.R. 1258). In previous farm bill debates, a range of proposed legislative changes
across all farm bill titles were introduced in comprehensive marker bills, reflecting the interests of
small-sized local and urban producers.
Hemp Production and Processing
The 2018 farm bill created new authorities to legalize hemp, a variety or cultivar of Cannabis
sativa—the same plant as marijuana—grown for use in the production of a range of
nonpsychoactive food, beverage, consumer, and manufactured products. In statute, hemp is
defined to include seeds, derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of
isomers with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry
weight basis (7 U.S.C. §1639o). The Horticulture title of the 2018 farm bill directed USDA to
establish a framework to regulate hemp cultivation under federal law and facilitate commercial
cultivation, processing, marketing, and sale of hemp and hemp-derived products. USDA
published final regulations under the Domestic Hemp Production Program in 2021. All U.S. states
plan to allow growth of hemp in the 2022 crop year under either a USDA-approved state plan or a
USDA general license. USDA has implemented provisions in other 2018 farm bill titles that made
hemp producers eligible for federal crop insurance and agricultural research programs.
Issues and Options
Hemp industry interests reflect many national and regional groups with differing priorities, often
depending on the products they produce and whether hemp is used for its fiber, grain, or flower.
Some shared priorities call for relaxing USDA’s regulatory requirements—which are perceived
by the hemp industry and some state regulators to be overly restrictive and impractical—and to
Congressional Research Service

25

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

reduce the role of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in regulating hemp. In the next farm
bill, Congress could consider whether to further amend the statutory definition of hemp (7 U.S.C.
§1639o) to raise the allowable legal THC level from 0.3% to 1% (e.g., H.R. 6645; S. 1005) to
provide additional regulatory flexibility to growers. Congress also could increase research
funding for hemp, including targeted support for processing capacity of hemp fibers for use in
insulation, construction materials, and plastics. The National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture supports adding hemp to the statutory definition of a specialty crop (7 U.S.C. §1621
note), which could qualify hemp for USDA programs that tie eligibility to the specialty crop
definition. The next farm bill also could consider ways to ensure hemp is part of ongoing climate
proposals involving agriculture.
Other leading efforts by some hemp groups seek to address long-standing concerns that the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to restrict the marketing of food and dietary
supplements containing hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) (e.g., H.R. 841 and S. 1698). Related
proposals in the 117th Congress would establish federal standards under FDA’s jurisdiction for
hemp-derived CBD products (H.R. 6134). Some interest groups contend that FDA is not properly
regulating CBD, which could pose a threat to public safety. An open question is whether changes
to FDA laws and regulations are within the farm bill’s jurisdiction.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Renée Johnson, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R44719, Defining “Specialty Crops”: A Fact Sheet, by Renée Johnson

CRS In Focus IF11317, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Specialty Crops and Organic Agriculture, by Renée Johnson

CRS Report R46538, Local and Urban Food Systems: Selected Farm Bill and Other Federal Programs, by Renée
Johnson et al.

CRS In Focus IF11252, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Support for Local Food Systems, by Renée Johnson and Randy
Alison Aussenberg

CRS In Focus IF11210, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Support for Urban Agriculture, by Renée Johnson

CRS In Focus IF11227, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, by Renée Johnson

CRS Report R44742, Defining Hemp: A Fact Sheet, by Renée Johnson

CRS In Focus IF11088, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Hemp Cultivation and Processing, by Renée Johnson
Conservation
The conservation title of a farm bill generally contains numerous reauthorizations, amendments,
and new programs that encourage farmers and ranchers to voluntarily implement resource-
conserving practices on private land. Starting in 1985, farm bills have broadened the conservation
agenda to include multiple resource concerns. Although the number of conservation programs has
increased and techniques to address resource problems continue to emerge, the basic approach
has remained unchanged: to provide financial and technical assistance to implement conservation
systems supported by education and research programs.
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
The current conservation portfolio includes over 20 distinct programs, subprograms, and
initiatives, many of which were created in farm bill legislation. These programs can be grouped
Congressional Research Service

26

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

into the following categories based on similarities: working lands programs, land retirement
programs, easement programs, partnership and grant programs, and conservation compliance.
Selected Farm Bill Conservation Programs
Working lands programs allow private land to remain in production while implementing various conservation
practices to address natural resource concerns specific to the area.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and
Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA)
Land retirement programs provide payments to private agricultural landowners for temporary changes in land
use and management to achieve environmental benefits.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)––includes the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Farmable
Wetland Program, Clean Lakes Estuaries And Rivers Pilot (CLEAR30), Soil Health and Income Protection
Program, and Transition Incentives Program
Easement programs impose a permanent or long-term land use restriction that is placed voluntarily on land in
exchange for a payment.

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP)
Partnership and grant programs use partnership agreements to leverage program funding with nonfederal
funding or provide grants to states or research organizations.

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), Conservation Innovation Grants, On-Farm
Conservation Innovation Trials, Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program, Voluntary Public Access,
and Habitat Incentive Program
Conservation compliance prohibits a producer from receiving selected federal farm program benefits
(including conservation assistance and crop insurance premium subsidies) when conservation program
requirements for highly erodible lands and wetlands are not met.

Highly erodible land conservation (Sodbuster), wetland conservation (Swampbuster), and Sodsaver
Other types of conservation programs, such as watershed programs, emergency land
rehabilitation programs, and technical assistance, are authorized in nonfarm bill legislation. Most
of these programs have permanent authorities and receive appropriations annually through the
discretionary appropriations process. These programs generally are not addressed in farm bill
legislation unless amendments to the program are proposed.
The Conservation title (Title II) of the 2018 farm bill reauthorized and amended portions of most
conservation programs, though the main focus was on the following large programs: the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized
to receive mandatory funding (i.e., they do not require an annual appropriation) and include
authorities that expire at the end of FY2023.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 32

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Issues and Options
Budget and Baseline
The Conservation title is one of the larger nonnutrition titles of the farm bill, accounting for 7%
of the total projected 2018 farm bill cost, or $60 billion of the total $867 billion in 10-year
mandatory funding authorized (FY2019-FY2023). Mandatory spending for conservation
programs was permanently enacted for the first time in the 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127). It has
since increased and included total outlays in
FY2020 of over $5 billion.38 The majority of
Figure 5. FY2020 Conservation Outlays
this spending occurs in working lands and
Total by program type
land retirement programs (see Figure 5).
In addition to funding authorized in the 2018
farm bill, legislation before the 117th
Congress, if enacted, would increase funding
for selected conservation programs. For
example, the House-passed Build Back
Better Act (BBBA, H.R. 5376) would extend
and increase funding for conservation
programs, such as EQIP, CSP, the
Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program, and the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program, by more than $21

billion over 10 years. This level of increase,
Source: Created by CRS using CBO, Baseline
if enacted, could alter the farm bill debate
Projections: USDA’s Farm Programs, July 2021.
for conservation funding.39
Climate Change and Carbon Markets
Current strategies for addressing climate change through agricultural programs, through both
adaptation and mitigation, rely on the delivery of voluntary conservation technical assistance and
financial support programs. Most farm bill conservation programs are designed to address
multiple natural resource concerns through locally adaptable practices. Thus, no existing
conservation program is specific to climate change adaptation or mitigation, but most programs
can integrate climate change-related goals within their current structures.
As part of the next farm bill, Congress may evaluate how well farm bill conservation programs
assist producers in climate change-related goals. Recent USDA initiatives related to climate
change include the working lands programs (e.g., EQIP and CSP) and proposed discretionary use
of the CCC to fund pilot projects to support production and marketing of “climate-smart”
agricultural commodities.40 How USDA implements these climate-focused initiatives and pilot
projects may affect the conservation title.

