A New Farm Bill: Comparing the 2002 Law with Previous Law and House and Senate Bills

On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed a new farm bill -- The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 ( P.L.107-171 ). This comprehensive new law contains ten titles covering commodity support, conservation, nutrition, trade, research, credit, rural development and other related programs. It makes significant changes to commodity, conservation and nutrition programs, and is intended to guide most federal farm and food policies through FY2007. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates (using the March 2002 baseline) place the total cost of the new bill (i.e., baseline plus new funding) at just under $274 billion over its six-year life-span. The total reflects an increase of $51.6 billion in federal spending, $37.6 billion of which is projected to be used to increase farm commodity program spending. Of the $274 billion in total 6-year budget authority for programs under the new law, it is estimated that some $99 billion will go for direct subsidies to about 600,000 farmers. Just under $150 billion will support the cost of food stamps and commodity assistance for some 17 million low-income Americans. The remaining $25 billion is expected to be spent on conservation ($21 billion), trade ($2.1 billion), rural development ($1 billion), and research, forestry and energy ($2.5 billion) programs. The new farm bill has been hailed by supporters as a corrective to previous policy that was criticized for not providing a "safety net" for farmers, and that prompted some $35 billion in ad hoc emergency farm spending laws between fiscal years 1999 and 2002. Critics of the new farm law expressed concern about its cost and its resurrection of old policy mechanisms that they contend encourage overproduction that will further depress farm prices. There also is concern that the generous farm subsidies in the new law conflict with U.S. trade agreements and/or impede U.S. efforts to get other countries to cut their farm subsidies. The House approved its original farm bill ( H.R. 2646 , the Farm Security Act of 2001) on October 5, 2001. The Senate version of this legislation (The Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act, or ACRE) was approved on February 13, 2002, and was nearly three times the size of the House bill. Despite this, the commodity policy changes in both bills reflected a similar policy direction. Both chambers' bills maintained marketing loan assistance and fixed, decoupled annual farm payments, although at different levels. They both also added target prices and counter-cyclical income support (or deficiency payments) for major field crops. Conservation and nutrition programs were enhanced by both bills, although more so in the Senate bill. Other differences between the House and Senate included: the pace of new spending; the amount of new funding for commodity programs versus other USDA activities (e.g., conservation, food assistance, etc.); how much to fund each of the commodity support programs; and the federal caps on farm payments. The final law adopted the more evenly paced annual spending of the House bill; spent most (73%) new money on farm commodity programs; split the differences over funding for each of the three major commodity programs; and set new farm payment caps that lowered base limits but maintained rules allowing payments for up to three entities, spouses, and unlimited commodity certificates. This report will not be updated.

Order Code RL31704 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web A New Farm Bill: Comparing the 2002 Law with Previous Law and House and Senate Bills January 21, 2003 Agriculture & Food Supply Section Coordinated by Jean Yavis Jones Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress A New Farm Bill: Comparing 2002 Law with Previous Law and House and Senate Bills Summary On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed a new farm bill — The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L.107-171). This comprehensive new law contains ten titles covering commodity support, conservation, nutrition, trade, research, credit, rural development and other related programs. It makes significant changes to commodity, conservation and nutrition programs, and is intended to guide most federal farm and food policies through FY2007. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates (using the March 2002 baseline) place the total cost of the new bill (i.e., baseline plus new funding) at just under $274 billion over its six-year life-span. The total reflects an increase of $51.6 billion in federal spending, $37.6 billion of which is projected to be used to increase farm commodity program spending. Of the $274 billion in total 6-year budget authority for programs under the new law, it is estimated that some $99 billion will go for direct subsidies to about 600,000 farmers. Just under $150 billion will support the cost of food stamps and commodity assistance for some 17 million low-income Americans. The remaining $25 billion is expected to be spent on conservation ($21 billion), trade ($2.1 billion), rural development ($1 billion), and research, forestry and energy ($2.5 billion) programs. The new farm bill has been hailed by supporters as a corrective to previous policy that was criticized for not providing a “safety net” for farmers, and that prompted some $35 billion in ad hoc emergency farm spending laws between fiscal years 1999 and 2002. Critics of the new farm law expressed concern about its cost and its resurrection of old policy mechanisms that they contend encourage overproduction that will further depress farm prices. There also is concern that the generous farm subsidies in the new law conflict with U.S. trade agreements and/or impede U.S. efforts to get other countries to cut their farm subsidies. The House approved its original farm bill (H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001) on October 5, 2001. The Senate version of this legislation (The Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act, or ACRE) was approved on February 13, 2002, and was nearly three times the size of the House bill. Despite this, the commodity policy changes in both bills reflected a similar policy direction. Both chambers’ bills maintained marketing loan assistance and fixed, decoupled annual farm payments, although at different levels. They both also added target prices and counter-cyclical income support (or deficiency payments) for major field crops. Conservation and nutrition programs were enhanced by both bills, although more so in the Senate bill. Other differences between the House and Senate included: the pace of new spending; the amount of new funding for commodity programs versus other USDA activities (e.g., conservation, food assistance, etc.); how much to fund each of the commodity support programs; and the federal caps on farm payments. The final law adopted the more evenly paced annual spending of the House bill; spent most (73%) new money on farm commodity programs; split the differences over funding for each of the three major commodity programs; and set new farm payment caps that lowered base limits but maintained rules allowing payments for up to three entities, spouses, and unlimited commodity certificates. This report will not be updated. Contents Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Economic and Policy Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1996 Farm Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Administration Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 House and Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Narrative Comparison: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Commodity Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Nutrition Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Selected Conference Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Commodity Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Program Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Dairy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Farm Payment Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Federal Budget and Trade Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Conservation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Concentration in the Livestock Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Comparison Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 SIDE by SIDE COMPARISON: Old Law, House and Senate Bills, New Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 I. COMMODITY PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Title: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Definitions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A. Wheat, Corn Grain Sorghum, Barley, Oats, Upland Cotton, Rice, Soybeans and other Oilseeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. Direct Fixed, Decoupled Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3. Counter-Cyclical Deficiency Payments and Target Prices . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4. Marketing Assistance Loans and LDPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 B. Wool and Mohair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 C. Honey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 D. Extra Long Staple (ELS) cotton, Dry Peas, Lentils and Chickpeas . . . . 34 E. Grazed Wheat, Barley, Oats, and Triticale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 F. High Moisture Corn and Sorghum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 G. ELS and Upland Seed Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 H. Hard White Wheat Incentive Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 I. Upland Cotton Competitiveness for Processors and Exporters . . . . . . . . 36 J. ELS Cotton Competitiveness for Processors and Exporters . . . . . . . . . . 37 K. Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 L. Sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 M. Dairy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1. Dairy Price Support Program (DPSP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2. The Northeast Dairy Compact and Counter-Cyclical Payments for Dairy Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3. Recourse Loan Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4. Dairy Export Incentive Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5. Dairy Indemnity Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6. Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 7. Dairy Promotion and Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 8. Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 9. Dairy Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 N. Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 1. Flue-cured Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2. Flue-cured Farm Reconstitutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 O. Specialty Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 P. Payment Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Q. Livestock Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 R. Farm Income Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 S. CCC Commodity Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 T. Implementing Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 U. Counter-Cyclical Farm Savings Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 V. WTO Limits on Allowable Domestic Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 II. CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 A. Environmental Conservation Acreage Program (ECARP) . . . . . . . . . . 55 B. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 C. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 D. Environmental Quality Incentives Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 E. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 F. Farmland Protection Program (FPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 G. Other Programs (Including Technical Assistance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 H. New Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 III. AGRICULTURAL TRADE AND AID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 A. Agricultural Export Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B. Food Aid Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 C. Other Trade Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 IV. NUTRITION PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 A. Food Stamp Program, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 B. Commodity Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 C. Child Nutrition Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 D. Special Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 E. Effective Dates and Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 V. FARM CREDIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 A. Farm Ownership/Real Estate Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 B. Operating Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 C. Emergency Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 D. Administrative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 E. Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 F. Farm Credit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 G. Miscellaneous Credit and Finance Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 VI. RURAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 A. Rural Community Advancement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 B. Fund for Rural America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 C. Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 D. Value-added Agriculture Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 E. Water and Waste Treatment Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 F. Rural Entrepreneur and Business Investment Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 G. Strategic Rural and Regional Planning Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 H. Rural America Infrastructure Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 I. Other Rural Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 VII. RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 A. Funding Authority: University Research and Cooperative Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 B. The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 158 C. Land Grant Institutions in Insular Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 D. 1890 Land Grant Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 E. 1994 Institutions (Tribally Controlled Land Grant Institutions . . . . . . 161 F. Priority Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 G. International Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 H. Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 I. Research Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 J. Competitive Research Grants Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 K. Biosecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 L. Research related to Rural and Beginning Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 M. Miscellaneous Research Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 VIII. FORESTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 A. Forest Landowner Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 B. Suburban and Community Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 C. Watershed Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 D. Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 E. Forest Health Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 F. Forestry Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 G. Renewable Resources (RREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 H. International Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 I. Tribal Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 J. National Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 A. Federal Crop Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 B. Noninsured Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 C. Emergency Crop Disaster and Income Loss Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 D. Market Loss Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 E. Livestock Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 F. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 G. Tree Assistance and Caneberries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 H. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 I. Anti-trust and Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 J. Animal Transport, Inspection and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 K. Plant Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 L. Pseudorabies Eradication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 M. Preclearance Quarantine Inspections for Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 N. Non-Ambulatory Farm Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 O. Animal Welfare Act (nonfarm animals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 P. Genetically Engineered Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Q. Pesticides and School Pesticide Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 R. Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 S. Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 T. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 U. Farm Marketing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 V.Organic Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 W. Food Safety Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 X. Miscellaneous Studies, Reports and Task Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 This report reflects the contributions of the following CRS analysts: Farm Bill Provisions CRS Contributors Summary, Overview, and Narrative Comparison Jean Yavis Jones (7-....) Commodity Programs: Wheat, feedgrains, cotton, oilseeds, tobacco, and general rules Dairy Peanuts and Sugar Specialty crops Fruits, vegetables, nuts, flora Honey, wool, mohair Brenda Branaman (7-....) (name redacted) (7-....) Conservation Jeffrey Zinn (7-....) Agricultural Trade and Aid Geoffrey Becker (7-....) Nutrition Programs (name redacted) (7-....) Farm Credit (name redacted) (7-....) Rural Development (name redacted) (7-....) Research Jean Rawson (7-....) Forestry Ross Gorte (7-....) Federal Crop Insurance Ralph Chite (7-....) Energy Brent Yacobucci (7-....) Animal Welfare Genetically Engineered Food Alex Segarra (7-....) Pesticides Linda Schierow (7-....) (name redacted) (7-....) Ralph Chite (7-....) (name redacted) (7-....) For more information, see CRS Report RL31195, The 2002 Farm Bill: Overview and Status; CRS Report RS21233, The 2002 Farm Law at a Glance. Individual topic comparisons include the following CRS reports: CRS Report RL31524, The 2002 Farm Bill: Comparison of Commodity Support Provisions with House and Senate Proposals and Prior Law, by (name redacted); CRS Report RL31486, Resource Conservation Title of the 2002 Farm Bill: Comparison of New Law with Bills passed by the Senate and Prior Law, by Jeffrey Zinn; and CRS Report RL31271, Energy Provisions the Farm Bill: Comparison of the New Law with Previous Law and House and Senate Bills, by Brent Yacobucci. A New Farm Law: Comparing the 2002 Law with Previous Law and the House and Senate Bills Overview President Bush signed a new farm law (P.L. 