38 The 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198, 99 Stat. 1514) authorized limited mandatory funding for the Conservation Reserve
Program in FY1986 and FY1987. FY2020 levels are from CBO, Baseline Projections: USDA’s Farm Programs, July
2021.
39 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF11988, Build Back Better Act: Agriculture and Forestry Provisions.
40 CCC serves as the primary funding mechanism for mandatory farm bill funding. For additional information, see CRS
Report R44606, The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). See also USDA, “Partnership for Climate-Smart
Congressional Research Service

28

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

In addition to proposed changes, such as those in the BBBA that would increase funding for
existing conservation programs, the 117th Congress has debated legislation related to carbon
markets and the potential role that agriculture could play in them (e.g., Growing Climate
Solutions Act, S. 1251/H.R. 2820). The role of agriculture in carbon markets has produced a
variety of perspectives, including support for and opposition to a USDA role in standardizing
voluntary carbon markets for agriculture and forestry. This debate could carry over into the next
farm bill, including what role the conservation title could play in assisting producers to generate
tradable carbon credits or in supporting carbon markets.41
Program Backlogs
Arguments for expanding conservation programs proved to be persuasive to Congress in enacting
the 2018 farm bill in light of large backlogs of interested and eligible producers that were unable
to enroll because of a lack of funds. Debate on a new farm bill could see similar arguments.
Demand to participate in many of the conservation programs exceeds the available program
dollars several times over for some programs.
Acceptance rates and backlogs for conservation programs vary by program and program type. In
general, working lands programs continue to experience low acceptance rates, whereas recent
sign-ups under land retirement programs have had higher acceptance rates. For example, in
FY2020, USDA funded 27% of eligible program applications received for EQIP, 35% for CSP,
and 43% for Agricultural Management Assistance. By comparison, the 2021 CRP general sign-up
had more than 2 million acres offered for enrollment, and almost 1.9 million acres were accepted
(93%). Policy issues beyond funding levels also can affect application acceptance rates. Large,
ongoing backlogs of unfunded applications could provide a case for additional funding, whereas
certain policy changes could reduce demand.
Conservation Compliance
The Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill; P.L. 99-198) created the highly erodible lands
conservation and wetland conservation compliance programs, which tied various farm program
benefits to conservation standards. This provision has been amended numerous times to remove
certain farm program benefits from the compliance requirements and to add others. The 2018
farm bill made relatively few changes to compliance requirements. Some view these conservation
compliance requirements as burdensome, and they continue to be unpopular among producer
groups. Conservation compliance has remained a controversial issue since its introduction in the
1985 farm bill, and debate on its existence and effectiveness appears likely to continue.
Direct Spending and Flexibility
The 2018 farm bill required some existing conservation programs to direct a specific level of
funding or acres, or percentage of a program’s funding, to a resource- or interest-specific issue,
initiative, or subprogram. Through these directed policies, Congress specified a support level or
required investment that USDA is to achieve through program implementation. The specified
levels may reduce USDA’s flexibility to allocate funding based on need or reduce the total funds
or acres available for activities that may not meet a resource-specific provision. Congress could
consider the effect of these policies in the next farm bill.

Commodities,” at https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities.
41 For additional information, see CRS Report R46956, Agriculture and Forestry Offsets in Carbon Markets:
Background and Selected Issues.
Congressional Research Service

29

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

For Further Information
CRS Expert

Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs, by Megan Stubbs

CRS Report R45698, Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill, by Megan Stubbs

CRS Report R46971, Agricultural Conservation: FY2022 Appropriations, by Megan Stubbs
Nutrition
All farm bills since 1973 have included reauthorization of the Food Stamp Program (renamed
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] in 2008). In addition to SNAP, which is the
largest nutrition program, the nutrition title typically includes other programs that provide food or
funds to purchase food to low-income households. At the federal level, USDA’s Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) administers most nutrition title programs.42
Most farm bill domestic food assistance programs are treated as mandatory spending for budget
purposes. SNAP is open-ended mandatory spending and funded through appropriations laws. As
such, amending SNAP eligibility, benefits, or other program rules can have a budgetary impact at
the same time the availability of appropriated funding can affect operations. Discretionary
spending programs in the farm bill include the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP),
the administrative cost component of the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), and a
portion of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
The child nutrition programs (National School Lunch Program and others) and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are usually
reauthorized by a child nutrition reauthorization law, not by the farm bill.43
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SNAP provides benefits to eligible low-income households via electronic benefit transfer (EBT)
cards redeemable for SNAP-eligible foods (most edible goods) at SNAP-authorized retailers. In
FY2021, a monthly average of 44.5 million individuals participated in SNAP, and federal costs
for SNAP were $112.6 billion.44 The vast majority of the spending ($107.6 billion, 96%) was the
cost of the benefits, which are 100% federally financed. SNAP participation and costs increased
during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting greater economic need and higher benefit amounts
instituted by pandemic response laws than in previous years. Although the majority of federal
funding is for benefits, SNAP funding includes some non-benefit funding, such as federal

42 Exceptions are the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) and Community Food Projects—
administered by USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)—and a new micro-grant program
administered by USDA’s AMS.
43 These programs, located in the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act,
were last reauthorized in 2010 in P.L. 111-296, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.
44 USDA, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs
(data as of January 7, 2022),” at https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resource-files/SNAPsummary-1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

30

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

matching funds for state administrative costs, funds for states’ SNAP Employment and Training
(E&T programs), and SNAP nutrition education funding.
SNAP is administered as a federal-state partnership, with roles for each partner. For example,
SNAP state agencies determine household eligibility, and USDA determines retailer
authorization. The program operates in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. In lieu of SNAP, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands receive block grants to fund household food assistance.
The farm bill could amend any aspect (e.g., eligibility for households and retailers, administrative
funding, state administrative requirements) of the program’s authorizing law (the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008),45 but recent farm bills typically have maintained much of current law and
made a limited number of changes in selected areas.
Title IV (Nutrition) of the 2018 farm bill largely maintained the SNAP eligibility and benefit
calculation rules that had been in place. After debate over work requirements, the enacted
conference report largely maintained the program’s work-related rules with a few amendments to
E&T policies and funding.46 On benefit calculation, the new law required states to conduct a
simplified calculation for homeless households and required certain updates or studies of certain
aspects of benefit calculation. One of these studies is of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), the basis of
SNAP’s maximum benefit amounts. In August 2021, the Biden Administration released its
reevaluation of the TFP and issued higher benefit amounts for FY2022.47
The 2018 farm bill also made some changes to SNAP program integrity policies, such as
expanding nationwide a National Accuracy Clearinghouse to identify concurrent enrollment in
multiple states. It also changed certain EBT system and retailer policies, including requiring the
nationwide implementation of online acceptance of SNAP benefits.48
Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program
In recent years, governments and nonprofit organizations have set up SNAP bonus incentive
projects. These initiatives typically provide matching food funds when consumers use SNAP
benefits to purchase fruits and vegetables, encouraging such purchases. The 2014 farm bill first
authorized federal competitive grants for these incentive projects, called the Food Insecurity
Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grant program. The 2018 Nutrition title reauthorized FINI, renaming it
the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) and providing for evaluation,
training, and technical assistance. The 2018 farm bill expanded these SNAP incentive programs,
increasing mandatory funding by $417 million over 10 years and, within GusNIP, dedicating
funding for produce prescription projects to serve individuals eligible for SNAP or Medicaid in
households with, or at risk of, developing a diet-related health condition.

45 See most recent statutory compilation available at Govinfo, “Food and Nutrition Act of 2008,” at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-10331/.
46 USDA implemented these changes in USDA, FNS, “Employment and Training Opportunities in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program,” Final Rule, 86 Federal Register 35812, January 5, 2021.
47 See USDA, FNS, “USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food,” at https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/usda-food-plans-cost-food-
reports.
48 The 2014 farm bill initially authorized a pilot for online transactions. The pilot began accepting benefits in 2019 and
expanded geographically and to different retailer types throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Congressional Research Service

31

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

The Emergency Food Assistance Program
Under TEFAP, the federal government provides USDA-purchased foods to states for distribution
to emergency feeding organizations (e.g., food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens), which
provide food to people in need. States make eligibility decisions for TEFAP assistance under
federal parameters and choose local administering agencies. In addition to state allocations of
entitlement commodities, each state receives a share of administrative funds to cover storage,
distribution, and other expenses. States also receive bonus commodities that USDA acquires in its
agriculture support programs on an intermittent basis.
The farm bill specifies an annual amount of funding for TEFAP’s entitlement commodities,
which is adjusted for inflation according to changes to the TFP.49 CBO estimated that the 2018
farm bill increased TEFAP’s mandatory funding by $105 million from FY2019 to FY2023. The
2018 farm bill also authorized new TEFAP projects, funded at $4 million annually, to facilitate
the donation of raw/unprocessed commodities from agricultural producers, processors, and
distributors to emergency feeding organizations (Farm to Food Bank Projects).
Separate from the farm bill, TEFAP typically receives annual discretionary administrative funds
through appropriations acts. In addition, since 2018, TEFAP has received supplemental aid
through USDA actions and pandemic response acts. In FY2019 and FY2020, the Trump
Administration used the CCC to purchase $2.3 billion in food for distribution through TEFAP as
part of its trade mitigation efforts.50 Subsequently, COVID-19 response acts have provided $1.25
billion specifically for TEFAP, and the Biden Administration has used an additional $1 billion in
COVID-19 response funding for TEFAP and related initiatives.51 In FY2020, TEFAP
expenditures (nearly $2.8 billion) were more than triple what they were in FY2018 ($711
million).52
Other Farm Bill Nutrition Programs
The 2018 farm bill and most prior farm bills included provisions pertaining to several other
domestic nutrition programs. For some of these programs, the 2018 farm bill extended their
authorizations or authorizations of appropriations through FY2023.
 Nutrition Assistance Block Grants for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and
the Northern Mariana Islands. As opposed to SNAP’s financing, which is
open-ended, these territories receive a fixed amount adjusted for inflation each
year. In the case of disasters or emergencies, Congress has provided supplemental
funding at times. The 2018 farm bill did not amend these programs.
 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. Indian tribal
organizations may choose to operate FDPIR instead of having the state offer

49 USDA estimates that the Emergency Food Assistance Program’s (TEFAP’s) FY2022 funding will increase by
$57.75 million because of USDA’s recent reevaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP). USDA, FNS, Guidance
Document FNS-GD-2021-0086, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Thrifty Food Plan (TFP)
Adjustment of TEFAP Funding, August 16, 2021.
50 USDA, FNS, 2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Food and Nutrition Service, pp. 34-129, at
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/34FNS2022Notes.pdf.
51 USDA, “USDA to Invest $1 Billion to Purchase Healthy Food for Food Insecure Americans and Build Food Bank
Capacity,” press release, June 4, 2021.
52 USDA, FNS, 2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Food and Nutrition Service, at
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/34FNS2022Notes.pdf. For more information about TEFAP, see
CRS Report R45408, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding.
Congressional Research Service

32

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

SNAP benefits. FDPIR distributes USDA foods, rather than benefits redeemable
in retail stores, to income-eligible households living on Indian reservations and
American Indian households residing in approved areas near reservations or in
Oklahoma. Eligible households may receive either SNAP or FDPIR. The 2018
farm bill increased federal administrative funding and made it available for a
longer period. It also authorized a demonstration project for tribal organizations
to enter into self-determination contracts to purchase commodities for FDPIR.53
 Commodity Supplemental Food Program. CSFP provides supplemental foods
primarily to low-income seniors (aged 60 or older). USDA purchases the foods
and distributes them to project grantees for distribution to individuals. The 2018
farm bill reauthorized CSFP and lengthened participants’ certification periods.
 Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP). Under SFMNP, low-
income seniors receive vouchers redeemable for fresh produce at farmers’
markets and roadside stands. The 2018 farm bill maintained mandatory funding
at $20.6 million per year.
 School Food Programs. School meals programs typically are reauthorized
independently of the farm bill. The 2018 farm bill continued a $50 million set-
aside for USDA’s fresh fruit and vegetable purchases for schools and required
certain USDA actions to enforce Buy American requirements for school meals.
 Community Food Projects (CFP). This competitive grant program, established
in 1996, funds community food projects intended to promote innovative local
food initiatives to meet food insecurity and community needs. The 2014 farm bill
amended CFP and increased mandatory funding from $5 million per year to $9
million per year. The 2018 farm bill returned funding to $5 million per year.
 The 2018 farm bill created two new programs: the Micro-Grants for Food
Security Program funds efforts to increase locally grown foods in eligible states
and territories, and the Healthy Fluid Milk Incentive pilot funds bonus
incentives for milk purchases.
Issues and Options
Policymakers may face the following major policy themes, among others, in the next farm bill’s
nutrition title: to what extent, if at all, to continue policies enacted in the pandemic response laws;
supply chain changes for food distribution programs; and SNAP eligibility debates from past farm
bills and regulatory proposals. The budget outlook also affects potential policy proposals. CBO
estimated that the enacted 2018 farm bill’s nutrition title was budget neutral—policies forecasted
to increase direct spending were balanced by policies forecasted to decrease direct spending.
Policymakers may debate whether to achieve such a balance within the nutrition title again.
SNAP
COVID-19 Pandemic Policies
The COVID-19 pandemic has posed numerous challenges for SNAP. To address the economic
downturn and increased unemployment, the COVID-19 response laws in the 116th and 117th

53 USDA announced awards to eight tribal nations. USDA, FNS, “USDA Invests $3.5 Million to Provide Food
Purchasing Options to Tribal Communities,” press release, November 1, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

33

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Congresses included temporary benefit increases,54 as well as a requirement for the partial
suspension of certain work-related eligibility rules. In response to food insecurity concerns
among college students, student eligibility was expanded temporarily during the pandemic. The
laws also have granted USDA authority to offer administrative flexibilities to SNAP state
agencies as agencies respond to the constraints of social distancing, remote work, and higher rates
of new SNAP participants. Congress may consider whether to use the farm bill to make
permanent or extend temporary policies included in COVID-19 response laws.
Major Eligibility Issues in 2014 and 2018 Farm Bill Debates
The House-passed 2014 and 2018 farm bills would have changed the law around SNAP
categorical eligibility, but such changes were not included in the enacted bill. In current law,
SNAP categorical eligibility is available to applicants who receive benefits from low-income
programs, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), and state-financed General Assistance programs. As of January 2022, 44
jurisdictions have adopted the “broad-based” categorical eligibility option, available due to statute
and regulation, which gives states increased flexibility with the income and asset limits. Because
of this broad-based option, most states are assessing applicants’ eligibility without assessing their
assets. In July 2019, the Trump Administration proposed a rule to restrict broad-based categorical
eligibility. In June 2021, the Biden Administration withdrew the proposed rule. Congress may
look at this state option again, as well as the income and asset rules in general.
Like farm bills in the recent past, a new farm bill may revisit work-related rules. SNAP’s
authorizing law has long included work-related eligibility requirements, the strictest being a time
limit for “able-bodied” (nondisabled) adults (aged 18-49) without dependents (ABAWDs) who
work less than 80 hours per month. SNAP law also authorizes certain waivers and exemptions
from the time limit.55 The House-passed 2014 and 2018 farm bills included changes to SNAP’s
work-related rules, proposing work requirements that would have applied to more people and
were forecasted to reduce participation. In both years, Congress ultimately enacted changes
considered more modest than proposed in the House-passed versions. These previous House-
passed farm bills and a December 2019 Trump Administration rule, which was not finalized, also
would have made it difficult for states to receive time limit waivers.56
In addition, the 2014 farm bill authorized and funded E&T pilot programs in 10 states. USDA has
released evaluation reports on the pilots, but the final report is still pending.57 The next farm bill
could propose changes to work-related rules or further changes to E&T program policy,
particularly in light of a final evaluation of the pilot programs.

54 Certain benefit increases have sunset, and others are tied to federal and state public health emergency declarations
and will sunset accordingly. The Biden Administration’s implementation of a 2018 farm bill provision on the TFP
allows for an increase above the FY2019 amounts to continue beyond the emergency, but some households will see
lower benefits compared with the amounts received during the pandemic.
55 The time limit has been suspended during the public health emergency. P.L. 116-127, Division B, Title III, §2301.
See USDA, FNS, Guidance Document FNS-GD-2020-0016, SNAP – Families First Coronavirus Response Act and
Impact on Time Limit for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs), March 20, 2020.
56 That regulation was struck down in federal court, and the Biden Administration withdrew the Trump
Administration’s appeal. For more information, see USDA, “Statement by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on D.C.
Circuit Court's Decision Regarding ABAWDs Rule,” press release, March 24, 2021.
57 USDA, FNS, Expanding Opportunities and Reducing Barriers to Work: Interim Summary Report (Evaluation of
SNAP Employment & Training Pilots), September 3, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