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, on May 13, 2002. This followed almost two years of hearings, committee deliberations, and floor debates. The House passed its bill (H.R. 2646) on October 5, 2001. The Senate passed its version of this legislation on February 13, 2002. The House and Senate conferees began formal meetings on April 9, 2002 and reached agreement on their differences on April 22, 2002. The House approved the conference agreement (H.R. 2646, H.Rept. 107-424). on May 2, 2002 by a vote of 280-141; the Senate approved it on May 8, 2002 by a vote of 6435. The final law contains ten titles: Commodity Programs, Conservation, Trade, Nutrition Programs, Credit, Rural Development, Research and Related Matters, Energy, and Miscellaneous. At the time of its enactment, the new law was projected to add $73.5 billion to federal funding for food and agriculture programs over 10 years.1 This included new funding for farm commodity programs (+$47.8 billion); conservation programs (+$17.1 billion); trade (+$1.1 billion); nutrition programs (+$6.4 billion); research (+$1.3 billion); and rural development (+$870 million). April 2002 CBO estimates projected new federal costs for the new law at $82.8 billion. Total budget authority for programs in the new law (that is, baseline spending plus new spending) was projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) when the legislation was approved to be $274 billion over its six-year life span. Of this amount some $99 billion was expected to go to about 600,000 farmers in the form of direct payments; $150 billion to support the cost of food stamps and commodity assistance to some 17 million low income persons; and the remaining $25 billion for conservation ( $21 billion), trade ($2.1 billion), rural development ($1 billion), and research, forestry and energy ($2.5 billion) programs. 1 Based on March 2001 CBO baseline estimates. March 2002 baseline estimates brought the estimated new cost to a total of $82.8 billion over 10 years. CRS-2 Economic and Policy Setting Consideration of new farm policy began in 2001, more than a year before the major provisions of the 1996 farm bill were due to expire. The early timing was driven in large measure by the persistence of low prices for many major field commodities, and the desire to address farm income problems through changes to underlying farm policy, rather than by annual multi-billion dollar farm aid packages like those enacted between 1998 and 2001. The economic environment in 2001 was quite different from that existing in 1995-96 when the previous farm bill was considered. In 1995, world commodity supplies were low, demand was growing, and prices for most program commodities were at near record highs. This favorable economic climate, along with growing pressure to bring federal spending under control, changed party control of the Congress, and trade agreements to cut back domestic farm support, made the time propitious for major policy changes. By 1998, however, prices for many major commodities had begun to fall as previous growth markets overseas suffered financial crisis and supplies overtook demand. When the House and Senate began examining new farm policy options early in 2001, this followed three years of stagnant commodity prices and “emergency” farm aid packages totaling over $ 33 billion. The economic environment made it easier for the Congress to approve a congressional budget resolution that contained allowances for some $73.5 billion in new farm bill spending. Subsequently, however, the rosy budget scenario changed. A mild recession, declining revenues, and the mounting costs of the U.S. war against terrorism precipitated by the events of September 11, 2001, have combined to deplete the budget surplus. Some pointed to pending deficits as a reason to rethink the wisdom of substantial increases in farm spending. Others, mostly farm groups and their legislators, pushed for quick farm bill action fearing the loss of the allowed increases. Still others worried about the implications of not passing legislation in time for farmers’ spring planting decisions, and about the potentially costly consequences of legislating in an election year. Different party control of each chamber of Congress, a new administration reluctant to push for an early farm bill, and other national events delayed completion of the new farm bill until May 2002. 1996 Farm Law. When the previous farm bill was being formulated in 1995 and 1996, the farm economy was enjoying a boom. Prices for most commodities were at record highs, as was farm income. Moreover, foreign demand for U.S. agricultural goods was expanding, particularly in Asia and Latin America. At that time legislators in the Congress were also facing constraints because of severe budget deficits and trade initiatives that added pressure for changes to farm policy that would better control farm program spending and adapt U.S. policies to trade agreements. The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 (or 1996 Farm bill, P.L. 104-127) was enacted in April, 1996. This followed nearly two years of deliberations and the extension for one year of previous law provisions CRS-3 beyond their original 1995 expiration date.2 The Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA), Title I of the FAIR Act, contained commodity program provisions that capped federal spending, ended land set-asides and target prices for most commodities, and created a new farm income support system replacing target price supports. Wheat, feedgrain, cotton, and rice farmers choosing to participate in this new program were to receive fixed, gradually declining, decoupled annual payments (so-called production flexibility contract (PFC) payments, sometimes called AMTA payments).3 These were provided each year in lump sums, irrespective of market prices or farmers’ planting decisions. The expectation was that over time the amount of AMTA payments would decline and end completely after 2002, by which time farmers would have adjusted to a free market, and would receive payments only under the capped marketing loan assistance program. Opponents of this gradual phase-out of federal assistance worried about what would happen if prices and markets declined, as began to happen in late 1997 and early 1998. Proponents pointed out that farmers getting PFC/AMTA payments in good economic times would be able to put them away for a rainy day to soften the impact of losses during low price periods. This point also was made in response to those who objected to giving farmers payments when prices were high (as they were in 1996) and economic conditions were good. Moreover, bill promoters pointed out that there was still counter-cyclical income relief in the form of the marketing loan assistance program, although it was capped. When the 1996 farm bill was enacted, prices for most major commodities were at record highs; demand was high and growing, and commodity supplies were tight. By 1998, however, conditions in the farm economy had deteriorated. Demand for many major commodities began to decline as a financial crisis hit Asia and Latin America (two of the fastest growth markets for U.S. goods). Moreover, several years of good worldwide growing conditions had increased supplies, and the value of the American dollar was high relative to other countries, making U.S. goods expensive compared to competitors. Farm income began to decline and the Congress stepped in. The concept of self-sufficiency and independence from federal farm programs eroded as the Congress approved, and the President signed seven emergency farm aid bills in 1999, 2000, and 2001. These adhoc “emergency” spending measures provided some $33 billion to agriculture (primarily to wheat, feedgrain, oilseed, cotton and rice farmers). This assistance helped to stabilize farm income for those receiving payments (primarily wheat, feedgrain, cotton and rice farmers) It also helped to keep average farm family income higher than the national average for all U.S. households. 2 The transition in 1994 from Democratic to Republican control of the House and Senate and a new congressional agenda and leaders, delayed completion of a new farm in 1995. The Congress extended the expiring provisions of the 1990 law (P.L. 104-624) for an additional year until another farm law could be enacted in 1996. Many of the key policy changes made by the 1996 law were authorized through 2002. 3 Payment levels were “decoupled” from target prices and production, which, in the past, were used to make payments to farmers when market prices fell below specified targets. CRS-4 The 107th Congress. As the proportion of net farm income drawn from federal subsidies grew, many in Congress and elsewhere began to push for longer term changes to underlying farm policy that would offer more certainty to farmers than does reliance on ad hoc annual financial aid packages. Thus, shortly after coming into session in 2001, the 107th Congress began to examine agriculture policy and solicit proposals from the various producer groups. Hearings were held by the House and Senate, and testimony was presented both in Washington D.C. and in field hearings throughout much of 2001. The House passed a bill (H.R. 2646) in October, 2001; the Senate began debate on its farm bill (S. 1731) in early December, but was unable to reach agreement before the adjournment of the first session on December 19, 2001. A much revised Senate bill was passed on February 13, 2002. House and Senate conferees agreed to a compromise bill, renamed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, in late April. The House approved the conference agreement on May 2; the Senate approved it on May 8, 2002. The President signed the measure on May 13, 2002 (P.L. 107-171). Administration Views. Like its predecessor, the Bush Administration did not put forward a new farm bill. In its first year (2001), the Bush Administration took the position that Congress should give careful consideration to major farm policy changes before rushing through new legislation. In other words, it contended that a new farm bill could wait until 2002. On September 19, 2001, as the House Agriculture Committee prepared to mark up its farm bill, the Administration issued a report that laid out a set of “principles” for farm policy.4 These principles focused on: (1) the wide differences among farms and farming practices and the need for better tailored policy to reflect these differences; (2) the tilt in existing policy toward highly efficient commercial farms with no direct relationship between federal benefits and a farm’s financial need; and (3) the need to rely on market rather than government forces over the long term, with short term aid for “unexpected events” beyond a farmer’s control. In early October 2001, as the House began floor debate on its farm bill, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) that opposed this legislation. It contended that the House bill encouraged overproduction of commodities, did not target benefits to farmers most in need, jeopardized global markets, and increased federal spending at a time of economic uncertainty. The Administration also objected to the Senate Agriculture Committee farm bill (S. 1731) reported in late November, renewing its concerns about stimulating overproduction and poor targeting of farm payments. It also expressed concern about the bill’s potential to undermine U.S. efforts to phase out foreign countries’ export subsidies and U.S. ability to meet current trade obligations. Finally, the Administration took the position that the Senate-reported bill would authorize costly and ineffective conservation programs, weaken accountability in domestic nutrition programs, and result in unknown budget costs. 4 Food and Agriculture Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century. CRS-5 In early January 2002, USDA officials indicated that they expected Congress and the Bush Administration to agree on a farm bill by early March, 2002. OMB officials informed Congress that the President now supported the $73.5 billion in additional farm spending over ten years that was permitted by the FY2002 year congressional budget resolution. This appeared to remove some of the concern that failure to enact a new farm bill before the next budget resolution could risk loss of new funding for farm bill programs. In late February, 2002, following passage of the Senate farm bill, the Administration indicated that it preferred the House bill’s more gradual approach to new spending to the quicker expenditure of funds in the Senate amendment. Administration officials feared the Senate approach would exhaust federal farm support in the early years and force substantial amounts of new spending in later years. They also preferred the lower marketing loan rates of the House bill. On the other hand, USDA officials were concerned about the large proportion of new funding in the House bill for farm commodity programs compared to the Senate bill, and appeared to favor some of the more expansive nutrition program provisions of the Senate bill. As time went on, some USDA officials expressed reservations about Senate bill provisions that added marketing loan assistance for pulse crops (e.g. dried beans, chick peas, lentils) and to the bill’s restriction on meat packer ownership of livestock. The Administration offered no public alternatives to the House and Senate proposals, but continued to press the conferees on the importance of U.S. trade negotiating objectives (e.g., getting other countries to reduce their domestic commodity supports), and the risk of exceeding the $19 billion limit on tradedistorting domestic support that the U.S. agreed to under the WTO Uruguay Round Agreement. The Administration also refused to take a public position on the controversial payment limitation issue that was debated at length in the Senate. By the time Congress approved the farm bill in May, 2002, the Spring planting season was already under way. Moreover, mid-term elections were rapidly approaching and several farm states/districts were viewed as keys to control of the House and Senate. Thus, despite earlier reservations by Administration officials, President Bush signed the new farm law on May 13,2002, saying “This bill is generous and will provide a safety net for farmers. And it will do so without encouraging overproduction and depressing prices. It will allow farmers and ranchers to plan and operate based on market realities, not government dictates.” House and Senate Action The House Agriculture Committee farm bill (H.R. 2646) was introduced on July 26, 2001. The Committee marked up this bill on July 27 and amended and reported it on August 2. It was sequentially referred to the House International Relations Committee, which reported it with amendments on September 10. Floor debate on H.R. 2646 began on October 2 and continued through October 5 when the bill was passed by a vote of 291-120. The bill was engrossed and sent to the Senate on October 9, 2001. On November 15, 2001, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee ordered reported an original bill (S. 1731) in lieu of S. 1628, a farm bill CRS-6 introduced on November 2 by Committee Chairman Harkin. S. 1731 was adopted by the Committee and reported to the Senate on November 27, and placed on the legislative calendar.5 On November 30, the Senate began debate on a motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1731. Efforts to speed up consideration and obtain a vote for final passage on this measure prior to the end of the first session were unsuccessful.6 Several substitute amendments or alternatives to the Committee bill were offered during debate in the first session. Among these was the Daschle Amendment (S.Amdt. 2471), substituting for the Committee-reported bill. Offered on December 11, it was the pending vehicle at the end of the first session. Several substitutes to the Daschle substitute were offered and tabled (i.e., effectively rejected) in the first session. The rejected alternatives included: ! ! ! An amendment offered by Senator Lugar (S.Amdt. 2473) that would have replaced and completely revised the commodity provisions of the Daschle substitute and substantially increased spending for nutrition programs7; A substitute amendment offered by Senators Roberts and Cochran (S.Amdt. 2671) that would have modified the Daschle substitute to reflect some of the concerns expressed by the Administration (discussed previously), and A substitute amendment (S.Admt. 2678) by Senator Hutchinson (Ark.) offering the House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2646) as a substitute. Early in the second session of the 107th Congress, debate was renewed over the Senate farm bill (Daschle Substitute Amendment S.Amdt. 2471). On February 13, 2002, a substantially revised bill was approved by the Senate. This version, renumbered as the Senate amendment to H.R. 2646, reflected some 31 amendments, one of which, the so-called Managers’ Amendment (S.Amdt. 2859), was 397 pages (longer than the entire House bill of 379 pages). Among the more controversial of the many floor amendments agreed to was one that lowered limits or caps on farm payments, and used the savings to increase spending for nutrition programs in ways similar to those proposed by the previously rejected Lugar amendment. Less controversial amendments added livestock feed assistance, another $2.4 billion in 5 The Committee filed a written report on S. 1731 on December 7, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-117) 6 Several efforts to invoke cloture in order to cut off debate on this legislation failed. The first (a test vote on the motion to proceed to consideration) failed by a vote of 73-26. Subsequent cloture votes failed by lesser votes - 53-45 and 54-43. 7 The Lugar proposal would have established, in lieu of the Senate bill’s target price and income support provisions, a “whole-farm” income insurance program, available to all crop and livestock farmers (i.e. livestock and fruit and vegetable growers not now receiving direct payments). It would have provided for a federal payment equaling 6% of a farm’s receipts that could be used to pay insurance premiums for guarantees of 80% of average income for farmers. A pilot project testing this approach in a limited number of states was authorized in the finally-approved Senate bill. CRS-7 additional “emergency” farm assistance for FY20028, and a myriad of new conservation, rural development, research, and animal health and welfare provisions. One formal and several informal meetings of House-Senate conferees 9and staff took place prior to the spring recess. Resolution of the differences was not reached before Congress left for the Easter and Passover holidays. However, press accounts reported that at that time there was a tentative agreement on the amounts of new funding to add to the major farm bill titles ($46 billion for commodity programs; $17.1 billion for conservation programs; $6.4 billion for nutrition programs; $3.3. billion for remaining titles — research, rural development, forestry, farm credit, trade, etc.; and a $2.6 billion “cushion fund.” ) Assuming some $1.9 billion in crop insurance program savings, this informal agreement kept total new spending in line with the budget resolution allowance ($73.5 billion), according to press reports. The amounts reportedly allocated by title were not officially substantiated, and whatever agreement was reached at that time was subject to subsequent change when the conferees resumed conference deliberations after the spring recess. Staff meetings during the recess worked out minor, noncontroversial differences between the bills, and developed options or alternative proposals that the members might consider to resolve major differences when conference negotiations resumed. The Conference Committee formally reconvened on April 9, 2002, and many minor differences were quickly resolved. Less easy to resolve were differences over how spending was to be allocated among the various titles, the marketing loan rates and eligibility requirement, the pace of new spending, limits on farm payments, new dairy policy, and meat packer concentration. Pressure to complete action came from policy analysts who suggested that a new bill would have to be enacted quickly if its policies were to apply to crop year 2002 production. There also was pressure from political analysts closely watching contested elections in key agriculture states. They predicted that the outcome of the farm bill debate could determine the outcome of the mid-term elections and party control of the House and Senate, and that the legislation could become more expensive in light of the election year timing.10 As time passed without legislation, the USDA began to be pressured to publish the 2002 loan rates. This was resisted by the Administration and others, who recognized the political unacceptability of the existing law rates and the likely election year repercussions, as well as the possibility that putting out the rates might delay congressional action on a new law. Another pressure point came when a multi-billion dollar farm aid bill for FY2002 was introduced by Senator Roberts (S. 2040) in case a new farm bill was not enacted in time for the 2002 crops. 8 Funding designated as “emergency” does not require budget offsets. 9 Senate conferees were Senators Harkin (Iowa), Leahy (Vt.), Conrad (N.D.), Daschle (S.D.), Lugar (Ind.), Helms (N.C.), and Cochran (Miss). House conferees were Representatives Combest (Texas), Boehner (Ohio), Goodlatte (Va.), Pombo (Calif.), Everett (Ala.) Lucas (Okla.), Chambliss (Ga.), Moran (Kansas), Stenholm (Texas), Condit (Calif.), Peterson (Minn.), Dooley (Calif.), Clayton (N.C.) and Holden (Pa.). 10 Typically, farm bills are scheduled to expire in off-election (or odd) years in order to avoid the pressure of election politics. This was not the case with the 1996 farm law and this year’s bill, although in both cases, there were efforts to get legislation approved a year early. CRS-8 In late April, after several weeks of negotiations, the House-Senate conferees reached a conference agreement. The House approved the Conference Report (107424) on this bill on May 2. The Senate approved it on May 8, and the President signed it on May 13 (P.L.107-171). Titled the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, the new law provides for $73.5 billion in new spending for food and agriculture programs, based on 2001 baseline estimates by CBO. 11 Using 2002 baseline estimates, CBO subsequently projected that budget authority added by the new law would total $82.8 billion over ten years, bringing overall total spending for these programs to $451 billion over the next ten years. More recent program cost estimates, based on higher than expected commodity prices, suggest that the cost might be lower. Narrative Comparison: Summary Although the House and Senate proposed farm bills varied from one another in many respects, there were common features to both. First, although farm commodity support was the main focus of each bill and generally got the most attention, the measures proposed and finally approved contained much more than farm commodity provisions. Other titles addressed conservation, trade, nutrition programs, credit, rural development, research, and forestry. Moreover, both bills and the final law restored some provisions struck by earlier law (e.g. federal target prices; the wool, mohair, and honey programs) and added new programs (e.g. countercyclical payments and payments for dairy and pulse crops).12 The two chambers’ bills also substantially increased funding for farm commodity programs, but differed over how much of the increased funding should go for each of the payment vehicles (i.e., fixed payments, marketing loan assistance, or countercyclical income support). The House-passed farm bill had a 10-year life span; the Senate bill authorized its programs for 5 years. The time span in the House bill related to provisions in the FY2002 Congressional Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 83) that provided room for some $73.5 billion in additional spending over the period 2002-2011 for a new farm bill. The Senate 5-year authorization reflected a more traditional time-frame for multi-year farm bills. The Conferees agreed to a six year farm bill. Both bills proposed changes that utilized the $73.5 billion in increased funding allowed by the budget resolution, although the Senate bill was re-estimated to spend $6.1 billion more than that amount when CBO discovered in early March 2002 that it had made an estimating error in its original calculations. The Senate measure also used up its 10-year funding total more quickly than did the House, and added another $2.45 billion in farm aid for FY2002, although this cost was not counted because it 11 March 2002 CBO estimates (using updated baseline from April 2001) calculate that the new budget authority added by the Farm law will total $82.8 billion. 12 The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127, was amended several times to extend the planned expiration date for the dairy price support program. Congress also temporarily restored federal aid for the honey, wool and mohair programs as part of several “emergency” funding packages enacted to shore up farm income. CRS-9 was designated as “emergency” spending. The conferees agreed to a more measured pace of new spending than the Senate bill, and dropped the additional “emergency” spending. The $73.5 billion mark allowed for new spending was met by the conference agreement (although subsequent updated cost projections by the CBO now estimate over $82 billion in new costs). The House and Senate bills also continued a trend toward increasing federal support for a broader array of conservation efforts and expanding payments to farmers who engage in environmentally sensitive farming practices, although the Senate provisions were more generous in this regard (+ $21.3 billion compared to $15.7 billion in the House bill). The conferees agreed to split the difference, increasing conservation funding by $17.1 billion over ten years. The Senate bill also provided significantly more funding for domestic food programs (+$9.3 billion) than the House (+$3.7 billion), with much of the difference related to Senate provisions restoring food stamp eligibility to certain legal aliens. Both bills also made changes to the food stamp program to assist states in conforming program rules to those of other welfare programs and increase commodity donations to domestic food programs. The conference agreement adopted the Senate proposals regarding legal alien eligibility for food stamps. This brought new10-year funding increases estimated at $6.4 billion for this program and several commodity distribution programs, according to CBO, 2001 baseline estimates. The Senate bill also contained extensive energy (ethanol) provisions that were not in the House version. Some of these remained in the final version. Finally, the Senate bill was more generous than the House with respect to funding for research and rural development. In the end, funding increases for both of these categories were reduced to shore up spending for farm commodity and food assistance programs. Some of these and other significant differences between the bills are described in more detail below. Spending. The FY2002 Congressional Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 83) adopted in 2001 made room for additional agriculture spending of $5.5 billion for FY2001, $7.35 billion in FY2002, and $66.15 billion over the following nine years for food and agriculture programs. This provided for a total of $73.5 billion in new budget authority for FY2002-2011above baseline spending. The expectation was that this new money would be used to finance new policies and that most of it would go for farm commodity programs, although this was not required. FY2001 money was spent for emergency assistance. The allowable spending for FY2002 and beyond was intended either for emergency farm assistance or a new farm bill.13 Both the House and Senate bills originally were estimated by CBO to cost $73.5 billion over the 10-year period, FY2002-2011. This included funding for farm 13 As noted above, the Senate approved a floor amendment to its farm bill that adds $2.4 billion in “emergency” farm assistance. A waiver to the budget rules requiring offsets of additional spending for “emergency” reasons was approved by a voice vote so that this additional spending is not counted against the Senate farm bill for FY2002. CRS-10 commodity programs as well as nutrition programs, trade, research, conservation, and rural development, among other things. It did not reflect the additional $2.45 billion in farm “emergency” assistance for FY2002 that the Senate added to its bill.14 It also did not reflect some $6.1 billion in higher costs that the CBO later said were left out of earlier Senate bill projections of commodity program costs because of an error in the original calculations. The revised estimates brought new spending in the Senatepassed bill to a total of $79.6 billion. The final conference agreement brought additional 10-year spending back to the $73.5 billion total allowed by the budget resolution, based on 2001 baseline estimates. When CBO re-estimated baseline spending in March 2002, the total new spending provided by the new farm bill rose to $82.8 billion. The additional funding in the new farm bill, when added to April 2002 baseline estimates (i.e. spending estimated without any change in previous law), will bring total spending for all of the programs in the farm bill to $273.9 billion over the next six years (the life of the bill), according to CBO estimates. This represents an estimated $222.2 billion in baseline spending and $51.7 billion in new spending. Of the 6-year total spending (baseline plus increases), CBO estimated that the new law will provide: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $98.9 billion for commodity support programs; $21.3 billion for conservation; $149.6 billion for nutrition programs, mostly food stamps; $2.1 billion for agricultural trade; $1 billion for rural development; $760 million for research; $405 million for energy related provisions, and $85 million for forestry Commodity Programs. Under both the House and Senate bills, well over half of the new spending would have gone for commodity programs — $48.8 billion under the House bill and $46 billion under the Senate bill.15 However, the bills differed with respect to how much of this commodity program spending should go for fixed annual “contract” payments, new counter-cyclical income relief, or higher marketing loan assistance (i.e., loan deficiency payments). Based on 2002 baseline estimates, the House bill would have added an estimated $25.1 billion to commodity program budget authority over 5 years, and $48.8 billion over 10 years ($7.7 billion more than the originally estimated Senate bill). Initial estimates for the Senate farm bill showed it raising total commodity program spending (Title I) by $26.8 billion over five years and by $41.1 billion over 14 A voice vote to waive this additional funding as “emergency” assistance was approved by the Senate as part of an amendment (S.Amdt. 2839; this designation means that the additional funding does not require offsets in spending elsewhere to conform to budget rules. 15 This amount assumes the $38.9 billion originally estimated by CBO plus the $6.1 billion CBO has indicated it underestimated for the cost of the commodity provisions in that bill. CRS-11 ten years. Adjusting for the $6.1 billion calculating error by CBO, the Senate farm bill’s commodity program costs would have risen by $30.5 billion (over five years) and just under $46 billion over 10 years. This does not count the additional $2.4 billion in FY2002 “emergency” farm assistance the Senate added since this was designated “emergency spending” and not subject to budget offsetting rules for new spending. The final law (Conference agreement) increased spending for commodity programs by a total of $25.6 billion and $47.8 billion, respectively, over five and ten years — more than the 10-year added cost of the Senate bill commodity provisions ($46.1 billion), and slightly less than the House bill ($47.97 billion). Based on new (2002) baseline estimates for the six-year life span of the new law, CBO projected that the government would spend $37.6 billion more for commodity programs under the new farm bill. This represented 73% of the new funding for all of the titles of the new farm law. Total spending for farm commodity programs (i.e., baseline plus new spending) will be $98.9 billion over 6 years, according to CBO estimates, and represents 36% of spending for all of the programs in the new farm law. The House and Senate proposed about the same amount of new funding ($12.7$12.9 billion) for fixed (formerly called “contract,” ) payments to “program” farmers (i.e., wheat, feedgrain, cotton, rice, and oilseed farmers). The conferees agreed to less than was proposed by the House and Senate bills ($9.9 billion) for fixed payments. The new counter-cyclical program proposed in the House bill was projected to cost $37.2 billion over ten years; the Senate’s counterpart was less generous ( $19.1 billion). The conferees more or less split the difference, agreeing to new spending of $29.4 billion for counter-cyclical income support. More extensive differences were in each chamber’s marketing loan assistance provisions. The Senate bill would have added to marketing loan assistance, proposing changes that would have increased spending by $18.7 billion over ten years. The House, on the other hand, proposed to reduce spending for marketing loan payments by some $5.8 billion over ten years. The conferees agreed to an increase of $2.2 billion in marketing loan assistance over ten years. Nutrition Programs. The Senate proposed to raise spending for nutrition programs (primarily, the food stamp program) by $9.3 billion over 10 years, compared to an increase of $3.7 billion for these programs in the House bill. The conferees compromised on a 10-year spending increase of $6.4 billion for these programs (9% of all new spending in the bill), and adopted the Senate proposal to restore food stamp eligibility to many legal aliens cut off by the 1996 welfare reform law. Under the six-year life span of this legislation, nutrition programs are projected by CBO to cost a total of $149.6 billion. This includes an increase of $2.8 billion (1.9% in funding) over the 6-year period. The large funding increases for nutrition programs in the Senate bill were derived, in part, from savings in commodity program spending due to a provision that would have substantially lowered the limit on commodity payments to farmers. According to CBO estimates, the payment limit reduction in the Senate bill would have lowered commodity program spending by $695 million over 10 years. [The payment limit is discussed in more detail later in this report in the selected issues section.] CRS-12 Selected Conference Issues Commodity Programs Program Crops. Both the House and Senate bills maintained the system of fixed annual payments to wheat, feedgrain, cotton and rice farmers that replaced target price supports in 1996. Both bills also added soybeans and peanuts to the crops that are eligible for these fixed payments. The House bill provided more funding for contract payments than did the Senate. Both bills also maintained marketing loan assistance (adding peanuts, as well), but the House bill set loan rates at, or slightly below, those set by previous law, thus reducing spending for this program by $5.8 billion over 10 years, according to CBO. The Senate substantially raised these rates, adding some $18.3 billion for marketing loan assistance. Both bills added a new program of counter-cyclical income support (which also included peanuts). In sum, the House approach tended to rely more heavily on fixed annual payments and greater levels of counter-cyclical income support than the Senate, which put more of its new funding into substantially raising marketing loan assistance. In overall spending for commodity programs, the conferees agreed to spend just under $48 billion over ten years, coming closer to the House mark ($48.7 billion) than the Senate ($46 billion). The conference agreement approved 10-year funding increases among the three commodity programs as follows: ! ! ! $9.9 billion in fixed payments (less than both House and Senate bills); $29.4 billion for counter-cyclical income support ( versus $37 billion in the House bill and $19 billion in the Senate bill); and $1.7 billion in marketing loan assistance (the House bill would have reduced this assistance by $5.8 billion; the Senate bill would have added $18.3 billion in new spending). Both bills maintained the 1996 policy changes that provide broad planting flexibility to farmers and remove annual cropland set-aside tools formerly used to reduce surplus production and/or control federal farm spending. To protect the interests of fruit and vegetable producers (who do not receive federal subsidies and who worried that some of the subsidized crop producers might plant these alternative crops as well as their subsidized program crops) both the House and Senate bills maintained the planting restriction on most fruits and vegetables by program farmers. Although some farm groups supported the types of production controls in place before the 1996 law, most did not, and these were not restored under the new farm law. Another commodity proposal was tested by a Senate bill provision that added pulse crops (dried peas, lentils, chickpeas) to the mix of commodities eligible for marketing loan assistance. Proponents contended that these crops should receive the CRS-13 same benefits as other field crops and that this would encourage production and greater rotation of other crops (e.g., wheat and feedgrains). Objection to this came from some who saw the addition of new crops as moving in the wrong direction, that is, expanding federal support and market interference in farm policy. Provisions in both bills added soybean eligibility for fixed payments and countercyclical income support; restored previously discontinued farm support payments for honey and wool (the Senate bill also added mohair), and added new direct payment programs for peanuts and fluid milk. The conferees adopted provisions adding most pulse crops, soybeans, peanuts, honey, wool and mohair to the list of commodities eligible for direct farm payments. Peanuts. Both bills terminated the peanut poundage quotas and nonrecourse loans and created a compensation plan for peanut quota holders, set at a much lower loan rate, and, as noted above, made peanut producers eligible for marketing loan assistance and fixed and counter-cyclical payments. The end of the quota program, despite the generous buy-out provisions ($220/ton/year for five years) in the conference agreement, drew objections from some in certain peanut producing districts. Among the concerns expressed were the impact of this on small growers and on those retired farmers and/or spouses who relied on leasing quota for their income. Despite these objections, the quota buyout (in both bills) was agreed to by the conferees. Dairy. Disagreement about the extension, or reauthorization of the expired Northeast Dairy Compact and its possible expansion to other regions of the country split along regional lines. The House farm bill did not extend the Northeast (NE) Dairy Compact (which expired September 30, 2001). Efforts to include an extension of this compact in S. 1731 threatened to delay or stop deliberations in the Senate and a compromise proposal was included in the final Senate bill. This would have replaced the NE Dairy Compact with a new counter-cyclical payment program for dairy farmers in all states, with one quarter of the $2 billion in funding allotted going to Northeast states. The earmark of funds for the Northeast was intended to offset the loss of the higher farm milk prices permitted by the defunct Compact in that region. The conferees agreed to a revised counter-cyclical payment program for dairy farmers, without the set-a-side for Northeast farmers. Instead of earmarking $500 million of its $2 billion cost for Northeast states as in the Senate bill, the Conference agreement will make payments to all dairy farmers whenever the monthly price of fluid farm milk in Boston falls below $6.94. The payments will be available on up to 2.4 million pounds of annual production, thus targeting benefits to small and midsized operations. This compromise was crafted largely by Northeast legislators representing generally small dairy operations. It, as well as earlier efforts to extend the NE Dairy Compact, was opposed by many from the Midwest, who regard this as a support system that will continue to encourage price-depressing overproduction, and continue an unwise policy that favors regions with small producers to the detriment of mid-western, and western producers. Those favoring countercyclical income assistance contend that it will benefit all farmers by reducing the impact of volatile prices, and that it will be available to all dairy farmers, not just those in one region. Some, however, are concerned about the budget implications of a new “uncontrollable” farm support program and its implications for U.S. efforts to get European and other trading competitors to reduce their domestic support programs. CRS-14 Farm Payment Limits. Current law limits on payments to farmers were revised and applied to new programs under both the House and Senate farm bills. The Senate limitations, which were more stringent than those in the House bill, were opposed by many farm groups. Proponents of lowering the payment cap contend that farm programs benefit most (in terms of federal dollars) those who need aid the least (i.e., larger, wealthier farmers), while smaller, high-risk farmers or those ineligible for direct payments (such as fruit, vegetable, and livestock producers) get little or nothing. They also charge that the current system encourages the growth of large corporate farms and helps to drive small and mid-sized farms out of business. Some also assert that “excessive” payments undermine the credibility of and popular support for a farm policy that purports to be designed to help small and mid-sized farmers. Opponents of payment limits (which include nearly all of the farm commodity groups) contend that farm policy should be based on productivity and efficiency and that payment limits discourage both. They suggest that basing farm payments on income or need would mean rewarding many farmers who are inefficient or unwise in their farm management, and would discourage farmers from making profitable efficiencies. Moreover, they point out that many of the farms receiving large payments also have similarly large costs of production and might not operate as efficiently or productively if federal support was not tied in some way to output. The farm payment limits first imposed in 1970 generally have been high enough so that they rarely resulted in any cut-off of farm payments. Moreover, mechanisms for getting around the caps have been available. In the late 1990s, however, when it appeared that loan deficiency payments to some farmers might exceed the limits then in place, Congress doubled the limit on these payments. 