34

link to page 35 link to page 35 Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Retailer and Redemption Policies
Both the 2018 farm bill and COVID-19 pandemic pose numerous policy questions for SNAP’s
retailer and redemption aspects. In the case of GusNIP, the 2018 farm bill increased funds for
SNAP bonus incentives and set aside funding for produce prescription programs (see “Gus
Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program”). Congress may consider changing funding levels
again or changing matching fund requirements, a policy changed in a COVID-19 response law.
USDA has initiated and expanded the SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot in recent years. Congress
may take interest in providing additional requirements for the pilot or moving beyond the pilot
stage. Under current law, restaurants cannot be authorized as SNAP retailers except through the
Restaurant Meals Program state option (i.e., a state can contract with restaurants to accept SNAP
for meals for senior, homeless, and disabled SNAP participants). Because the pandemic has
created challenges for the restaurant industry and its workforce, policymakers may be interested
in expanding the role for restaurants within SNAP.
Programs in Lieu of SNAP
Past farm bills (2008 and 2014) have required feasibility studies to explore transitions to the
SNAP program for Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.58
Policymakers may consider potentially revising or phasing out the Nutrition Assistance Block
Grants provided to Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and/or the Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands, allowing these jurisdictions to participate in the open-ended SNAP program
instead.
Congress may consider using the experiences of USDA and the tribal nations participating in the
2018 farm bill’s FDPIR demonstration project to explore policies that further tailor FDPIR to
tribal needs and interest in self-governance.
TEFAP
Several TEFAP developments may inform the next farm bill. For example, Congress may
consider whether or not to make permanent recent temporary funding increases for TEFAP.
Congress also may consider changes to the funding or operation of Farm to Food Bank Projects,
which have operated for three years.
In addition, Congress may consider adjustments to TEFAP’s procurement process. Under the
current model, USDA purchases foods on behalf of states and emergency feeding organizations.
The process can take roughly one to five months from solicitation through delivery.59 This time
frame caused some concern during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic when food
banks were experiencing increasing demand. The Trump Administration created the Farmers to
Families Food Box Program with the goal of expediting deliveries, among other purposes.60
While the Biden Administration ended the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, it

58 Anne Peterson et al., Implementing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico: A Feasibility Study,
USDA, FNS, June 2010; and Anne Peterson et al., Assessing the Feasibility of Implementing SNAP in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, USDA, FNS, August 2016.
59 USDA, AMS, “AMS CPP Procurement Schedule for 2021 to 2022 (xlsx),” https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-
food/solicitations.
60 The procurement process under the food box program differs from TEFAP in that USDA awarded contracts to
distributors to deliver food boxes to emergency feeding organizations. U.S. Congress, House Agriculture Committee,
Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations, An Overview of the Farmers to Families Food Box
Program, hearings, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., July 21, 2020, Serial No. 116–34, p. 34.
Congressional Research Service

35

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

incorporated the pre-packaged food box concept into TEFAP by enabling states to use their
entitlement commodity funds for fresh produce boxes. Congress may deliberate on the potential
advantages (e.g., efficiency) and drawbacks (e.g., less recipient choice) of food boxes.61 Other
procurement changes include efforts to incorporate more local foods into TEFAP.62
For Further Information
CRS Experts

Randy Alison Aussenberg, Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy

Kara Clifford Bil ings, Analyst in Social Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS In Focus IF11087, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: SNAP and Nutrition Title Programs, by Randy Alison Aussenberg
and Kara Clifford Bil ings

CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits, by
Randy Alison Aussenberg

CRS Report R45408, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding, by Kara Clifford
Bil ings

CRS Report R46681, USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs: Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, by Randy Alison
Aussenberg and Kara Clifford Bil ings

CRS Report R42054, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility, by Randy
Alison Aussenberg and Gene Falk

CRS Report R46817, Food Insecurity Among College Students: Background and Policy Options, coordinated by Kara
Clifford Bil ings and Joselynn H. Fountain
Agricultural Trade
USDA and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) administer programs
designed to alleviate hunger, improve global food security, and expand foreign markets for U.S.
agricultural producers and food manufacturers. The Trade title (Title III) of the 2018 farm bill
covered international food assistance programs, export credit guarantee programs, export market
development programs, and international scientific and technical exchange programs and
provisions. Title III programs derive their statutory authorities from the Food for Peace Act of
1954 (P.L. 83-480) for international food assistance programs and from the Agricultural Trade Act
of 1978 (P.L. 95-501) for foreign market expansion programs.
Trade and Export Promotion
The federal government provides support for U.S. agricultural exports through two types of
programs: export market development and export credit guarantees. Legislative authorization for
agricultural trade promotion programs is included in the trade title of the farm bill, with the
exception of the Quality Samples Program (QSP), which is authorized under the Commodity

61 For a discussion of related issues, see Food Bank News, “Cardboard Boxes are Centerpiece of USDA’s Coronavirus
Food Program,” April 22, 2020.
62 For example, the Biden Administration’s TEFAP Fresh Produce Box initiative encourages vendors to include locally
grown foods. Outside of TEFAP, the Biden Administration announced on December 6, 2021, a Local Food Purchase
Cooperative Agreement Program that is to award $400 million to state and tribal governments for purchases of local
foods for distribution to emergency feeding organizations. Although TEFAP foods are domestically produced, they are
not necessarily local.
Congressional Research Service

36

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-806, as amended).63 USDA’s Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) administers its export promotion programs, which are generally
funded using mandatory monies.64
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
Export market development programs include the Market Access Program (MAP), Foreign
Market Development Program (FMDP), Emerging Markets Program, QSP, and Technical
Assistance for Specialty Crops. These programs primarily aim to assist U.S. industry efforts to
build, maintain, and expand overseas markets for U.S. agricultural products. The 2018 farm bill
brought existing USDA export promotion programs together under a single Agricultural Trade
Promotion and Facilitation Program and created a new Priority Trade Fund (PTF)—with a total
mandatory permanent budgetary baseline of $255 million annually for all the programs. The 2018
farm bill extended budget authority for these programs through FY2023.
The amendments in the 2018 farm bill allow MAP and FMDP funding for certain activities in
Cuba, but export credit guarantees for Cuba remain prohibited.65 Under PTF, the 2018 farm bill
provides $3.5 million in mandatory funding per year for one or more new programs to access,
develop, maintain, and expand markets for U.S. agricultural products at the discretion of the
Secretary of Agriculture.
The 2018 farm bill also reauthorized the FAS-administered short-term Export Credit Guarantee
Program—known as GSM-10266—and the Facility Guarantee Program (FGP), with a total annual
joint funding of at least $1 billion per year. Under these programs, the CCC provides payment
guarantees for commercial financing of U.S. agricultural exports. The total GSM guarantees for
FY2020 were $2.2 billion, over 86% of which went to Latin America.67 Over 99% of the
guarantees in FY2020 supported export sales of grains, soybeans and flour, soybean meal, or
soybean oil. Regulatory constraints limiting the use of established facilities to U.S. imports,
eligibility criteria for foreign banks, and other constraints have limited FGP’s use, with the
program inactive in some years.
Issues and Options
Over the years, Congress has altered export promotion programs to facilitate exports of high-
value agricultural products rather than raw commodities and to conform to U.S. obligations under
international trade agreements, such as those under the WTO. These changes have led
associations that promote olives, strawberries, and highbush blueberries to receive funding and
increased allocations for some processed products, such as distilled spirits.68 Of the $175.6
million total MAP allocations for FY2022, almost 30% are shared among five groups: Cotton

63 15 U.S.C. §714c(f) states that the CCC is authorized to use its general powers to “[e]xport or cause to be exported, or
aid in the development of foreign markets for, agricultural commodities (other than tobacco) (including fish and fish
products, without regard to whether such fish are harvested in aquacultural operations).”
64 Occasionally, USDA may use additional ad hoc export promotion funding.
65 For more on U.S. policy on Cuba, see CRS Report R45657, Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 116th Congress and Through
the Trump Administration.
66 GSM refers to the General Sales Manager, an official within the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)—appointed by
the FAS administrator—charged with increasing exports and managing the programs that encourage foreign countries
and companies to import U.S. farm products.
67 CRS communication with USDA, FAS, January 2021.
68 See Table A-1 in CRS Report R46760, U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues.
Congressional Research Service

37

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Council International, U.S. Meat Export Federation, Food Export Association of the Midwest,
American Soybean Association, and U.S. Grains Council.69 Almost 80% of the $26.8 million in
FMDP allocations for FY2022 go to six commodity associations that promote exports of
soybeans, wheat, cotton, grains, hardwood, and rice.70
A private study released in 2016 on behalf of three agricultural associations asserted that USDA
export programs disproportionately benefit growers in the Midwest and deliver relatively small
benefits to the food processing and services sectors in the Northeast.71 To the extent this reflects
the current beneficiaries of these programs, one possible response to equity concerns could be to
expand export promotion programs that target growers and processors of specialty crops,
particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises that historically have not engaged in trade.
Some experts assert that the United States’ core advantage in agricultural exports may lie in
quality, safety, and other nonprice factors.72 Communication of these differences to potential
foreign buyers via labeling may benefit U.S. exports of specialty food products.
The COVID-19 pandemic and recent trade disputes highlight the importance of maintaining
diverse U.S. import sources and export markets to minimize risks from supply chain disruptions
in a specific market. Congress may wish to assess how existing USDA export programs could be
used to diversify U.S. import and export markets.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Anita Regmi, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R46760, U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues, by Anita Regmi