16 The doubled levels have been operable for the past several years. A list of farmer payments released by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) rejuvenated interest in the farm payment limit issue. The EWG data show a large proportion of federal farm payments, sometimes in very large amounts, going to small numbers of large farms and also to some wealthy absentee landlords. This study was widely reported by the media and reportedly influenced proposals for the more stringent payment limits that were added to the Senate farm bill during floor debate.17 The House bill raised the current law overall limit on commodity program payments from a total of some $460,000 per year, per farmer, to $550,000, but did not apply this limit to the value of commodity certificates.18 It also provided a 16 From $75,000 to $150,000. This followed substantial increases in farm spending enacted under several multi-billion farm “emergency” aid packages. 17 New York Times, May 18, 2001, Farm Subsidies: Who Gets Fed? Washington Post, January 24, 2002, More Subsidy Money Going to Fewer Farms. See also, the Environmental Working Group Farm Subsidy Database at www.ewg.org 18 The previous law amount reflects the total allowance, including additional amounts provided by emergency market loss payments in previous years, and allowances for the three-entity rule and spouses. The amount shown reflects the fixed contract payment limit of $40,000 set by the 1996 farm law, plus an additional $40,000 cap for emergency market loss payments for a total of $80,000. To this is added the $150,000 limit on marketing loan (continued...) CRS-15 separate payment limit for peanuts. The Senate bill lowered the current law payment limit to $275,000 for all crops (including peanuts and other newly covered crops) and included the value of marketing certificates under this limit. Under the House and Senate proposals the limits would have worked as follows: ! Fixed payments and counter-cyclical payments. The House bill set a maximum of $50,000 per farmer per year for fixed “contract” payments, and $75,000 per farmer per year for newly created counter-cyclical payments for regular program crops (grains, cotton, rice, oilseeds). Thus, the House bill set the payment cap for both these programs at $125,000. A separate $75,000 limit for countercyclical payments applied to the new peanut program. The Senate bill set a combined maximum per person payment of $75,000 for both fixed payments and counter-cyclical payments, and applied this limit to all eligible crops, including the newly eligible peanuts. ! Marketing Loan Payments. Under the House bill, marketing loan assistance would have been capped at $150,000 for wheat, feedgrains, oilseeds, cotton and rice, and there would have been separate payment limits of $150,000 for each of the peanut, honey, wool, and mohair programs.19 The Senate bill establishes one limit of $150,000 in marketing loan benefits for all of the eligible commodities (wheat, feedgrains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, honey, wool, lentils, dry peas, and chick peas)20. It also applied this limit to the value of commodity certificates and loan forfeitures which, under previous law and the House bill, are not counted toward the payment limits. ! Three-entity Rule and Spouse Allowance. The House bill maintained the former law three-entity rule and spouse allowance. These permit a spouse to qualify for payments, and permit additional payments for up to two additional farms (at half the first farm cap). In effect, the House bill allows for an additional $275,000 in commodity program payments for a qualifying farmer. The Senate bill maintains the spouse benefit, capped at $50,000, but eliminates the separate payment cap for additional farms. Under the Senate bill, all payments to an individual farmer, regardless of the number of farms, are counted toward the $225,000 payment limit. 18 (...continued) benefits (doubled from 1996 farm law by subsequent congressional actions) and the threeentity rule and spouse allowance which is capped at a total of $230,000 (or half the payment allowance) for a maximum of $460,000 per farmer. (See CRS report RS21138 for more information on payment limits.) 19 The 1996 farm bill set $75,000 as payment limit for LDPs, but this was doubled by subsequent legislation when the cap would have cut some farmers off payments at that level. 20 The Senate bill does not contain assistance for mohair. CRS-16 ! Wealthy Individuals. The Senate bill contains language that would prohibit those with adjusted gross incomes above $2.5 million annually from receiving any farm payments. This provision was intended to counter media and other critics who often point to receipt of farm payments by wealthy public figures (e.g., professional athletes and movie stars) as an illustration of poor farm policies. There is no comparable provision in the House bill.21 The 10-year savings from the Senate payment limit provision, which was used by the Senate bill to help fund a food stamp program expansion, was estimated by the CBO at $784 million ($454 million over 5 years).22 Most analysts predicted that the impact of the Senate payment limit would have been the greatest for large rice and cotton farmers whose federal payments generally tend to be larger than those producing other field crops. The conference agreement to allow unlimited gains from commodity certificates helped to reach a compromise on payment limits. The conference agreement included: (1) new payment caps that will apply to the 2003 crops (not 2002 crops); (2) fixed payments that will be capped at $40,000; (3) counter-cyclical payments limited to $65,000; (4) marketing loans capped at $75,000 per farmer per year; (5) allowance for payments for up to two additional farms and spouses; (6) no limits on the value of commodity certificates; and (7) a prohibition on farm payments if a person’s gross income (from non-farm income) exceeds $2.5 million annually. [For more detailed information on this topic and the crops it would affect, see CRS Report RS21138, Farm Commodity Payment Limits: Comparison of Proposal] Federal Budget and Trade Agreements The return of deficit spending or at least substantially depleted budget surpluses because of the War on Terrorism and an economic slowdown, raised questions about how much funding would be available for changes in farm policy by the time Congress approved legislation. There was some concern about whether the additional money agreed to in the past budget resolution ($73.5 billion) would be honored if a farm bill was not passed before the next budget resolution (May 2002). Both the Administration and congressional leaders indicated their intention to honor the additional money provided for farm policy changes that was allowed by last year’s congressional budget resolution — some $73.5 billion in additional funding 21 The lower payment limits were added during Senate floor debate under an amendment (S.Admt. 2826) offered by Senators Dorgan and Grassley. 22 These figures, changed from the previous report, represent the most recent CBO revisions of Senate bill costs. Some Senate proponents of the payment limit suggest that these savings estimates are understated because the CBO did not fully account for the savings associated with counting the value of marketing loan writeoffs. See [http://www.agweb.com], April 10, 2002. CRS-17 over ten years. Despite this agreement, concern about the cost of the bills remained. Budget-conscious policymakers watching budget surpluses turn into deficits expressed concern about the cost of the legislation, and their doubts were reinforced when the CBO discovered that it had underestimated the cost of the Senate-passed bill by over $6 billion. In the end, the conference agreement held to the allowed $73.5 billion (although subsequent CBO estimates using March 2002 baselines project that it will cost over $82 billion). More recent estimates of commodity market prices by the USDA suggest that commodity program provisions may cost less than originally estimated. Efforts in the 107th Congress seeking to use the savings from the revised program costs to pay for some $6 billion to additional agriculture spending for disaster relief. This was not approved. The Administration was concerned that the new commodity program spending in both the House and Senate Farm bills might exceed the $19 billion cap on spending for market-distorting domestic farm support that the U.S. agreed to in the Uruguay Round WTO trade agreements. To deflect this concern, both bills contained provisions (adopted in conference) that require the Secretary of Agriculture to make adjustments if the spending cap is breached. Some policy analysts question the mechanics of the adjustment provisions and their practical application. Strong criticism of the new subsidies in the farm bill has come from some of our trading partners (particularly the EU and Japan) who are being pressured by U.S. negotiators to substantially reduce their domestic support programs. Other criticism has come from less developed countries and their supporters who contend that the generous farm subsidies in the U.S. (as well as the EU and Japan) are harming economic development and agricultural productivity in those nations. Conservation Programs Both the House and Senate bills increased spending on conservation programs, as did the finally-approved version. Major points of difference between the chambers included how much additional funding should be provided for these programs versus farm commodity programs, what portion, if any, of the funding should be mandatory, whether new programs or benefits should be created, and how much funding they should receive. The Senate bill provided significantly more money (some $6 billion) for conservation programs than the House bill. In the House, an attempt (KindBoehlert Amendment) to add more spending for conservation programs by taking away some of the new funding for commodity programs was unsuccessful. The difference in spending between the House and Senate bills for conservation programs was a difficult issue in the Conference Committee, and was made worse when CBO discovered that it had underestimated the overall cost of the Senate bill by some $6 billion. The conferees compromised on the funding difference between the House and Senate, essentially cutting the difference in half. A Senate provision, strenuously opposed by some farm groups who feared the potential loss of state and local control of water rights to the federal government through farmer participation in wetlands and other conservation programs, was dropped in conference. Environmentalists objected to the changes made to the Senate measure. In their view, the conference agreement weakened the environmental and conservation standards for participating in the programs. Concern also was raised by some trading partners who fear that the environmental payments are a cover for CRS-18 further domestic farm support. Some USDA officials also questioned the costeffectiveness and environmental benefits of some of the new conservation programs. Concentration in the Livestock Sector A livestock packers amendment offered by Senator Tim Johnson and others was accepted during Senate floor debate. It would have prohibited meat packers from owning or controlling livestock within 14 days of slaughter. Designed to help protect livestock producers from price manipulation by large meat packing companies, this amendment drew fire from some. Opposition centered on the fact that the amendment did not apply to poultry (a strong competitor to beef and pork), and that it might endanger the use of marketing contracts. Some believe that these contracts help producers and processors plan and market their goods to the benefit of both. However, there are others who see contracts (especially the confidentiality clauses in them) as a way for processors to unfairly manipulate livestock prices to producers to keep them low. The Senate-proposed restriction on packer ownership was supported by the American Farm Bureau and Iowa Pork Producers Association, two major farm interest groups. It was opposed by most meat processors and the National Cattle and Beef Association and National Pork Producers Council. An amendment modifying the meat packer restrictions to clarify that they did not affect livestock under marketing contracts was adopted during Senate deliberations. The restrictions on packer ownership were a sticking point in conference deliberations. Several reports analyzing the proposed restrictions questioned their likelihood of reducing concentration in the livestock sector or raising prices for producers, which are the intended goal of this legislation. There was stiff opposition in the House to the packer ownership restriction and it was dropped from the finally enacted law. Predictions by economists that meat prices will remain low in 2003 make it likely that this issue will be revisited in the 108th Congress. [For more information on this issue, see CRS Report RL31553, Livestock: A Ban on Ownership and Control by Packers.] Comparison Caveats The following table compares provisions of previous law to those in the Housepassed farm bill (H.R. 2646), the Senate-passed bill (an amendment to H.R. 2646) and the finally enacted law (P.L. 107-171). It supercedes an earlier CRS report that compared only the House and Senate-passed bills to then-current law. The report is intended to identify the major differences from previous law and new law and between the House and Senate, and to provide an historical record of the issues that legislators grappled with as they pursued a 2002 farm bill. It is designed to assist those interested in the major issues surrounding the various titles of the farm bill and their resolution by the House-Senate Conferees. Although the report is quite extensive, it does not cover every provision in the proposed farm bills and new law, largely because of the enormous size of the various bills and final law. 23 It does, 23 The USDA Department of Agriculture (USDA) website includes comprehensive (continued...) CRS-19 however, cover most of the significant or controversial changes that were proposed and those where there were major difference between each of the chambers’ bills and previous and new law. Judgments about which provisions to include were made by each of the CRS specialists covering the relevant title, with some modifications and additions by the coordinator. The comparison is presented under topic headings, using the titles of the House and Senate farm bills as the general organizing theme (although this does not work in all cases because of the differences in the bills’ configurations, and because topically related provisions are not all in the same sections). Funding information in this report is based on CBO estimates, unless otherwise noted. 23 (...continued) comparisons for programs by agency as well as comparisons by the USDA-Economic Research Service. [http://www.USDA.gov]. CRS-20 SIDE by SIDE COMPARISON: Old Law, House and Senate Bills, New Law I. COMMODITY PROGRAMS COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA), Title I of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Subtitles B, C, D, and E, and miscellaneous agriculture laws. HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 Farm Security Act (FSA) of 2001, Title I, Subtitles A, B, and D. SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 Agriculture, Conservation and Rural Enhancement (ACRE) Act of 2001, Title 1, Subtitles A and B. NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 Title: Federal Agriculture Improvement and Farm Security Act of 2001. Agriculture Conservation and The Farm Security and Rural Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 (P.L. 104- [Section 1] Rural Enhancement (ACRE) Act Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) 127) [ Section 101] of 2001. [Section 1] Definitions: 1. “Considered Planted” is defined 1. No provision under the FAIR Act to mean “acreage considered planted” under Title 5 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, and other acreage the Secretary considers fair and equitable. This includes: (a) any reduced or diverted acreage; (b) acreage that could not be planted because of drought, flood or other natural disaster or condition beyond farmer control; (c) acreage equal to the difference between permitted acreage for a crop and the planted crop if it is devoted to conservation uses or the production of 1.”Con s i d ered Planted” is 1. No provision. revised to mean any acreage planted that producers were prevented from planting because of a drought, flood, or other natural disaster or condition beyond control of the owner or producer, as determined by the Secretary, and any acreage not planted to another contract commodity (except for a contract commodity produced under an established practice of double cropping). [Section 102] CRS-21 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 commodities permitted under programs for crop years 1991-1997; (d) any acreage the Secretary determines is necessary to establish a fair crop acreage base; (e) acreage up to 20 percent of crop acreage base for feed grains or wheat if planted to dry peas and lentils; and (f) the crop acreage base if producers forego farm payments and do not plant to the crop or any fruit or vegetable not designated as industrial or experimental. [Sec. 102(2)of FAIR Act and Section 503(c) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (which is one of several permanent laws whose provisions often are suspended or temporarily or permanently revised or amended by farm bills)] 2. “Contract” and “Production 2. No Provision Flexibility Contract” defined to mean a contract entered into under the terms of Section 111 of the FAIR Act of 1996, which establishes fixed , annual, lump sum payments to farmers. [Section 102(3) of the FAIR Act]] 2. Defines “Contract” as a 2. No provision contract entered into under s u b t i t l e B, Non reco u rs e Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments. [Section 102] 3 . “Contract Acreage” is defined to 3. No Provision mean one or more crop acreage bases established for contract commodities under Title V of the Agriculture Act of 1949 that would have been in effect for the 1996 crop but for the suspension of existing 3. Redefines “contract acreage” to mean the acreage determined under section 111(f) of the bill, which refers to “direct and counter-cyclical payments.” (Section 102(4)] 3. Uses phrase “Base Acres” and defines it with respect to a covered commodity to mean the number of acres established under section 1101 (Establishment of base acres and payments acres). [Section 1001] CRS-22 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 target price support programs under Section 171 (b)(1) of the Fair Act of 1996.