CRS In Focus IF11223, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Agricultural Trade and Food Assistance, by Anita Regmi and Alyssa
R. Casey

CRS Report R46456, Reforming the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, by Anita Regmi, Nina M. Hart, and Randy
Schnepf

CRS Report R45865, Farm Policy: USDA’s 2019 Trade Aid Package, by Randy Schnepf

CRS Report R45903, Retaliatory Tariffs and U.S. Agriculture, by Anita Regmi
International Food Assistance
The United States has led global funding support for international food assistance programs for
over 60 years.73 These programs originated with blended goals: to support domestic producers by
creating additional demand, further agricultural trade goals, support the U.S. maritime industry
and help alleviate hunger abroad. These blended objectives are manifested through statutory

69 USDA, FAS, “MAP Funding Allocations – FY 2022,” at https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/market-access-
program-map/map-funding-allocations-fy-2022.
70 USDA, FAS, “FMD Funding Allocations – FY 2022,” at https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/foreign-market-
development-program-fmd/fmd-funding-allocations-2022.
71 Informa Economics IEG, Economic Impact of USDA Export Market Development Programs, prepared for U.S.
Wheat Associates, USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, and Pear Bureau Northwest, July 2016.
72 Jeffrey J. Reimer et al., “Agricultural Export Promotion Programs Create Positive Economic Impacts,” Choices, vol.
32, no. 3 (3rd Quarter 2017).
73 For country-by-country data on food aid donations over time, see World Food Program, “Food Aid Information
System,” at http://www.wfp.org/fais/ .
Congressional Research Service

38

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

requirements that the majority of U.S. international food assistance be donated as U.S.
agricultural commodities to be distributed as food or sold to generate funds for development
programs and that they be shipped primarily on U.S.-flag vessels.74
USAID and FAS administer the international food assistance programs—including market-based
and in-kind food assistance programs—authorized under the farm bill. Market-based assistance
programs are cash-based, while in-kind programs operate with U.S. commodity donations.75 The
CCC procures commodities for all in-kind food assistance programs, regardless of which agency
implements the program. Annual outlays for U.S. international food assistance—across programs
managed by USAID and FAS—averaged $3.3 billion between FY2010 and FY2020. Outlays
during this period varied, from a low of $2.29 billion in FY2013 to a high of $5.06 billion in
FY2020.76
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
Congress reauthorized the suite of programs that govern U.S. international food assistance under
the Trade title (Title III) of the 2018 farm bill. USAID administers Food for Peace (FFP) Title II;
Farmer to Farmer (FFP Title V); the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP); and the
Community Development Fund. USDA administers Food for Progress (FFPr), the McGovern-
Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole Program),
and the Local and Regional Procurement Program (LRP). USAID and USDA jointly administer
the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (BEHT).
Among market-based assistance programs, as opposed to in-kind donation programs, EFSP is the
largest, providing assistance in the form of food vouchers, cash transfers, or local and regional
procurement (LRP) to approximately 50 countries. LRP finances the provision of locally and
regionally procured foods to beneficiaries, usually in nonemergency situations. The 2014 farm
bill (P.L. 113-79) permanently authorized LRP and authorized discretionary funding of $80
million annually (FY2014-FY2018). The 2018 farm bill reauthorized this level of funding
through FY2023. Since FY2016, Congress has appropriated LRP funding as a set-aside within
McGovern-Dole Program funding. In addition to the 10% LRP set-aside, the 2018 farm bill
authorized USDA to use up to 10% of annual McGovern-Dole Program funding for LRP.
Among in-kind food assistance programs, FFP and the McGovern-Dole Program provide a
majority of donations to respond to emergency food needs or to be used in development projects.
Under FFP, the federal government donates U.S.-sourced commodities to qualifying international
organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for direct distribution to food-insecure
populations. One major revision to the 2018 farm bill eliminated the requirement to monetize at
least 15% of FFP Title II commodities—that is, sell them on local markets to fund development
projects (§3103). The McGovern-Dole Program provides in-kind aid for school meals in priority
countries. Congress funds the programs in annual Agriculture appropriations bills, and the
programs’ administering agencies determine funding allocations.

74 The requirement is called “agricultural cargo preference,” the specifics of which have fluctuated several times.
Congress increased the share of food aid commodities required to ship on U.S.-flag vessels from 50% to 75% in the
1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198) and lowered it to 50% in a 2012 surface transportation reauthorization act (P.L. 112-141).
75 International food assistance market-based programs include EFSP and LRP; in-kind programs include FFP, BEHT,
FFPr, and McGovern-Dole.
76 CRS calculations based on data available from USAID, “Reports to Congress,” at
https://www.usaid.gov/open/reports-congress.
Congressional Research Service

39

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Under Food for Progress, another in-kind program, FAS donates U.S. agricultural commodities to
eligible entities, which can then distribute them to beneficiaries or sell them locally to raise funds
for development projects.77 The 2018 farm bill authorized a new pilot program to finance Food
for Progress projects directly rather than through commodity monetization. The 2018 farm bill
authorized appropriations of $10 million per year (FY2019-FY2023) for Food for Progress pilot
agreements. Congress has not funded these pilot agreements to date.
Issues and Options
The Global Food Security Act of 2016 (GFSA; P.L. 114-195) amended Section 491 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195) to create EFSP. The program is authorized to provide
emergency food assistance “including in the form of funds, transfers, vouchers, and agricultural
commodities” to address emergency food needs as a result of natural, human-induced, and
complex emergencies (e.g., earthquakes, civil unrest, famine). The Global Food Security
Reauthorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-266) will expire at the end of FY2023. As Congress
considers a new farm bill, it also may choose to consider whether to reauthorize GFSA.
The United States’ use of market-based assistance has increased under EFSP in recent years. In
FY2010, in-kind aid comprised roughly 89% of U.S. international food assistance, with market-
based assistance making up the remaining 11%. In FY2020, in-kind aid accounted for roughly
41% of assistance, and market-based assistance comprised approximately 59%.78 Proponents of
market-based assistance emphasize that it allows for quicker response times than shipping in-kind
aid via ocean freight. Critics of market-based assistance argue that it could undermine the
coalition of commodity groups, NGOs, and shippers that advocate for international food
assistance programs, potentially resulting in reductions in funding for U.S. food assistance
programs. As Congress debates the next farm bill, it could consider whether existing programs
and the current split between in-kind and market-based assistance strike the right balance to
address global hunger.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Amber R. Nair, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food Assistance: An Overview, by Alyssa R. Casey and Emily M.
Morgenstern

CRS In Focus IF10475, Global Food Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-195), by Sonya Hammons
Credit
The federal government has a long history of assisting farmers with obtaining loans. Government
intervention in otherwise private lending markets has been justified by citing unequal
information, lack of competition, insufficient rural lending resources, and efforts by Congress to
direct lending to various groups, such as small farms, beginning farmers, or socially
disadvantaged farmers.

77 USDA provides commodities to partner entities for distribution or monetization. In practice, the majority of Food for
Progress projects have monetized all commodities.
78 USAID, International Food Assistance Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2020.
Congressional Research Service

40

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Selected Farm Bill Provisions
The agricultural lender over which Congress has the most authority is USDA’s Farm Service
Agency (FSA). FSA is a relatively small lender based on market share, providing about $13
billion of direct loans (about 3% of the overall $441 billion market for farm debt at the end of
2020) and $17 billion of loan guarantees (about 4% of the market).79 FSA makes direct farm
ownership and operating loans to family-sized farms that are unable to obtain credit elsewhere.80
FSA also guarantees payment of principal and interest on qualified loans made by other lenders
who may not have lent without the government guarantee.
For individual borrowers, FSA loan limits are set in law: $400,000 for direct farm operating
loans; $600,000 for direct farm ownership loans; and $1.825 million for guaranteed loans
(amount adjusted for inflation in FY2022). The standard guarantee ratio is 80%-90% of the
amount borrowed depending on the borrower’s credit risk, but for socially disadvantaged and
beginning farmer borrowers, the guarantee ratio is 95%. The 2018 farm bill increased each of
these guarantee ratios.
The Farm Credit System (FCS) is another agricultural lender with a federal mandate. FCS is a
cooperatively owned, federally chartered private lender with a statutory mandate limited to
serving agriculture-related borrowers. It is a government-sponsored enterprise receiving tax
benefits, among other preferences, in return for restrictions on its lending base. FCS makes loans
to creditworthy farmers and accounts for about 44% of farm debt.
Issues and Options
The statutory authorities for FSA and FCS are permanent. Farm bills often amend these statutes
for eligibility criteria, the scope of operations, and—for FSA—authorization for appropriations.
The following issues could be debated in the next farm bill: further targeting FSA lending
resources to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers who face financial difficulties due to
obtaining or repaying farm loans;81 increasing focus at FSA or FCS on specific agriculture sectors
or practices, such as local or urban farms, conservation practices, or trait-specific production; and
addressing loan forgiveness and related qualification criteria for provisions that were enacted in
the American Rescue Plan Act (P.L. 117-2) but have been stalled pending ongoing judicial review.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Jim Monke, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Product

CRS Report R46768, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues, by Jim Monke

79 USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA), “FY2020 Farm Loan Programs Servicing Data,” at
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/program-data/index; and USDA, Economic
Research Service (ERS), “Farm Sector Balance Sheet,” December 1, 2021, at https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-
economy/farm-sector-income-finances/assets-debt-and-wealth.
80 Family-sized farms are required for the USDA farm loan program in 7 U.S.C. §1922 and are defined in regulation (7
C.F.R §761.2) as a business operations that produce enough agricultural commodities to be recognized as a farm rather
than a rural residence and has labor and management provided primarily by the borrower with assistance from persons
related by blood or marriage and may use full-time hired labor only to supplement family labor.
81 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Agricultural Lending: Information on Credit and Outreach to Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Is Limited, GAO-19-539, July 2019.
Congressional Research Service

41

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Rural Development
Approximately 14% of U.S. residents (46 million) live in rural areas.82 Rural communities face
unique challenges compared with urban communities, including higher poverty rates, declining
populations, and lower per person incomes.83 USDA Rural Development (RD) administers
programs that are meant to help to improve the economic condition and quality of life in rural
America.
RD programs can be grouped into the following categories: rural business, rural utilities, and rural
housing. Rural business programs—administered by the Rural Business-Cooperative service—
promote the expansion and development of rural businesses. Rural utilities programs—
administered by the Rural Utilities Service—construct and modernize utility systems, including
water, waste disposal, electrical, telephone, and broadband systems. Rural housing programs—
administered by the Rural Housing Service—build and improve housing and essential community
facilities in rural areas.
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
Since 1973, farm bills have included a rural development title to address challenges facing rural
communities, as well as to reauthorize and amend existing programs administered by RD. Most
RD programs rely on discretionary funding, which Congress has authorized in previous farm bills
and funded through the annual appropriations process.
Among its many provisions, the Rural Development title (Title VI) of the 2018 farm bill includes
provisions to combat substance use disorder in rural areas. In the 2018 farm bill, Congress
prioritized funding for selected RD programs for projects providing services to prevent, treat, and
recover from substance use disorder and extended this prioritization for FY2019-FY2025 (two
years longer than FY2023, which is when authorization for most other 2018 farm bill programs
and provisions expire).
Most RD programs require projects to serve rural areas. Prior to the 2018 farm bill, a rural area
was defined for many RD programs as any area other than a city or town with a population of
more than 50,000 and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such a city or town (7 U.S.C.
§1991(a)(13)). For the direct loans and grants aspects of the Community Facilities Program and
the Water and Waste Disposal Program within RD, a rural area is defined as an area with a
population threshold lower than 50,000 people. The 2018 farm bill amends the definition of rural
to exclude certain populations when determining an area’s population: incarcerated populations
on a long-term or regional basis and the first 1,500 people living in housing on military bases.
The 2018 farm bill reauthorized and amended a wide range of RD programs, including the Rural
Broadband Program and the Community Connect Grant Program. The reauthorization for most
RD programs, including the Rural Broadband Program, expires at the end of FY2023. The Rural
Broadband Program provides assistance to help construct, improve, and acquire facilities and
equipment needed to provide broadband service to rural areas. Prior to enactment, the program’s
authority was limited to direct loans and loan guarantees. The 2018 farm bill established a grant
program within the Rural Broadband Program. To date, Congress has provided funding for direct
loans and loan guarantees but not for grants. The 2018 farm bill also increased the minimum
broadband access speed for Rural Broadband Program eligibility. This change resulted in a

82 John Cromartie et al., “2020 Edition: Rural America at a Glance,” USDA, ERS, Economic Information Bulletin
(EIB) Number 221, December 2020.
83 Ibid.; and John Pender et al., “2019 Edition: Rural America at a Glance,” ERS, EIB-212, November 2019.
Congressional Research Service

42

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

greater number of rural areas becoming eligible for the program. In addition, the 2018 farm bill
provided permanent authority for the Community Connect Grant Program, which awards grants
to entities to provide broadband service to economically challenged rural communities.
Issues and Options
The ReConnect Program was not included in the 2018 farm bill. Congress established the pilot
program that became known as the ReConnect Program through the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018
(P.L. 115-141), which became law after the 2018 farm bill was enacted. Congress has
appropriated more than $4.3 billion for the ReConnect Program. The program provides funding
and financing to facilitate broadband deployment in rural areas that do not have sufficient
broadband access. Congress has reauthorized the pilot program through annual appropriations
acts. Congress could consider whether to permanently authorize the ReConnect Program in the
next farm bill.
Congress also may consider whether USDA Rural Development programs could play a larger role
in helping to prevent and treat COVID-19 in rural areas. USDA’s Economic Research Service
(ERS) found that from September 2020 to October 2021, rural persistent poverty counties
experienced higher numbers of COVID-19 cases compared with other rural counties and urban
counties, including urban persistent poverty counties.84 Congress could consider whether RD
programs could be utilized to help rural persistent poverty counties address COVID-19
challenges.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Lisa S. Benson, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R46912, USDA Rural Broadband, Electric, and Water Programs: FY2022 Appropriations, by Lisa S.
Benson

CRS In Focus IF11918, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Funding for USDA Rural Broadband Programs, by Lisa
S. Benson

CRS In Focus IF11988, Build Back Better Act: Agriculture and Forestry Provisions, by Jim Monke et al.

CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by Tadlock Cowan

CRS Report R47017, USDA’s ReConnect Program: Expanding Rural Broadband, by Lisa S. Benson
Research, Extension, and Education
Since 1977, enacted farm bill legislation has included a research title focused on agricultural
research, extension, and education.85 This title reauthorizes funding for existing programs,
establishes new programs, and amends USDA policies and programs. It addresses extramural
activities conducted at land-grant universities (LGUs) and other nonfederal institutions, as well as
USDA policies, programs, and intramural research conducted by federal researchers.
Four agencies carry out USDA’s research, extension, and education activities. The National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) administers extramural programs; the Agricultural

84 Elizabeth A. Dobis et al., “2021 Edition: Rural America at a Glance,” ERS, EIB-230, November 2021.
85 Agricultural extension provides nonformal education to the nonuniversity public.
Congressional Research Service