[Section 102] 4. “Contract Commodity” is defined to 4. “Covered Commodity” 4. “Contract Commodity” is 4. House Provision [Section 1001] mean wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, replaces “covered” for redefined to add oilseeds to oats, upland cotton, and rice. [Section 102] “ c o n t r a c t ” a n d a d d s current law. [Section 102] soybeans, and other oilseeds to current law . [Section 100] 5. “Contract Payment” is defined to 5. No provision mean production flexibility contract payments to wheat, corn, grain, barley, oats, upland cotton and rice farmers [Section 102] 5. “ Contract Payment” is a 5. No provision payment made to wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice and oilseed farmers under Subtitle B, Nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments. [Section 102] 6. “Counter-cyclical Payment” No provision 6 . ” C o u n t e r - c y c l i c a l 6. No definition Payment” means a payment made to producers under section 105, Availability of Counter-cyclical Payments. [Section 100] 6. House Provision [Section 1001] 7. “Fixed Decoupled Payment” 7. “Fixed Decoupled 7. No definition. Payment” means a payment made to producers under section 104 Availability of 7. Replaces “fixed decoupled payment” with “direct payment.” [Section 1001] CRS-23 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Fixed Decoupled Payments. [Section 100] 8. “Farm Program Payment Yield” means the farm program payment yield established for the 1995 crop of a contract commodity under section 505 of the Agriculture Act of 1949 [Section 101] 8. “Payment Yield” is the 8. “Payment Yield” means the yield established under payment yield determined under section 102 for a covered Section 111(g) [Section 102] commodity. [Section 100] 9. “Loan Commodity” means each 9. No Provision contract commodity, extra long staple cotton and oilseed. [Section 102] 10. “Target price” No provision NOTE: Eliminated for most field commodities by the AMTA of 1996. 9. “Loan Commodity” means wheat, corn, grain, sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, estra long staple cotton, rise, oilseeds, wool, honey, dry peas, lentils and chick peas. [Section 102] 10. “Target Price”means 10. No provision the price per bushel (or other appropriate unit) of a covered commodity used to determine the payment rate for counter-cyclical payments.[Section 100] 8. In general, “payment yield” means the yield established under section 1102 for a farm for a covered commodity. “Updated Yield” means the payment yield elected by the owner of a farm to be used in calculating counter-cyclical payments. [Section 1001] 9. Senate provision amended to substitute “soybeans and other oilseeds” for “oilseeds,” specify “small chickpeas,” and add “mohair.” [Section 1001] 10. House definition. [Section 1001] A. Wheat, Corn Grain Sorghum, Barley, Oats, Upland Cotton, Rice, Soybeans and other Oilseeds. 1. General a.. Sign-up period is required to begin not later than 45 days after enactment and end Establishes a sign-up period, lasting not more than 180 Establishes a sign-up period, that USDA is to provide notice to farmers, begins not less 45 days after as soon as practical after enactment, of CRS-24 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 August 1, 1996. Production flexibility days after enactment, during contracts (PFCs) cover 7 years, 1996 thru which producers sign 2002 crops. [Section 112] “agreements” covering crop years 2002 thru 2011 (10 years). [Section 110] SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 enactment and lasts for 180 days, during which producers sign “contracts” covering crop years 2002 thru 2006 (5 years). [Section 111] the opportunity to sign agreements and establish base acres for direct and counter-cyclical payments. [Section 1101] b.) Base Acres and Payment Acres Each farm’s base acres and payment yields are used to calculate the program benefits to the producer. The base acres and yields for eligible crops are those that would have applied in 1996 under the then expiring program. Under the expiring program, the “acreage base” for each program crop is the average acres planted/considered planted the prior 5 years for wheat, feed grains and the prior 3 years for upland cotton, rice.[Sections 111 and 112] The base acres for each crop are either the acres specified in existing PFC contracts, or average acres planted to eligible crops from 1998 thru 2001. Accommodation is made for double cropping, peanut acres, and CRP acres. Base acres cannot exceed total cropland on a farm. [Section 103] Payment acres equal 85% of base acres in calculating payment amounts. [Section 100(9) and 103(f)] Same as House bill. 111] [Section Same as House and Senate bills. [Section 1101] Payment acres equal 100% of Same as House bill. [Section 1101(f)] base acres in calculating payment amounts. [Section 111] c.) Payment Yield Program payment yields for each crop are Program payment yield for frozen at 1986 program levels. [Section each crop is the: payment 102] yield in effect for 2002 under an existing production Note: Soybeans and other oilseeds are not flexibility contract; or a eligible crops and there are no provisions similarly appropriate yield Program payment yield is either: the yield specified in existing contracts, or average yield from 1998 thru 2001. There is no requirement to adjust yields back to an 1981-85 equivalent. Similar to House bill. Payment yield is the yield established for the 1995 crop. Oilseed payment yield is the average yield from 1998-01, adjusted back to the national average from 1981-85. Yields for counter-cyclical payments CRS-25 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 for establishing base acres and yields for for farms without past [Section 111] oilseeds. contracts. Oilseed yield is the average yield from 199801, adjusted back to a 198185 equivalent. [Section 102] NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 may be updated using specified formulas. [Section 1102] d) Producer Contract (Agreement) (1.) Requirements. Eligible producers must sign a contract Producers must agree during Same as old law. Producers sign Same as House bill. [Section 1105] that includes specific requirements in order each crop year to certain contracts. [Section 111 ] to receive payments. [Section 111] requirements in order to receive fixed, decoupled direct payments and countercyclical payments. [Section 106] a.) Conservation and Wetlands Compliance Producers are required to comply with Same as old law. [Section already existing conservation requirements 106] on highly erodible land and with already existing prohibitions on draining wetlands for purposes of crop production. These compliance requirements do not impose any new obligations on producers. [Section 111] Same as old law. [Section 111] Same House and Senate bills and old law. [Section 1105(1)(A) and (B)] b.) Planting Flexibility and Limitations Farmers are allowed to plant any crop Same planting flexibility S a m e p l a n t i n g f l e x i b i l i t y Same as House bill, except allows that CRS-26 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 except fruits and vegetables (other than allowance as old law, but allowance as old law, but wild lentils, mung beans, and dry peas) on wild rice is added to rice is added to exceptions contract acreage and there are no planting exceptions. [Section 107] beginning in 2003. [Section 113] restrictions on non-contract acreage. Cropland not planted has to be devoted to a conserving use to prevent erosion and can not be converted to non-agricultural uses. [Section 118] Violations of planting flexibility No provision. limitations generally result in termination of the contract on each farm in which the producer has an interest. [Section 116] NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 if prohibited crops are planted they may be destroyed before harvest, and planting trees or other perennial crop producing plants is prohibited on base acres. [Section 1106] For first time unintentional Same as House bill. violations of planting flexibility limitations, the penalty shall be a refund or reduction of future payments amounting to twice the payment amount on the involved acres. [Section 112] c.) Change in Farm Ownership or Operator Contract obligations can be assumed by Same as old law. [Section new owners. Otherwise the contract is 106(c)] terminated. Changing operators does not affect program acres or yields. [Section 117] Same as House bill. 111] [Section Same as old law, and House and Senate bills. [Section 1105(b)] CRS-27 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 2. Direct Fixed, Decoupled Payments a.) Eligibility. Eligibility for PFC contracts is extended to producers previously enrolled in a grain or cotton program in at least 1 of the 1991-95 crop years. Conservation Reserve Program cropland expiring or terminated after Jan. 1, 1995 is eligible. Soybeans and other oilseeds are not eligible PFC commodities. [Section 111] Farms with existing PFC Same as House bill. c o n t ract s , a n d o t h e r 111] producers with a history of contract crop or oilseed production from 1998-01 are eligible for fixed, decoupled payments on their base acres and yields. Soybeans and other oilseeds also are made eligible. These crops are to be known as “agreement crops.” Provision is made for expiring CRP acres to be added to the agreements. [Section 101(a) and 103(a)] [Section Same as House and Senate bills except that these crops are to be known as “covered crops.” [Section 1103] b.) Payment Rates. Farmers who sign production flexibility contracts (PFCs) in 1996 receive fixed annual payments for 7 years, unrelated to crops or acreage actually planted. The payment quantity for each commodity is 85% of the contract acreage times the payment yield times the payment rate. [Section 114] Similar framework to old law. Farmers who sign “agreements” receive direct fixed, decoupled annual payments, unrelated to crops or acreage actually planted. The payment amount for each commodity is payment acres (85% of base acres) times the payment yield times the payment rate. Similar framework to old law. Same as House bill. [Section 1105] Farmers who sign contracts receive fixed, decoupled annual payments, unrelated to crops or acreage actually planted. The payment quantity for each commodity is 100% of payment acres times the payment yield times the payment rate. CRS-28 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 Estimated 2002 contract payment rates: Wheat, $0.46/bu Corn, $0.26/bu Sorghum, $0.31/bu Barley, $0.20/bu Oats, $0.021/bu Cotton, $0.0556/lb Rice, $2.04/cwt Soybeans, not a contract crop Other Oilseeds, not contract crops The law does not specify actual payment rates, but states the total funds available each year and the allocation share for each commodity. [Section 113] HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Payment rates are specified Payment rates are specified for for all years as follows: 2002/03, 2004/05, 2006 as follows: Wheat, $0.53/bu Wheat, $0.45, $0.225, $0.113/bu Corn, $0.30/bu Corn, $0.27, $0.135, $0.068/bu Sorghum, $0.36/bu Sorghum, $0.31/$0.27, $0.135, Barley, $0.25/bu $0.068/bu Oats, $0.025/bu Barley, $0.20, $0.10, $0.05/bu Cotton, $0.0667/lb Oats, $0.05, $0.025, $0.013/bu Rice, $2.35/cwt Cotton, $0.13, $0.065, $0.0325/lb Soybeans, $0.42/bu Rice, $2.45, $2.40, $2.40/cwt Other Oilseeds, $0.0074/lb Soybeans, $0.55, $0.275, [Section 104] $0.138/bu Other Oilseeds, $0.01, $0.005, $0.0025/lb [Section 111] Payment rates differ slightly from House bill as follows: Total payments are to be No comparable provision. reduced by $100 million on a pro rata basis (about 2% based on CBO estimates) and these funds are to be devoted to specified rural development programs. [Section 943] Same as Senate. Note: no provision to reduce spending and devote funds elsewhere. Wheat, $0.52/bu Corn, $0.28/bu Sorghum, $0.35/bu Barley, $0.24/bu Oats, $0.024/bu Cotton, $0.0667/lb Rice, $2.35/cwt Soybeans, $0.44/bu Other Oilseeds, $0.008/lb [Section 1103(b)] c.) Time of Payment. The producer can choose to receive 50% of the payment on Dec. 15 or Jan. 15 and the remainder not later than September 30 of each fiscal year. [Section 112(d)(1 & FY2002 PFC payments under old law are to be discontinued after enactment, and any amount already paid No explicit reference is made to Similar to House bill. [Section 1107] discontinuing payments under PFC contracts, or to payments already made under old law. CRS-29 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 2)] is to be deducted from the amount due under this Act. [Section 108] Fixed, decoupled payments are to be made not later than September 30 of each fiscal year. [Section 104(d)] Alternatively, for FY1999-02, the producer can choose to receive the full amount or portions at times during the fiscal year chosen by the producer. [Section 112(d)(3) as added by PL 105228, Section 2] The producer can choose to Same as House bill. [Section 111 receive an advance of 50% of as it amends Section 113(d) of the payment on or after FAIR Act] December 1. [Section 104(d)] NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Same as House and Senate bills except the producer can choose to receive any amount up to 50% of the direct payment. [Section 1103(d)] 3. Counter-Cyclical Deficiency Payments and Target Prices a.) Eligibility. Eliminates counter-cyclical target price deficiency payments that were enacted in 1973 and functioned through 1995. When effective, farmers were paid the difference between the target price and a lower season average farm price on a specified proportion of the a farm’s crop base acres. Restores counter-cyclical Same as House bill. [Section 111 Same as House and Senate bills. target price deficiency as it amends Section 111(a) of the [Section 1104] payments that ended in 1995. FAIR Act] Farms that have signed agreements receive countercyclical payments if average market prices are less than target prices. [Section 101] b.) Target Prices and Payment Rates. Not applicable. The payment rate for Same as House bill, except that Same as House bill. [Section 1001(10)] counter-cyclical payments is the payment amount for each CRS-30 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 the difference between the commodity is 100% of base acres “target price” and the times the payment yield times the “effective price.” The payment rate. effective price is the higher of (1)the national season average price or (2)the loan rate, plus the direct fixed, decoupled payment rate. The payment amount is the payment rate times the payment acres times the payment yield. Payment acres are 85% of base acres. Target prices are for all years are specified as follows: Wheat, $4.04/bu Corn, $2.78/bu Sorghum, $2.64/bu Barley, $2.39/bu Oats, $1.47/bu Upland Cotton, $0.736/lb Rice, $10.82/cwt Soybeans, $5.86/bu Other Oilseeds, $0.1036/lb [Section 105] Target prices are for all years are specified as follows: Wheat, $3.446/bu Corn, $2.3472/bu Sorghum, $2.3472/bu Barley, $2.1973/bu Oats, $1.5480/bu Upland Cotton, $0.6793/lb Rice, $9.2914/cwt Soybeans, $5.7431/bu Other Oilseeds, $0.1049/lb [Section 171] Target prices for 2002-03/2004-07 are specified as follows: Wheat, $3.86/$2.92/bu Corn, $2.60/$2.63/bu Sorghum, $2.54/$2.57/bu Barley, $2.21/$2.24/bu Oats, $1.40/$1.44/bu Upland Cotton, $0.724/$0.724/lb Rice, $10.50/$10.50/cwt Soybeans, $5.80/$5.80/bu Other Oilseeds, $0.098/$0.1010/lb [Section 1104(c)] CRS-31 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 4. Marketing Assistance Loans and LDPs a.) Eligibility. Any wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, and rice produced on PFC farms is eligible for marketing assistance loans or LDPs, whether or not it is produced on contract acres. These commodities are not eligible for loan or LDPs if produced on farms without contracts. Any oilseed is eligible for marketing assistance loans or LDPs, whether or not the farm has a contract. [Section 131] Marketing assistance loans Same as House bill. a n d l o a n d e f i c i e n c y 121] payments (LDPs) are available for agreement crops (grains, upland cotton, oilseeds) on all farms where they are produced, whether or not they have signed agreements). [Section 121] [Section Similar to House and Senate bills, except the list of loan commodities differs. [Section 1201] Loan commodities are defined to include wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, extra long staple cotton, rice, soybeans, other oilseed, wool, mohair, honey, dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas. [Section 1001] b.) Term of Loans. Loans on grains and oilseeds are for 9 Same as old law. [Section months beginning on the first of the month 123] after the loan date. Loans on upland cotton are for 10 months beginning on the first of the month before the loan date.[Section 133] Same as old law. [Section 121] Similar to old law, and House and Senate bills, except the term for each commodity is 9 months beginning on the first day of the month after loan is made. [Section 1203] Similar to old law. [Section 121] Similar to old law, and House and Senate bills. Repayment rules for wool, mohair, honey, dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas are the same as for grains and oilseeds. [Section 1204] c.) Loan Repayment. For grains and oilseeds, marketing Similar to old law. [Section assistance loans can be repaid at the lesser 124] of the loan rate plus interest, or the rate determined by USDA that minimize forfeitures, minimize the accumulation of CCC-owned stocks, minimize the cost of storage, and allow for free and competitive CRS-32 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Same as old law. [Section 121] Similar to old law, and House and Senate bills. LDPs are available for all loan commodities with the exception of ELS cotton. [Section 1204] domestic and international marketing. [Section 134] For upland cotton, loans can be repaid at the lesser of the loan rate plus interest, or the prevailing world market price adjusted to U.S. quality and location. Additional adjustments to the world price are made when the world price declines to near the loan rate , and when the price of U.S. cotton exceeds the price of competing cotton in the world market. [Section 134] In the event of a default on a loan at the maturity date, the commodity pledged as collateral reverts to CCC ownership. No further action is taken against the borrower because marketing assistance loans are nonrecourse. [Section 131] d.) Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs). Producers with grain, upland cotton, or Same as old law. [Section oilseeds eligible for marketing assistance 125] loans instead can choose to receive loan deficiency payments. The LDP is the difference between the loan rate and the loan repayment rate established by the USDA. [Section 135] CRS-33 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 e.) Loan Rates. Marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments (LDPs) continue at rates in effect in 1995. Authority is provided for USDA to lower the loan rates when stocks accumulate. [Section 132] Marketing assistance loans Same as House bill. a n d l o a n d e f i c i e n c y 121] payments (LDPs) are available for loan commodities on all farms (not limited to farms with agreements for fixed and counter-cyclical payments) and any quantity produced on the farm. [Section 121(b)] Loan rates generally are to be not less than 85% of the moving 5-year Olympic average of prices received by producers, or more than: Wheat, $2.58/bu Corn, $1.89/bu Sorghum, $1.89/bu Feed Barley, $1.70/bu Malting Barley, $1.65/bu Oats, $1.14/bu Cotton, $0.5192/lb Oats, $1.21/bu Cotton, max $0.5192-min Rice, max & min $6.50/cwt Soybeans, max $5.26, min $4.92/bu $0.50/lb Minor Oilseeds, max $0.093, min $0.87/lb Rice, must equal $6.50/cwt [Section132] Soybeans, $4.92/bu Minor Oilseeds, $0.087/lb [Section 122] Loan rates generally are to be not less than 85% of the moving 5-year Olympic average of prices received by producers, or more than: Wheat, $2.58/bu Corn, $1.89/bu Sorghum, $1.69/bu Barley, $1.71/bu [Section Same as House and Senate bills. [Section 1201] Fixed, specific loan rates are as follows: Wheat, $2.9960/bu Corn, $2.0772/bu Sorghum, $2.0772/bu Barley, $1.9973/bu Oats, $1.4980/bu Cotton, $0.5493/lb Rice, $6.4914/cwt Soybeans, $5.1931/bu Minor Oilseeds, $0.0949/lb [Section 171] Fixed, specific loan rates are as follows: Wheat, $2.80/$2.75/bu Corn, $1.98/$1.95/bu Sorghum, $1.98/$1.95/bu Barley, $1.88/$1.85/bu Oats, $1.35/$1.33/bu Cotton, $0.52/$0.52/lb Rice, $6.50/$6.50/cwt Soybeans, $5.00/$5.00/bu Minor Oilseeds, $0.096/$0.93/lb ELS Cotton, $0.7977, $0.7977/lb (ELS Cotton is not eligible for LDPs) Dry Peas, $6.33, $6.22/cwt Lentils, $11.94, $11.72/cwt Small Chickpeas, $7.56, $7.43/cwt. Graded Wool, $1.00/lb Nongraded Wool and Unshorn Pelts, 40¢/lb CRS-34 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Mohair, $4.20/lb [Section 1202] (P.L. 106-224, Section 206(a)(2) and (3), Retroactively, for the 2001 Same as House bill. made loans and LDPs available on non- crops, as was the case for 169] PFC farms only for crop year 2000.) 2000, LDPs are available on non-PFC farms that Note: Payment limits are covered below in produced contract crops and N, 2). oilseeds. [Section 125(f)] [Section Same as House and Senate bills. [Section 1205(f)(2)] B. Wool and Mohair 1.) Marketing Loans and LDPs. No provision (In FAIR Act) Marketing loans and LDPs Similar to House bill, but no are available to all producers support for mohair. Marketing Note: Wool and mohair support was at the following rates: loans and LDPs are available to phased out and ended in 1996 by P.L. 103all producers at: 130, Section 1, which repealed the Graded Wool, $1.00/lb Graded Wool, $1.00/lb National Wool Act of 1954. However, Nongraded Wool, 40¢/lb Nongraded Wool and Unshorn support was authorized in several Mohair, $4.20/lb Pelts, 40¢/lb subsequent years. P.L. 106-78 Section [Section 130] Mohair, na 801(h), authorized recourse loans on 1999 [Section 171] crop mohair. P.L. 106-224, Section Note: While Section 123 provides 204(d), mandated payments on 1999 crop no loan for mohair, Section 171 wool of $0.20, and on mohair of $0.40/lb. includes a loan for mohair. The P.L. 106-387, Section 814, authorized reported intent was not to support payments of $0.20/lb for wool and $0.40 mohair] mohair for crop year 2000, up to $20 million. Again for crop year 2001, P.L. 107-25, Section 5, authorized $16.9 million in direct payments for wool and Similar to House bill, except unshorn pelts are eligible for LDPs only. Graded Wool, $1.00/lb Nongraded Wool and Unshorn Pelts, 40¢/lb Mohair, $4.20/lb [Section 1201, 1202] Marketing loan gains and LDPs are limited to $75,000 per person per year for wool, and separately $75,000 for mohair. [Section 1603] CRS-35 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Marketing loans and LDPs at $0.60/lb. The term of the loan is 9 months, beginning the first day of the month after the loan is obtained. [Section 124] Same as House bill. [Section 1201,1202] The payment limit is $75,000 per person per year. [Section 1603] mohair at rates determined by USDA. C. Honey 1.) Marketing Loans and LDPs. Assistance Honey support is repealed. [Section 171] Marketing loans and LDPs at $0.60/lb. The term of a loan Note: This action followed several years of is 12 months, beginning the agriculture appropriations bill language first day of the month after that prevented USDA from carrying out the loan is obtained. the mandatory honey marketing loan [Section 131] program. Subsequently, recourse loans were authorized for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 crops by respectively P.L. 105-227, Section 1122; P.L. 106-78, Section 801; and P.L. 106-224, Section 204. P.L. 106387, Section 812, made marketing assistance loans and LDPs available on 2000 crop honey at $0.65/lb and outstanding recourse loans were converted to nonrecourse marketing loans. D. Extra Long Staple (ELS) cotton, Dry Peas, Lentils and Chickpeas 1.) Marketing Loans and LDPs. Assistance ELS cotton is eligible for nonrecourse Same as old law. loans, but not LDPs. [Sections 132 and 134] Marketing loans and LDPs are Similar to Senate bill, except large available on all production at the chickpeas are not included. [Section following rates: 1201-1205]. Loan rates for 2002-03, and 2004-07 are: CRS-36 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 Note: No support is authorized for dry peas, lentils, large chickpeas, small chickpeas. SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 ELS Cotton, $0.7965 ELS Cotton, $0.7977, $0.7977/lb (ELS cotton is not eligible for (ELS cotton is not eligible for LDPs) LDPs) Dry Peas, $6.33, $6.22/cwt Dry Peas, $6.78/cwt Lentils, $11.94, $11.72/cwt Lentils, $12.79/cwt Small Chickpeas, $7.56, $7.43/cwt. Large Chickpeas, $17.44/cwt [Section 1202] Small Chickpeas, $8.10/cwt The term of each loan is 9 months, beginning the first day of the month after the loan is obtained. [Section 171 ] E. Grazed Wheat, Barley, Oats, and Triticale 1.) Payments in Lieu of LDPs. P.L. 104-127 made no provision for LDPs on grazed wheat, barley and oat acreage. P.L. 106-224, Section 205, provided for LDPs on grazed acres only for 2001 crops. F. High Moisture Corn and Sorghum 1.) Recourse Loans. Wheat, barley, and oats that are grazed and not harvested, but would be eligible for LDPs if harvested, will receive LDPs under similar rules to those that apply to harvested crops. Federal crop insurance is not allowed on grazed land agreements. [Section 126] Similar to House bill, but includes grain sorghum along with wheat, barley and oats as eligible crops. [Section 127] Similar to House bill, except grazed triticale also is covered. [Section 1206] CRS-37 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 Recourse loans are available on high moisture corn and grain sorghum. Loan rates are determined by the USDA. Only producers with PFC contracts are eligible. [Section 137(a)] HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 For farms that normally Same as House bill. harvest corn or sorghum in a 121(a)] high moisture condition, recourse loans are available at rates set by the USDA. Farms need not have signed “agreements.” [Section 129(a)] NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 [Section Same as House bill. [Section 1209(a)] G. ELS and Upland Seed Cotton 1.) Recourse Loans. Recourse loans are available on upland seed cotton for farms with PFC contracts, and on any farm producing ELS seed cotton. [Section 137(b)] Recourse loans are available for all upland and ELS seed cotton, at rates set by the USDA. Farms need not have signed “agreements.” [Section 129(b)] No provision is made to support seed cotton. Same as House bill. [Section 1209(b)] H. Hard White Wheat Incentive Payments 1.) Incentive Payments. No special support provision is added for Same as old law, no support hard white wheat. However, hard white provision is available for wheat, like all other wheat, does qualify hard white wheat. for contract payments and marketing loan program benefits. I. Upland Cotton Competitiveness for Processors and Exporters For crop year 2003 through 2005, Similar to Senate bill, but funding is set an additional $40 million is to be at $20 million for the 3 year period. paid to producers to ensure that [Section 1616] hard white wheat on not more than 2 million acres meets minimum quality standards. [Section 167] CRS-38 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 1.) Marketing Certificates. Marketing certificates or cash payments are made to domestic users and exporters of upland cotton whenever the 4-week price of U.S. cotton gets too high compared to world cotton price (i.e., 1.25¢/lb higher), or is not high enough compared to the U.S. cotton loan rate (i.e., less than 130% higher). [Section 136(a)] Some changes from old law. Same as old law. Marketing certificates or 121(b)] cash payments are made to domestic users and exporters of upland cotton whenever the 4-week price of U.S. cotton is too high or not high enough (i.e., when the U.S. price (1) exceeds the world price by 1.25¢/lb, or (2) does not exceed the U.S. cotton loan rate by at least 134%). [Section 127(a)] [Section Same as House bill for upland cotton. Applies through July 31, 2008. [Section 1207(a)] A special import quota is Same as old law. imposed on upland cotton 121(b)] when U.S. prices exceed world prices by 1.25¢ for 4 weeks. [Section 127(b)] [Section Same as House bill. [Section 1207(b)] 2.) Import Quotas. A special import quota is imposed on upland cotton when U.S. prices exceed world prices by 1.25¢ for 10 weeks. [Section 136(b)] A limited global import quota is imposed Same as old law. [Section on upland cotton when U.S. prices average 127(b)] 130% of the previous 3-year average of U.S. prices. [Section 136(c) ] Same as old law. 121(b)] [Section Same as old law, and House and Senate bills. [Section 1207(c)] J. ELS Cotton Competitiveness for Processors and Exporters No provision. A special competitiveness No provision. program is created for ELS cotton with marketing Same as House bill. Applies through July 31, 2008. [Section 1208] CRS-39 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Peanut quotas are terminated and quota holders are compensated $1,000/ton (50¢/lb) ($200/ton/year for 5 years). [Section 170] Similar to House bill, but the compensation is $1,100 (55¢/lb) ($220/ton/yr for 5 years). [Section 152] Repeals all quota provisions, and adopts Senate quota compensation level of $1,100 (55¢/lb or $220 /ton/year for 5 years). [Section 1309] Nonrecourse loans are replaced by marketing assistance loans. Loans are set at $350/ton (17.5¢/lb) available for all peanuts Same as House bill except that the marketing assistance loan rate is set at $400/ton (20cents/lb) for all peanut production without distinction for end use. [Section Nonrecourse loans are replaced by marketing assistance loans. Loans are set at $355/ton (17.75¢/lb) available for all peanuts produced without distinction of end use. [Section 1307b] certificates or cash payments to domestic users and exporters under market conditions like those that apply to upland cotton. [Section 128] K. Peanuts 1.) Poundage Quotas and Quota Compensation. National poundage quota is set to reflect the projected domestic demand for edible peanuts. The price of peanuts sold for domestic edible consumption (quota peanuts) is supported through nonrecourse loans at $610/ton (30.5¢/lb). The price of additional peanuts (nonquota peanuts, those exported or crushed for oil and meal) is supported at a competitive level (set by USDA at $132/ton, 6.6¢/lb, in 2001). [Section 155] 2.) Nonrecourse Loans and Marketing Assistance Loans. CRS-40 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 produced without distinction of end use. [Section 167] 151, as it establishes section 158D in the FAIR Act.] NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 3.) Fixed Payments, CounterCyclical Payments, and Marketing Assistance Loans. No provisions for fixed payments or for Support for peanuts designed Similar to House bill. [Section counter-cyclical payments. like that for grains, cotton, 151 as it establishes Section 158B and oilseeds. Rules in the FAIR Act] regarding eligibility, sign-up, conservation and wetlands compliance, planting flexibility, base acres, payment yields, etc., are similar to those that apply to grains, cotton, and oilseeds. [Sections 162, 165, 166] Adopts House peanut program designed like that for grains, cotton, and oilseeds. Rules regarding eligibility, sign-up, conservation and wetlands , base acres, payment yields, etc., are similar to those that apply to grains, cotton, and oilseeds. [Section 1302] Adopts unique conference provisions on compliance and planting flexibility. [Section 1305, 1306] The assignment of each Same as House bill. [Section 151 farm’s acres and yield to as it establishes Section 158B(b) cropland selected by the in the FAIR Act] producer is done on a onetime basis. [Section 162(b)] Adopts House provision with revision specifying that assignment must be done by March 31, 2003, among other provisions. [Section 1302(b)] Fixed, decoupled annual payments at the rate of $36/ton (1.8¢/lb) are made on 85% of each farm’s history of peanut production. [Section 163] Fixed, decoupled annual payments at the rate of $36/ton (1.8¢/lb) are made on 85% of each farm’s history of peanut production. [Section 1303] Fixed, decoupled contract payments are the same as House bill. [Section 151 as it establishes Section 158C in the FAIR Act] Counter-cyclical deficiency Counter-cyclical deficiency Counter-cyclical deficiency payments CRS-41 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 payments against a $480/ton (24¢/lb) target price are made on 85% of each farm’s history of peanut production. [Section 164] payments against a $520/ton (26¢/lb) target price are made on 85% of each farm’s history of peanut production. [Section 151 as it establishes Section 158D in the FAIR Act] are made when marketing year prices average less than the target price of $495/ton (24.75¢/lb). Payments are made on 85% of each farm’s history of peanut production. Partial payments may be made in advance. [Section 1304] Marketing assistance loans set at $350/ton) (17.5 cents/lb available for all peanut production without distinction of end use. [Section 167] Marketing assistance loan rate set at $400/ton (20 cents/lb) available for all peanut production without distinction of end use. [Section 151 as it establishes Section 158G in the Fair Act.] Similar to House and Senate bills, except the marketing assistance loan rate is set at $355/ton (17.75/lb) available for all peanuts. [Section 1307(b)] Payments limits for peanuts are separate from other commodities. Fixed, decoupled peanut payments for are subject to a limit of $50,000 per person, per year. The limit on counter-cyclical target price deficiency payments is $75,000, and the limit on marketing loan benefits is $150,000. [Section 169] Payments received for support of peanuts are subject to the same limits as other crops. Peanuts are not treated separately. For all crops, the combination of fixed, decoupled payments and counter-cyclical payments is limited to $75,000 per individual, per year. Marketing loan benefits are limited to $150,000. [Section 169] House provision, amended. Payments limits for peanuts are separate from other commodities but fixed, decoupled peanut payments are subject to a limit of $40,000 per person, per year; counter-cyclical target price deficiency payments are limited to $65,000, and marketing loan benefits are limited to $75,000. [Section 1603] 4.) Payment Limits. No provision for peanuts. L. Sugar CRS-42 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Same loan rates as old law. [Section 141(i)] Retains old rates for non-recourse loans -18¢/lb. raw cane, and 22.9¢/lb. refined beet sugar. 1.) Price Support Loans. Raw cane sugar and refined beet sugar are supported with nonrecourse loans at 18¢ and 22.9¢/lb respectively. [Section 156(a) and (b)] The loan rates are to be reduced if negotiated reductions in support are achieved for other sugar countries. [Section 156(c)] Same nonrecourse loan rates as old law, 18¢/lb. raw cane, and 22.9¢/lb. refined beet. [Section 151(a)] In-process sugar is newly eligible for loan at 80% of full loan rates. [Section 151(e)] Same in-process sugar loans as House bill. [Section 141(e)] In-process sugar is newly eligible for loan at 80% of full loan rates. Note: A recourse loan program when the tariff rate quota on imports is less than 1.5 million short tons was eliminated by P.L. 106-387, Section 836. Same authority to reduce loan Loan rates may be reduced if rates as House bill. [Section c o m p e t i n g n a t i o n s 141(a)] sufficiently reduce support. [Section 151(c)] Loan rates may be reduced if competing nations sufficiently reduce support. [Section 1401(a) restates FAIR Act provisions, and adds new subsection for in-process sugar loans] 2.) No Net Cost Mandate. No provision Loan program is to be Same no cost policy as House Loan program is to be operated at no operated at no net cost by bill. [Section 141(f)] net cost by avoiding forfeitures. avoiding forfeitures. [Section 1401(a) adds new subsection [Section 151(f)] to FAIR Act] 3.) Loan Forfeiture Penalty. A forfeiture penalty of 1¢ per pound on Forfeiture penalty is retained The loan forfeiture penalty is raw cane sugar (an equivalent amount for by preserving Section 156(g) eliminated. [Section 141(d)] beet sugar) is assessed on loan forfeitures. of the FAIR Act. This effectively reduces the level of support. [Section 156(g)] 4.) Import Quotas. Same as Senate bill and takes effect upon enactment. [Section 1401(a) drops provision from FAIR Act] Note: Change increases support level. effective CRS-43 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Same as House bill, except authorizes USTR in consultation with USDA to reallocate any shortfall of one country’s shipments to other quota-holding countries. [Section 144] Reaffirms existing import quota system, and adopts Senate reallocation provision giving any shortfall of one country’s shipments to the other quotaholding countries. [Section 1403] Similar to House bill, but provision is made for new cane processor entrants (including mainland states not previously producing cane). [Section 143] Sugar marketing allotments are restored and are to be shared between beet sugar and raw cane at 54.35% and 45.65%. Allotments are suspended when imports exceed 1.532 million short tons. Adds authority for USDA to assign unused cane and beet sugar allotments first to sales of sugar in CCC inventory and then to imports under certain conditions. Makes allotment authority effective beginning October 1, 2002. [Section 1403] CCC is authorized to make Same authority to make in-kind in-kind commodity payments payments for reduced production from stored inventories to as House bill. [Section 141(f)] processors in exchange for Authorizes CCC to make in-kind payments from stored inventories in exchange for reduced production as laid out in House and Senate provisions. A global import quota of not less than Same as old law. 1.256 million short tons is set each year by USDA under authority of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The quota is allocated among countries by U.S. Trade Representative. [HTSUS, chapter 17, additional U.S. note5. USTR announces a separate allocation for additional sugar entering from Mexico as agreed in the sugar side letter to NAFTA] 5.) Marketing Allotments. The authority to impose mandatory marketing allotments on domestic sugar production is suspended. [Section 171(a)(1)(E)] Sugar marketing allotments are restored and are to be shared between beet sugar and raw cane at 54.35% and 45.65%. Allotments are suspended when imports exceed 1.532 million short tons. [Section 152] 6.) In-Kind Payments. No provision. CRS-44 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 reduced sugar production. [Section 151(j)] NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 [Section 1401(a) adds new subsection to FAIR Act] 7.) Marketing Assessment. Processors must pay an assessment on all The assessment on all sugar Same as House bill. marketings of sugar to CCC equal to a marketings is eliminated. 141(c)] specified percentage of the loan rate. [Section 151(b)] [Section 156(f)] P.L. 106-78, Section 803(b), suspended the assessment for FY2000 and FY2001. P.L. 107-76, Section 749, delays remittance of 2002 assessments until September 2, 2002. [Section Terminates the sugar marketings assessment retroactive to October 1, 2001. [Section 1401(b)] 8.) Interest Rate on Loans. The interest rate on loans is 1% above the Interest rate on loans is equal Same interest rate on loans as CCC cost of borrowing money. [Section to CCC cost of funds. This House bill. [Section 141(j)] 163] is 1% less than the interest rate for other commodities. [Section 151(h)] Reduces interest rate on price support loans to sugar processors by 1%, as in House and Senate bills. [Section 1401(c)] 9.) Storage Facility Loans. No provisions for storage facility loans. Storage facility construction Same as House bill. and improvement loans are 142] to be made available to processors. [Section 153] [Section Authorizes storage facility loans, as in House and Senate bills. [Section 1402] CRS-45 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Extends the DPSP through December 31, 2006 at the current level of support ($9.90 per cwt.). The Secretary would be required to adjust purchase prices of butter and nonfat dry milk twice annually to minimize government expenditures on the program. [Section 131] Extends the DPSP through December 31, 2007 at the current level of support ($9.90 per cwt.). The Secretary is permitted to adjust purchase prices of butter and nonfat dry milk twice annually to minimize government expenditures on the program. [Section 1501} Authorizes a new counter-cyclical payment program for dairy farmers through September 30, 2005. Whenever the minimum price for fluid farm milk falls below a target price of $16.94 per Authorizes a new counter-cyclical payment program for dairy farmers through September 30, 2005. Whenever the minimum monthly fluid farm milk price in Boston falls below $16.94 per cwt., all eligible farmers nationwide M. Dairy 1. Dairy Price Support Program (DPSP) The 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127), as amended, reauthorized the DPSP at the then-current level of support ($9.90 per hundredweight (cwt.) of milk). The DPSP indirectly supports the farm price of milk through USDA purchases of surplus cheese, butter and nonfat dry milk (powder). The law allows the Secretary of Agriculture to adjust government purchase prices of butter and powder twice annually in order to minimize government expenditures. [Section 141] The FY2002 agriculture appropriations act (P.L. 107-76) extended the DPSP through May 31, 2002 [Section 772(a)] Extends the DPSP through December 31, 2011 at the current level of support ($9.90 per cwt.). The Secretary would be permitted to adjust purchase prices of butter and nonfat dry milk twice annually to m i n i m i z e go v er n m en t expenditures on the program. [Section 141] 2. The Northeast Dairy Compact and Counter-Cyclical Payments for Dairy Farmers The 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127) gave No provisions. contingent authority for the six New England states to create an interstate dairy compact. [Section 147] The compact required fluid milk processors in New England to pay a minimum price for farm CRS-46 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 milk used for fluid consumption that is higher than the minimum price established under federal regulation. Compact was established in 1997 at a minimum price of $16.94 per hundredweight (cwt.). Legislative authority expired on September 30, 2001. Separately, emergency authority included in the agriculture appropriations acts of FY1999 (P.L. 105-277), FY2000 (P.L. 106-78) and FY2001 (P.L. 106-387) provided ad-hoc direct government payments to all dairy farmers in response to volatile farm milk prices. HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 hundredweight (cwt.) in 12 Northeast states (ME, NH, VT, CT, RI, MA, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE, WV), farmers in these states w o ul d recei ve a d i r e c t g o v e r n m e n t p a ym e n t t o compensate for 45% of the difference between the target price and the monthly minimum market price for fluid farm milk. Farmers in all other states would receive a federal payment when the average market price for farm milk in any quarter falls short of a 5-year average market price for that quarter. Each producer would receive a payment equal to 40% of the market price shortfall from the 5-year average. Total funding over the life of the program is $500 million for the Northeast states, and $1.5 billion for all other states. Payments could be received by a farmer on up to 8 million lbs. of annual milk production. [Section 132] will receive a direct government payment equal to 45% of the difference between $16.94 and the lower Boston price. Payments to individual farmers can be received on up to 2.4 million lbs. of annual production. Retroactive payments will be made for each month back to December 2001. No budget limitations on how much can be spent each year or in total. At the time of enactment, the CBO estimated the total cost of the program at $1.3 billion over the life of the program. [Section 1502] 3. Recourse Loan Program P.L. 104-127 permanently authorized a Repeals authority for a No provision. new recourse loan program to help dairy recourse loan program. processors balance their inventories, to be [Section 142] No provision. CRS-47 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 implemented once the dairy price support program (DPSP) expires. [Section 142] P.L. 104-127 originally required the elimination of the DPSP on January 1, 2000. However, subsequent legislation extended price support authority. Recourse loan program was never implemented, and its authority was repealed by P.L. 107-76. [Section 772(b)] (Subsequent to House passage of H.R. 2646, P.L. 107-76 was enacted which repealed authority for the recourse loan program. SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 4. Dairy Export Incentive Program The 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198) first Extends program authority Extends program authority Extends program authority through authorized the dairy export incentive through 2011. [Section through 2006. [Section 133(a)] 2007. program, which helps U.S. exporters 143(a)] [Section 1503(a)] counter subsidized sales by foreign competitors through cash or commodity bonuses. [Section 153] Program has been reauthorized periodically in subsequent farm bills. Most recently, the 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127) reauthorized the program through 2002. [Section 148] 5. Dairy Indemnity Program Authorized in 1964, the dairy indemnity Reauthorizes the program program indemnifies dairy farmers and through September 30, 2011. processors who, through no fault of their [Section 143(b)] own, suffer income losses due to contamination of milk or dairy products caused by pesticides and certain other Reauthorizes the program through Reauthorizes the program through September 30, 2006. [Section September 30, 2007. [Section 1503(b)] 133(b)] CRS-48 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 toxic substances. Legislative authority expired September 30, 1995. However, annual appropriations have been made subsequent to program expiration. 6. Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program The Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (contained within the 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624)), as amended, authorized a research and promotion program for fluid milk products. [Sections 1999A-1999R] The program is funded through an assessment on fluid milk processors who handle more than 500,000 lbs. of fluid milk products each month. The 1996 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) extended program authority through December 31, 2002. [Section 146] 1) Gives permanent authority to the fluid milk promotion program; 2) strikes the statutory definition of a fluid milk product and use the definition promulgated in USDA regulations; and 3) changes the definition of a fluid milk processor for the purpose of the required assessment, to exclude any fluid processor that handles less than 3 million pounds of fluid milk products each month. [Section 144] Same as House bill, except that Same as Senate bill. fluid milk delivered directly to [Section 1506] consumer residences does not count toward the 3 million pound minimum requirement for the processor assessment. [Section 134] 7. Dairy Promotion and Research Program E x t e n d s t h e 15-c e n t Same as the House bill. [Section Same as the House bill, with some The Dairy Producer Stabilization Act of assessment to imported dairy 136] modifications, including a requirement 1983 authorized a national dairy producer products. The 15-cent that importers be represented on the program for generic dairy product assessment is to be paid to Board in the same proportion that promotion, research, and nutrition U.S. Customs by the imported dairy products comprise the education. The program is funded through importer on the equivalent of total U.S. dairy market. Also, Secretary CRS-49 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 a mandatory 15-cent per hundredweight assessment on all milk produced and marketed in the contiguous 48 states. Dairy farmers administer the program through the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. milk that went into the manufacturing of the imported product. Dairy importers are allowed up to 2 seats on the national Dairy Board. None of the importer-collected funds can be used for foreign market promotion. [Section 146] SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 is required to consult with the U.S. Trade Representative to determine whether this provision is compatible with U.S. trade obligations; and dairy products must be promoted without regard to the country of origin of the product. [Section 1505] 8. Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting The Dairy Market Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-532) established a mandatory reporting system for dairy product inventories and prices. It requires USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service to regularly collect data on the prices and inventories of cheese, butter and nonfat dry milk sold by dairy manufacturers. 9. Dairy Studies No provision in current law. Amends the 2000 act to include “substantially identical products designated by the Secretary (of Agriculture)” as part of the mandatory reporting system. [Section 145] Effectively similar to the House Same as Senate bill. bill, except that it changes the [Section 1504] definition of a covered dairy product to include “substantially identical products designated by the Secretary.” [Section 135] Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress a comprehensive economic evaluation of national dairy policies (i.e., the price support program, federal milk marketing order, over-order premiums and Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct studies to be reported to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees on: 1) the market effects of terminating all federal dairy programs relating to price support and supply management; and 2) Adopts both the House and Senate provisions, thus requiring the Secretary to conduct two dairy studies. Both studies are due within one year of enactment of this bill. [Section 1508] CRS-50 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 state pricing programs, dairy compacts and export programs) and their effect on the farm and rural economy, domestic food and nutrition programs, and consumer costs. [Section 147] SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 the effects of changing the standard of identity for fluid milk so that the required minimum protein content of fluid milk is commensurate with the average nonfat solids contents of farm milk directly from the cow. [Section 137] [Note: California has a standard of identity for fluid milk that requires a nonfat solids content higher than the national requirement and higher than the average content of raw milk from the cow.] N. Tobacco 1. Flue-cured Tobacco No provisions. No Provision Reduces the reserve stock level Similar to Senate, except the reserve for flue-cured in the quota stock is 60 million pounds. [Section determination formula from the 1610] greater of 100 million pounds or 10% of the national marketing quota, to the greater of 75,000 pounds or 10%. [Section 162] No Provision Allows, for the 2002 crop only, Same as Senate bill. [Section 1611] for special farm reconstitutions that otherwise would violate the prohibition on flue-cured lease 2. Flue-cured Farm Reconstitutions No provisions CRS-51 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 and transfer of quota. Requires a study of the prohibition of fluecured quota lease and transfer. [Section 163] O. Specialty Crops (See also Miscellaneous section of this report). 1.) Mandatory CCC Purchases. No provisions of P.L. 104-127 specifically No provision. authorize or mandate support for specialty crops. Subsequently, emergency ad hoc assistance was mandated for specialty crops. P.L. 106-224, Section 203(d), mandated the CCC spend $200 million for purchases of fruits and vegetables with low prices in 1998 and 1999, including apples, black-eyed peas, cherries, citrus, cranberries, onions, melons, peaches, and potatoes. P.L. 106-387, Section 811 and Section 816 mandated respectively $100 million in payments to apple growers and $20 million to cranberry growers to compensate for low prices. P.L. 107-25, Section 7(b), mandated the CCC to distribute $133.4 million to states for support of specialty crops. P. Payment Limits 1.) Fixed Payments, and Mandated specialty crop purchases using CCC funds: $100 million in each of FY2002 and FY2003, $120 million in FY2004, $140 million in FY2005, and $170 million in FY2006. Mandated purchases of other unspecified commodities, at $30 million each year. [Section 166] The amount of Section 32 funds that can be carried across fiscal years for use in emergency removals of surplus commodities is increased from $300 million to $500 million. [Section 1602] Section 32 purchases of fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops shall amount to not less than $200 million each fiscal year. [Section 10603] CRS-52 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Combined fixed, decoupled payments for grains, cotton, and oilseeds are limited to $50,000 per year per person. [Section 109] Separately, fixed, decoupled payments for peanuts are limited to $50,000. [Section 169] Counter-cyclical payments for grains, cotton, and oilseeds are subject to a $75,000 per person, per year limit. [Section 109] Separately, counter-cyclical payments for peanuts are limited to $75,000. [Section 169] Fixed, decoupled commodity payments combined with countercyclical target price deficiency payments for grains, cotton, oilseeds and peanuts are subject to a $75,000 per person, per year limit. [Section 169] Fixed, decoupled payments for grains and oilseeds limited to $40,000 per year per person. Counter-cyclical payments limited to $65,000. The same limits separately apply to peanuts. [Section 1603] Marketing loan benefits for grains, cotton, and oilseeds combined are subject to a $150,000 per person, per year limit. [Section 183] Separately, marketing loan benefits for peanuts are l i m i ted to $150,000. [Section 169] Separately, marketing loan benefits for wool and mohair are limited Marketing loan benefits for all commodities (grains, cotton, oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, chickpeas, wool, honey, and peanuts) combined are subject to $150,000 per individual, per year limit. Included in this limit are marketing loan gains, LDPs, loan forfeiture gains, and commodity certificate gains. [Section 169] Marketing loan benefits for covered crops (grains and oilseeds), lentils, dry peas, and small chickpeas limited to $75,000. Peanuts, wool, mohair, and honey each have separate marketing loan benefit limits of $75,000. [Section 1603] Counter-Cyclical Payments. Fixed contract payments are subject to a $40,000 per person, per year limit. [Section 115] Note: Matching market loss payments adopted as emergency assistance were not subject to payment limits, with the practical result effectively being the potential doubling of the contract payment limit to $80,000. 2.) Marketing Loan Benefits. Marketing loan benefits (marketing loan gains and LDPs) for all crops combined are subject to a $75,000 per person, per year limit. [Section 115] The limit was raised to $150,000 for crop years 1999, 2000, and 2001 by respectively P.L. 10678, sec. 813; P.L. 106-387, sec. 837; and P.L. 107-25, sec. 10). Exempt from payment limits are marketing certificates sold to farmers at the posted county price and used to pay off marketing assistance CRS-53 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 loans (authorized by P.L. 106-78, sec. 812). Also exempt for limits are gains from the forfeiture of commodities at loan maturity. to $150,000. [Section 1 3 0 (f )] S e p a r a t e l y, marketing loan benefits for honey are limited to $150,000. [Section 131(f)] SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 3.) Spouse Benefit and 3 Entity Rule. No change is made to existing policy that Same as old law. allows a spouse to be considered a separate person or allows one person to receive payments from 2 additional farms. Either allowance doubles the limit on payments. 4.) Limit. A s pouse al l o wan ce o f an Same as old law and House bill. additional $50,000 is created. The 3-entity rule is replaced by applying the limits to payments from all sources (the so-called direct attribution rule.) [Section 169] Adjusted Gross Income No provision. 5.) Payment Commission. No provision. Same as old law. A person with adjusted gross Same as Senate bill. [Section 1603] income in excess of $2.5 million is not eligible for payments (unless 75% or more of income is from farming, ranching, or forestry). [Section 169] No provision. Creates a 1-year Commission on Same as Senate bill. [Section 1605] the Application of Payment Limitations for Agriculture to analyze and make Limitation CRS-54 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 recommendations on payment limits. [Sections 181-187] Q. Livestock Assistance No provision. No provision. Authorizes appropriations up $500 million per year for FY2003-2008 for livestock assistance. [Section 168] Authorizes appropriations of such sums as are necessary for livestock assistance. Prohibits use of CCC funds to make such payments. [Section 10104] No provision. Requires USDA to make farm Same as Senate bill. [Section 1615] income estimates for commercial producers separate from all farms. [Section 173] No provision. CCC is authorized to use private Same as Senate bill. [Section 1609] business to carry out commodity purchases and sales. [Section 174] R. Farm Income Estimates No provision. S. CCC Commodity Operations No provision. T. Implementing Regulations Regulations to implement Title I shall be issued not later than 90 days after enactment (August 12, 2002). [Section 161(d)] Regulations to implement No provision. Title I shall be issued not later than 90 days after enactment. [Section 181(c)] U. Counter-Cyclical Farm Savings Accounts Same as House bill. [Section 1601(c)] (The 90 periods ends on August 12, 2002). CRS-55 COMMODITY PROGRAMS PRIOR LAW/POLICY (P.L. 104-127), COVERS 1996-2002 No provisions in current law. HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2646) COVERS 2002-2011 Same as old law. SENATE AMENDMENT COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171), COVERS 2002-2007 Farm counter-cyclical savings Same as old law and House bill. accounts are authorized as a pilot program in 3 states. Farms with adjusted gross revenue from commodities of at least $50,000 would be able to contribute an unlimited amount into a savings account with limited matching federal contributions (up to $5,000 per fiscal year). Withdrawals are permitted when adjusted gross revenue is less than 90% of the previous 5-year average. [Section 114] V. WTO Limits on Allowable Domestic Support There is no upper limit in the law for spending on commodity support programs. This is in spite of Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture annual limit of $19.1 billion on U.S. domestic tradedistorting subsidies. If USDA determines that total spending for commodity support will exceed the limits accepted by the United States in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, adjustments may be made to reduce spending to the limits but not below the allowable limits. [Section 181(e)] If USDA notifies Congress that Same as House bill, except the USDA support program spending will is instructed to make adjustments to exceed the allowed limits and that ensure compliance. [Section 1601] adjustments will be made, all spending on the designated programs will be suspended after 18 months unless Congress disallows the adjustments. [Section 164] CRS-56 II. CONSERVATION CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 Title VII of Food Security Act (FSA) Title II, Farm Security Act of 2001. of 1985 as amended by Title III of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996. Title II of the Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001. Title II of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. 