43

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Research Service (ARS) conducts intramural scientific research; ERS conducts economic and
social science research; and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provides official
statistics on U.S. agriculture. The Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) coordinates science policy
and activities across USDA.
Most research title programs require annual discretionary appropriations; a few programs receive
mandatory spending. Upon enactment of the 2018 farm bill, projected mandatory outlays for the
research title totaled $694 million (FY2019-FY2023). In contrast, USDA research agencies
received approximately $3.4 billion in discretionary appropriations for FY2021 alone. In addition
to federal funding, certain grants require nonfederal matching funds.
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
The farm bill addresses extramural activities administered by NIFA, OCS, and the Foundation for
Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) and intramural activities of ARS, ERS, and NASS.
NIFA administers capacity grant programs for LGUs and competitive grant programs for LGUs as
well as a range of eligible applicants.86 Capacity grant programs (e.g., Hatch Act, Evans-Allen
Act, Tribal College Endowment Fund) are permanently authorized and require annual
appropriations. The 2018 farm bill addressed capacity grant issues, including reporting and
administrative requirements, nonfederal matching funds, and program eligibility. Competitive
grant programs generally require annual appropriations and reauthorization with each farm bill.
Specific to LGUs, the 2018 farm bill established new competitive grant programs (e.g.,
Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions; New Beginning for Tribal Students; and Centers of
Excellence at 1890 Institutions) and amended existing programs. The Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI), NIFA’s flagship competitive grants program, is open to a range of
applicants. The 2018 farm bill amended AFRI and reauthorized appropriations through FY2023.
The 2018 farm bill also provided mandatory funds for certain competitive grant programs (e.g.,
the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative,
and Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach).
Within OCS, the 2018 farm bill authorized a new pilot program—the Agriculture Advanced
Research and Development Authority (AGARDA)—to carry out innovative research and develop
solutions to agricultural threats. Congress authorized $50 million per year (FY2019-FY2023) for
AGARDA. Congress provided $1 million for AGARDA in FY2022 appropriations (P.L. 117-
103). As of this writing, USDA has not established AGARDA.
FFAR is a nonprofit research corporation designed to leverage federal investments in agricultural
research with private funding. Congress established FFAR in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) and
provided a total of $200 million in mandatory funding. The 2018 farm bill provided an additional
$185 million in mandatory funding and required FFAR to submit to Congress a strategic plan
describing a path to self-sustainability.87
Other research title provisions address USDA policies, programs, and intramural research. For
example, the 2018 farm bill amended the purposes of federally funded agricultural research,
extension, and education to add international scientific collaboration; reauthorized and amended
provisions for a federal advisory board; and directed ERS to update a report on U.S. dairy farms.

86 NIFA distributes capacity grants (formula funds) among eligible institutions based on formulas in statute. NIFA
awards competitive grants directly to individual projects selected by NIFA through a peer-review process.
87 This strategic plan is available at Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, “Governance,” at
https://foundationfar.org/about/governance.
Congressional Research Service

44

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Issues and Options
In the next farm bill, Congress may choose to address a variety of issues related to agricultural
research, extension, and education. These may include LGU funding equity; research
infrastructure; research innovation; and climate change research and extension.
Some stakeholders and Members of Congress have expressed concerns about funding equity
among LGU types. The 2018 farm bill addressed differences in grant requirements for 1890
(historically Black) and 1862 (original) LGUs. Organizations representing Native American
education have called for increased funding of 1994 (Tribal) Institutions. Congress may consider
whether (and if so, how) to address concerns about LGU funding equity, including the amounts,
types, and policies associated with funding different types of LGUs.
Congress may choose to address the role of federal funding, if any, in improving agricultural
research infrastructure. Many grants prohibit spending federal funds on research facilities. The
Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) would provide $1 billion for agricultural research facilities at
minority-serving LGUs and certain other institutions.
The 2018 farm bill authorized AGARDA to support innovative, high-risk, high-reward research
that otherwise may not be funded. As of this writing, Congress has appropriated a total of $1
million for AGARDA; its authorization expires at the end of FY2023. Congress may consider
whether there is need for federal funding of innovative research and the flexible hiring and
funding authorities granted to AGARDA.
Extreme weather and climate change have emerged as concerns for farmers and ranchers.
Stakeholders including the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance—a diverse coalition of
producers, agribusiness, state governments, and others—have advocated for an increased focus on
these topics. Congress may consider whether existing authorities, programs, and funding levels
for climate change research and extension adequately address the needs of agricultural producers.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Genevieve K. Croft, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues, by Genevieve K. Croft

CRS In Focus IF12023, Farm Bill Primer: Agricultural Research and Extension, by Genevieve K. Croft

CRS In Focus IF11319, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Agricultural Research and Extension, by Genevieve K. Croft

CRS Report R45897, The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview, by Genevieve K. Croft

CRS In Focus IF11847, 1890 Land-Grant Universities: Background and Selected Issues, by Genevieve K. Croft

CRS In Focus IF12009, 1994 Land-Grant Universities: Background and Selected Issues, by Genevieve K. Croft
Forestry
One-third of the land area in the United States is forestland (765 million acres).88 These lands
provide ecological services, including air and water resources, fish and wildlife habitats,
opportunities for recreation and cultural use, and timber resources for lumber, plywood, paper,
and other materials, among other uses and benefits. Most U.S. forestland is privately owned (444

88 Sonja Oswalt et al., Forest Resources of the United States, 2017: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest
Service 2020 RPA Assessment, Forest Service, GTR-WO-97, 2019.
Congressional Research Service

45

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

million acres); the rest is publicly owned—primarily by the federal government—of which 238
million acres are federal and 84 million acres are state and local.
The federal government engages in four types of forestry activities: managing federal forests;
providing financial, technical, or other resources to promote forest ownership and stewardship
(referred to as “forestry assistance”); sponsoring or conducting research to advance the science of
forestry; and engaging in international forestry assistance and research. The Forest Service
(within USDA) is the principal federal forest management agency and is responsible for
administering most forestry assistance programs, conducting forestry research, and leading U.S.
international forestry assistance and research efforts. The Forest Service is responsible for
managing 19% of all U.S. forestlands (145 million acres) as part of the National Forest System
(NFS).89
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
The previous three farm bills each contained a standalone forestry title that included provisions
related to forestry research, providing assistance for nonfederal forest management, and federal
forest management.90 Title VII (Forestry) of the 2018 farm bill modified one and repealed several
forestry research programs, including a grant program to support minority and female students
studying forestry and a project demonstrating wood bioenergy. In addition, the 2018 farm bill
repealed, modified, and reauthorized some forestry assistance programs. This included providing
explicit statutory authorization and congressional direction for programs that had been operating
under existing, broad authorization (e.g., the Landscape Scale Restoration program). The law also
established, reauthorized, and modified assistance programs intended to promote the use of wood
products for energy, building construction, and other purposes and to mitigate wildfire risk by
incentivizing the removal of forest biomass on both federal and nonfederal lands. The 2018 farm
bill included other provisions related to federal and tribal forest management—such as modifying
planning requirements and reauthorizing, extending, expanding, and establishing certain
management, partnership, and collaboration programs—as well as several provisions related to
the Forest Service’s authorities to convey NFS lands through lease, sale, or exchange.
Issues and Options
Most forestry assistance, research, and federal forest management programs are permanently
authorized and do not require reauthorization in the farm bill. Some programs, however, are set to
expire at the end of FY2023.91 If expiring programs are to continue, Congress may consider the
following: extending these programs, with or without changes; modifying existing programs and
possibly establishing new options to support assistance to nonfederal forest owners, forest
research, and federal forest management. Congress also could consider addressing specific and/or
emerging forestry issues, such as those related to forest risks or climate change. Congress also
may choose to address any potential issues with provisions enacted in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58). IIJA authorized, provided program direction, and

89 In addition to forests, the 193 million acre National Forest System contains nonforested woodlands and grasslands.
Other federal agencies manage forestlands, including the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish
and Wildlife Service (all within the Department of the Interior).
90 Forestry-related provisions may be included in other farm bill titles. For example, in the 2018 farm bill, the
Conservation (Title II), Research (Title VII), Energy (Title IX), and Miscellaneous (Title XII) titles each contained
provisions related to forestry or forest ownership.
91 The four programs set to expire at the end of FY2023 are the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, Rural Revitalization
Technology, National Forest Foundation, and funding for implementing statewide forest resource assessments.
Congressional Research Service

46

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

appropriated funding for several Forest Service assistance and research programs and activities.
Alternatively, Congress may elect not to address forestry issues, if, for example, existing
authorities and programs are considered adequate in addressing the nation’s forestry needs.
Congress may choose to address concerns related to forest health management generally on
federal and nonfederal lands. This could include assistance or management programs to reduce
the risk of catastrophic disturbance events, such as an uncharacteristically severe wildfire or
insect or disease infestations. For nonfederal forests, this may include establishing or modifying
assistance programs to enhance wildfire protection, preparedness, and forest resiliency. For
federal forests, this may involve establishing new authorities or expanding existing authorities to
reduce hazardous fuel levels or other forest restoration activities. Because many forest risks span
multiple ownership boundaries, Congress may consider new approaches to expand or facilitate
cross-boundary forest management activities. This could be through authorizing and/or
incentivizing a variety of federal and nonfederal partnerships and collaborations.
Congress may choose to continue facilitating the development or advancement of wood products.
In previous farm bills and other legislation, Congress has established several programs to promote
new markets and uses for woody biomass, in part to encourage forest restoration and reduce
wildfire threats. A new farm bill could extend, expand, alter, or terminate these programs or
replace them with alternative approaches.
Forests can contribute to mitigating climate change and be affected by changing climatic
conditions. To address some of the uncertainties regarding climate impacts on forest management,
Congress may consider modifying existing or establishing new research programs. As another
option, Congress could establish programs to increase or optimize carbon sequestration on federal
and nonfederal lands through market or nonmarket mechanisms.
For Further Information
CRS Experts