1. Purpose and Programs. No provisions. Authorizes program through long term contacts and acquisition of easements, to be implemented through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). [Section 1230(a) of the 1985 FSA as amended by Section 331 of the 1996 FAIR] Renames E C A R P t h e Adopts Senate Comprehensive Conservation [Section 2006] Enhancement Program (CCEP)and places new name throughout Section 1230. [Section 207(a)] Amends Section 1230(a) to reflect changed placement of conservation programs in 1985 FSA. [Section 211(a)] Repeals Section 1230A. [Section 207(c)] Good Faith protection provisions added as Section 755 of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations. [Section 1230A of 1985 FSA, as amended by Section 331 of 1996 FAIR] [Note: Section 1230A is replaced NOTE: “Good Faith provisions with new good faith provisions, in Commodity Programs title discussed below in H (13) (a).] (Administration subtitle) apply to both conservation and commodity programs [Section 1631] A. Environmental Conservation Acreage Program (ECARP) [Note: ECARP is an umbrella under which the CRP,WRP, and EQIP are placed.] Amendment CRS-57 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 Adds a new subsection giving priority to areas where projects could be completed most rapidly. [Section 211(b)] Adopts the House Provision [Section 2006(c)] Note: National Priority area for the CRS are reaffirmed elsewhere in the bill] 1. Period of Authorization and Purposes. Authorizes program through FY2002, and states the purposes are to conserve and improve soil and water resources. [Section1231 (a) of the 1985 FSA as amended by Section322(a)(1) of the 1996 FAIR] Reauthorizes CRP through FY2011. Reauthorizes CRP through FY2006 [Section 211(a)] [Section 212(a)] Adds wildlife resources to the purposes of the program. [Section 211(b)] Adopts House provision on wildlife resources, with a modification to reauthorize the CRP through FY2007 [Section 2101(a)] 2. Eligibility. Makes certain highly erodible land, marginal pastureland, and other cropland eligible. [Section 1231(b) of the 1985 FSA] Repeals the limit on enrolling marginal pastureland to less than 10% of the total enrolled acres, expands the definition of other eligible cropland to include threats to soil and air quality, and makes eligible land in production for at least 4 years that would contribute to conservation of ground and surface water. [Section 212(a)] Adds a new Section1231(i) that requires balance between soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat when reviewing bids, Adopts Senate amendment with modifications, including that land must have been cropped in 4 of the 6 years before enactment to be eligible, and many new specific details on types of eligible lands, such as allowing producers to enroll entire fields when more than 50% if eligible and the remainder of the field in “infeasible” to farm . [Section 2101] 2. Priority Areas. Permits the Repeals section 1230(c). [Section Section to designate watershed, 201(2)] multistate areas, or areas of special environmental sensitivity for enhanced conservation assistance through the CRP, WRP, and EQIP. [Section 1230(c) of the 1985 FSA as amended by Section 331 of the 1996 FAIR] B. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Makes eligible land that has a cropping history for 3 of the 6 years preceding enactment (and land enrolled in the CRP on that date), and adds a new subsection that makes land enrolled under the continuous signup and the buffer initiative eligible for the regular program. [Section 212(b)] CRS-58 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 with implementing regulations to be issued within 180 days of enactment. [Section 212(d)] 3. Enrollment Ceiling Authorizes Raises ceiling to 39.2 million acres. Raises ceiling to 41.1 million acres. Adopts House provision [Section enrollment ceiling at 36.4 million [Section 212(b)] [Section 212(c)] 2101(a)] acres. [Section 1231(d) of the 1985 [Note: Section 215(a) water FSA as amended by Section 332(b) of the 1996 FAIR.] conservation provisions lower the CRP enrollment ceiling to 40.0 million acres; Section 215(b) allows an additional 500,000 acres to be enrolled in the state Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, bringing total enrollment to 40.5 million acres.] 4. Duration of Contract. Allows No provisions. CRP contracts for some land devoted to hardwood trees, shelter belts, wind breaks, or wildlife corridors to be longer than the 10 to 15 years allowed for other contracts. [Section 1231(e)(2) of the 1985 FSA] Amends Section 1231(e)(2) to allow the Secretary to extend contracts on hardwood forests for up to 15 years and limits annual payments to 50% of the original contract amount, and allow new contracts of 10 to 30 years. [Section 212(d)] Adopts Senate amendment allowing automatic 1-year extension for contracts expiring in 2002 for land planted to hardwood trees. Adopts House provision requiring participants to bid to reenroll land [Section 2101(a)] 5. Conservation Priority Areas. Allows land enrolled under this Requires the Section to establish, at subchapter to be eligible to reenroll in the request of a state, priority the CRP. [Section 212(c)] watersheds in specified and other areas where enrollment would “maximize water quality and habitat benefits.” [Section 1231(f) of the 1985 Gives priority to areas where Retains priority areas language designation would lead to the most of current law [section 2101(a)] rapid completion of projects. [Section 212(b)] CRS-59 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 6. Enrollment Subcategories. Expands the pilot program to all states Authorizes a 500,000 acre pilot and limits enrollment in any state to program, with enrollment limited to 150,000 acres. [Section 215] 150,000 acres in any state for small wetlands(less than 5 acres) and buffers in 6 specified upper Midwestern states. [A new Section1231(h), enacted in Title XI of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations (P.L. 106-387] Deletes “pilot”, reauthorizes the program through FY2006, and increases the maximum size of eligible sites from 5 acres to 10 acres (but only up to 5 acres are eligible for payments). [Section 212(e)] Adopts House provision with modifications to: limit total enrollment to 1 million acres and to 100,000 acres in any state. Adopts Senate amendment increasing the maximum size of eligible sites. [section 2101(a)] Allows certain economic uses of enrolled lands if consistent with soil, water, and wildlife conservation. These uses include managed grazing and haying (with reduced payments), siting of wind turbines, and harvesting biomass to produce energy (with reduced payments). Deletes subsections (c) and (d). [Section 213] Adds a new subsection that allows irrigated land to be enrolled through the buffer initiative or the CREP at the irrigated land rate. [Section 212(f)] Allows participants to plant native prairie grasses on enrolled marginal pastureland, to permit harvesting or grazing for maintenance purposes on lands enrolled through the buffer initiative or the CREP, and adds a new subsection that makes crop production on other highly erodible land a violation of a CRP contract unless it has a cropping history or was a building site when it was purchased. [Section 212(g)] Adds a new subsection that permits wind turbines on CRP land (except Adopts House provision with modifications such as requiring consideration of the impacts on wildlife when locating wind turbines. [Section 2101(a)] FSA] 7. Duties of Owners and Operators. Sets limits on commercial uses of lands in the CRP, but allows the Section to permit harvesting or grazing under very limited circumstances. [Section 1232(a)(7)] Sets a goal of planting 1/8 of the land enrolled each year to trees or habitat. [Section 1232(c)] Allows alley-cropping. [Section 1232(d)] [Section1232(a) (7) of the 1985 FAIR as amended by the 1990 FACTA, Section 1232(c) of the 1985 FSA, and Section 1232(d) of the 1985 FSA, respectively] CRS-60 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 land enrolled in the continuous enrollment), with payments reduced based on the diminished value for CRP. [Section 212(h)] 8. Payments. Lays out the terms and No provisions. conditions for CRP payments. [Section1234 of the 1985 FSA as amended by Section1434(a) of the 1990 FACTA) Payments for easements limited to $50,000 per year. [Section 1239C(f)] 9. County Enrollment Limits. Limits enrollment in the CRP and WRP to 25% of county cropland, and limits easements to 10%; limits may be exceeded if it would not adversely affect the local economy or if operators are having difficulty meeting compliance requirements. [Section1243(b) of the 1985 FSA as amended by Section 341 of the 1996 FAIR.] Adds a new subsection to provide Generally restates existing law. enrollment and cost sharing payments to producers who enroll land in the buffer initiative or through a CREP. [Section 212(i)] Exempts payments for land enrolled in the buffer initiative or through a CREP from the payment limit for easements. [Section 212(j)] Repeals the provision allowing the Exempts land enrolled under the No provision Secretary to exceed the county continuous signup from county enrollment limit if operators are having enrollment limit. [Section 212(k)] difficulty meeting compliance requirements. [Section 244(a)] 10. Funding and Administration. Reauthorizes mandatory funding Provides mandatory funding through through FY2011. [Section241] the CCC. [Section1241(a) of the 1985 FSA as amended by Section341 of the 1996 FACT] Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through FY2006, and includes funding for technical assistance in support this program. [Section 211(c)] Reauthorizes mandatory funding from FY2002 through FY2007, including funding for technical assistance. [Section 2101(b)] CRS-61 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 Requires the Secretary to report to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees on the economic and social effects of the CRP on rural communities within 270 days of enactment. Specifies 3 components of the analysis. [Section 212(l)] Adopts Senate language with modifications that require the study to be submitted in 18 months and to include the economic value of recreation opportunities. [Section 2101(b)] Allows enrollment of up to 150,000 acres per calendar year starting in 2002, with any acres up to the annual limit that is not enrolled can be enrolled in succeeding years, through FY2011. [Section 221(a)] Authorizes enrollment through FY2011. [Section 221(c)} Authorizes WRP enrollment through calendar year 2006. [Section 214(c)] Sets a maximum enrollment ceiling of 2,225,000 acres, and an annual enrollment ceiling of 250,000 acres, of which up to 25,000 acres can be enrolled in the new Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program. [Section 214(b)] Adopts Senate amendment with modifications raising the enrollment cap to 2.275 million acres and authorizing the program through 2007. [sections 2201 and 2202] 2. Enrollment Options. Requires Deletes the 1/3 requirement, and the 1/3 enrollment each using permanent distinction between permanent and easements, 30 year easements, and temporary easements. [Section 221(b] long-term agreements. [Section1237(b) of the 1985 FSA as amended by Section333(a) of the 1996 FAIR] Creates a new Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program that allows agreements with state and local government, and non-governmental organizations to restore wetlands on land in or eligible to be enrolled in the WRP. [Section 214(d)] Modifies law to permit the use of permanent easements, temporary easements, and cost-sharing agreements in any combination based on producer interest. [Section 2202] 11. Study of Economic Effects. No provisions. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 No provisions. C. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) 1. Enrollment. The 1990 FACTA adds a new Section1237 to the 1985 FSA establishing the WRP and capping enrollment at 975,000 acres. [Section 1438] Enrollment allowed through calendar year 2002. [Section 333(b)(1) of the 1996FAIR] Enrollment ceiling increased from 975,000 acres to 1,075,000 acres.) [Section 808 of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations (P.L. 106387)] CRS-62 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 3. Easements and Agreements. Describes the general terms of easements and agreements. Prohibits altering habitat, spraying chemicals and mowing, any activity that degrades the land, and any other activity that counters the purpose of the easement, unless permitted in the plan. [Section 1237A of the 1985 FSA as amended by Section333(d)(1) of the 1996 FAIR] HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 Replaces the 4 specific prohibitions No provisions. with a general statement to allow only changes permitted in the plan. Deletes subsection (e), which distinguishes 3 lengths of easements, and subsection (h), which can require wetlands to be restored if there is no easement. [Section 222] 4. Secretarial Duties, including Deletes subsection (d), which requires Technical Assistance. Describes the Secretary to give priority to using how cost sharing and technical permanent easements. [Section 223] assistance will be provided; and how priorities will be set for determining which bids to accept. [Section1237C of the 1985 FSA] 5. Changes in Ownership. Limits program entry if ownership changes occurred during the previous year, and specifies terms under which easements can be modified or terminated. [Section1237E of the 1985 FSA] SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 Amends Section 1237C(a) to provide funds from the CCC for technical assistance in support of the WRP. [Section 214(a)] Amends Section1237C(a)(2) to add monitoring and maintenance to the types of technical assistance provided to participants. [Section 214(e)] Replaces 1990 acquisition date in No provisions. Section1237E(a)(2) with provision to make eligible at any time land acquired through foreclosure where the previous owner exercised a right of redemption. [Section 224] 6. Funding. Funding from the CCC Reauthorizes mandatory funding Reauthorizes funding from the CCC is authorized to implement the WRP. through FY2011. [Section 241] through FY2006, and includes [Section 1241(a) of the 1985 FSA] funding for technical assistance in NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 Deletes subsection 1237A(h) which allows restoration costsharing agreements without an easement. [Note: characterized by conference Committee as redundant.] No provisions. [Note: technical assistance provided for elsewhere — funding subsection, below] Adopts House amendment, with modifications to address changes in ownership resulting from foreclosure. [Section 2204] Reauthorizes mandatory funding from FY2002 through FY2007, i n c l u d i n g f o r t ech n i c a l CRS-63 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 support of this program. [Section assistance. [Section 2701] 211(c)] D. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 1. Program Purposes. Identifies 4 programs that EQIP replaces. Specifies that EQIP maximize environmental benefits per dollar spent while meeting 4 purposes. [Section 334 of the 1996 FAIR adds Section1240 to the 1985 FSA] Deletes reference to the programs that were replaced; replaces the purpose of responding to environmental threats with the purpose of providing environmental benefits; and expands the benefits to include air quality. [Section 231] Specifies that EQIP is to promote production and environmental quality while maximizing environmental benefits per dollar spent by assisting producers to meet 6 specified purposes. [Section 213(a)] Adopts Senate Amendment with modifications that restate the purpose of EQIP [Section 2301] Deletes definition of “maximum benefit per dollar expended” [Section 2301] to conform to provision in section 2301 striking the requirement for maximum benefit per dollar. 2. Definitions. Defines “eligible land”, “land management practice”, “livestock”, “producer”, and “structural practice”. [Section 1240A of the 1985 FSA] Adds non-industrial private forest land to “eligible land”, and replaces the notion of posing an environmental threat with the notion of providing environmental benefits in that definition; and “producer” is expanded to include non-industrial private forestry. [Section 232] Adds definitions of “beginning farmer or rancher”, “comprehensive nutrient management”, “innovative technology”, “managed grazing”, “maximum environmental benefits per dollar expended”, “practice”, and “program”. [Section 213(a)] Adopts Senate definitions of “beginning farmer,” “land management practice,” “livestock,” “structural practice’” and a modified definition of “eligible land.”[Section 2301] 3. Program Administration. Authorizes EQIP through 2002; eligible practices include structural and land management practices; authorizes contracts of 5 to 10 years; provides cost-share of not more than 75% for structural practices; prohibits cost sharing to large livestock operations to construct animal waste Reauthorizes EQIP through FY2011; authorizes contracts of 1 to 10 years; repeals requirement that structural practices be selected to maximize environmental benefits per dollar spent; deletes limitation on payments to large livestock operations to construct animal waste management facilities; and adds a new provision to make incentive Reauthorizes EQIP through FY2006; adds comprehensive nutrient management planning to the list of eligible practices; allows the Secretary to provide conservation education to producers; authorizes contracts of 3 to 10 years; limits producers to 1 contract for structural practices to manage livestock Adopts Senate provisions modified to: reauthorize EQIP through Fy2007, to provide i n c e n t i v e paym en t s f o r comprehensive nutrient management plans; to permit contracts as short as 1 year; to prohibit the bidding down prices; and to provide higher cost share CRS-64 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 management facilities; provides incentive payments for land management practices; provides funding (not to exceed projected costs) for technical assistance; and lists types of private sources to provide technical assistance. [Section 1240B of the 1985 FSA] payments at an amount and rate to encourage multiple land management practices, with emphasis on payments for practices that address “residue, nutrient, pest, invasive species, and air quality management.” [Section 233] nutrients through FY2006; limits large livestock operators to 1 contract for a waste storage or treatment facility; authorizes application and eval uat i on procedures for selecting applicants; prohibits bidding down; limits cost sharing payments to 75% (up to 90% for limited resource and beginning farmers, or to address a natural disaster); prohibits duplicate cost sharing payments for the same practice; eliminates (by not including) the limitation on costsharing with large confined livestock operations for waste management facilities; permits incentive payments for technical assistance to certified individuals to develop comprehensive nutrient management plans; and specifies circumstances for terminating contracts. [Section 213(a)] payments to participating beginning and limited resource f a r m e r s . A d o p t s Ho u s e provisions eliminating the requirement to maximize the environmental benefits per dollar spend. [Section 2301] 4. Evaluation of Offers. Requires the Secretary to give higher priority to assistance in priority areas, or to watersheds, regions, or conservation priority areas where states or localities are active partners, and maximize environmental benefits per dollar spent. [Section1240C of the Replaces these provisions with general language about aiding farmers to comply with environmental laws and encourage conservation, maximizing the benefits of using manure and other soil amendments, and encouraging sustainable grazing systems. [Section 234] Adds higher priority also to be given for special projects initiated by a new partnership program to address environmental issues placed in Section 1243(f), and to innovative technologies for structural or land management practices. [Section 213(a)] Adopts Senate Amendment with modifications giving higher priority to applications that use cost-effective conservation practices and that address national conservation priorities. [Section 2301] CRS-65 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 