Katie Hoover, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Anne A. Riddle, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS In Focus IF12054, Farm Bill Primer: Forestry Title, by Katie Hoover

CRS Report R45219, Forest Service Assistance Programs, by Anne A. Riddle and Katie Hoover

CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Management: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress, by
Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle

CRS Report R46976, U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress, by Katie
Hoover and Anne A. Riddle

CRS Report R45696, Forest Management Provisions Enacted in the 115th Congress, by Katie Hoover et al.
Energy
Four farm bills have contained an energy title: the 2002, 2008, 2014, and 2018 farm bills. Over
time, the focus of the energy titles has shifted and expanded. The 2002 farm bill established
several new programs, including programs focused on biofuels, biobased products, and energy
efficiency. The 2008 farm bill increased the number of energy programs and expanded the focus
to include more non-corn feedstock programs (e.g., Community Wood Energy Program) and a
biomass feedstock logistics program (i.e., Biomass Crop Assistance Program). The 2014 farm bill
extended funding for most of those programs. The 2018 farm bill also extended funding—
Congressional Research Service

47

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

providing less mandatory funding than previous farm bills—and established the Carbon
Utilization and Biogas Education Program.
The farm bill primarily centers on agriculture-based renewable energy, which is generally
defined as energy (e.g., transportation fuel, electricity, or heat) produced from biomass feedstocks
(e.g., woody biomass, crop residue) or energy produced from resources located in rural areas
(e.g., wind) or from agricultural operations (e.g., manure). Examples of such energy include corn-
based ethanol, wind farms, and anaerobic digesters. Producing this type of energy can encourage
rural economic development, environmental improvements, energy security, and more.
Challenges include feedstock access, supply, and cost, as well as technology development and
infrastructure, among other things.
Selected Farm Bill Provisions
The Energy title (Title IX) of the 2018 farm bill has a dozen provisions pertaining mostly to
agriculture-based renewable energy production and use.92 Program coverage areas include
biobased products, biofuels, renewable chemicals, energy efficiency, renewable energy systems,
biomass research and development, biomass feedstocks, wood energy, carbon utilization and
sequestration, biogas, and more. Many of the existing programs build upon programs established
in the 2002 farm bill’s energy title. USDA administers these programs, most of which expire at
the end of FY2023 and lack baseline funding.
Congress provided mandatory funding ($375 million) and authorized discretionary funding ($1.7
billion) over the five-year reauthorization period for the 2018 farm bill for many of the energy
title programs. Mandatory funding has supported most programs, as Congress has rarely
appropriated discretionary funding. Programs that have routinely received discretionary funding
include the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), the Rural Energy Savings Program, and
the Sun Grant Program.
Issues and Options
As Congress prepares for the next farm bill, it may consider some of the issues facing the energy
title programs. Among these are funding and authorization. For instance, REAP is the only
program that has authorization past FY2023. The mandatory baseline funding for many of the
other energy title programs expires at the end of FY2023. Additionally, Congress has authorized a
fraction of the discretionary funds available for the energy title programs for FY2019-FY2021
(approximately $48 million of a possible approximately $1 billion). Congress may assess whether
a different authorization period (e.g., longer than five years) and different funding amounts could
be considered for the energy title programs to reflect the complexity and design life associated
with many of the projects they support.
Congress may further explore how agriculture-based renewable energy fits into the U.S. energy
portfolio and if it addresses consumer demands and climate policy goals, among other things. For
example, Congress may consider a more rapid transition from conventional biofuels to advanced
biofuels, partly for the environmental benefits, and may consider related opportunities and
challenges with such a transition. Additionally, Congress may ponder the extent to which
agriculture-based renewable energy can contribute to energy production and consumption trends
given the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, commodity supply and pricing, and international
trade negotiations. Lastly, Congress may examine the progress and impacts of existing mandates

92 7 U.S.C. Ch. 107 Renewable Energy Research and Development.
Congressional Research Service

48

link to page 24 Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

(e.g., the Renewable Fuel Standard) and tax incentives (e.g., Renewable Electricity Production
Tax Credit) that involve biomass or agriculture-related renewable energy.
For Further Information
CRS Expert

Kelsi Bracmort, Specialist in Natural Resources and Energy Policy
Relevant CRS Products

CRS In Focus IF10288, Overview of the 2018 Farm Bill Energy Title Programs, by Kelsi Bracmort

CRS Report R45943, The Farm Bill Energy Title: An Overview and Funding History, by Kelsi Bracmort

CRS Report R43325, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An Overview, by Kelsi Bracmort

CRS Report R46865, Energy Tax Provisions: Overview and Budgetary Cost, by Mol y F. Sherlock
Miscellaneous
The miscellaneous titles in farm bills have included a variety of provisions that are not united by
a common theme. The title has included provisions addressing the livestock and poultry sectors,
particularly on animal health and disease preparedness issues (see “Animal Agriculture”). The
2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) was an exception for livestock, as that farm bill included a
standalone Livestock title (Title XI). Animal welfare provisions have been included regularly in
the Miscellaneous title.
The miscellaneous titles of the last three farm bills have included provisions for beginning
farmers and ranchers, socially disadvantaged producers, and veteran farmers. Some provisions
have created outreach and technical programs, various commissions, advisory committees, and
required civil rights reports. The 2018 farm bill contained provisions that amended the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-354, as amended), making
various changes to USDA agencies. The Miscellaneous title also is the location of many USDA
report requests on issues or new programs not directly linked to other titles in the farm bill.
Congressional Research Service

49

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Appendix. 2018 Farm Bill Titles and Subtitles
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, P.L. 115-334
I. Commodities

A. Commodity Policy
B. Marketing Loans
C. Sugar
D. Dairy Margin Coverage and Other Dairy Related Provisions
E. Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance
F. Noninsured Crop Assistance
G. Administration
II. Conservation
A. Wetland Conservation
B. Conservation Reserve Program
C. Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program
D. Other Conservation Programs
E. Funding and Administration
F. Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
G. Regional Conservation Partnership Program
H. Repeals and Technical Amendments
III. Trade
A. Food for Peace Act
B. Agricultural Trade Act of 1978
C. Other Agricultural Trade Laws
IV. Nutrition
A. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
B. Commodity Distribution Programs
C. Miscellaneous
V. Credit
A. Farm Ownership Loans
B. Operating Loans
C. Administrative Provisions
D. Miscellaneous

Congressional Research Service

50

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

VI. Rural Development
A. Improving Health Outcomes in Rural America
B. Connecting Rural Americans to High Speed Broadband
C. Miscellaneous
D. Additional Amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
E. Additional Amendments to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936
F. Program Repeals
G. Technical Corrections
VII. Research, Extension, and Related Matters
A. National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977
B. Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990
C. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998
D. Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
E. Amendments to Other Laws
F. Other Matters
VIII. Forestry
A. Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978
B. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978
C. Global Climate Change Prevention Act of 1990
D. Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
E. Repeal or Reauthorization of Miscellaneous Forestry Programs
F. Forest Management
G. Other Matters
IX. Energy
X. Horticulture
XI. Crop Insurance
XII. Miscellaneous
A. Livestock
B. Agriculture and Food Defense
C. Historically Underserved Producers
D. Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 Amendments
E. Other Miscellaneous Provisions
F. General Provisions
Congressional Research Service

51

Preparing for the Next Farm Bill

Author Information

Genevieve K. Croft, Coordinator
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

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

Lisa S. Benson
Amber D. Nair
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Agricultural Policy

Kara Clifford Billings
Anita Regmi
Analyst in Social Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Kelsi Bracmort
Stephanie Rosch
Specialist in Natural Resources and Energy Policy
Analyst in Agricultural Policy

Joel L. Greene
Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural

Resources Policy

Katie Hoover

Specialist in 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
R47057 · VERSION 1 · NEW
52

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 31, 2022

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Agricultural Policy

Domestic Social Policy

Economic Policy

Energy Policy

Health Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON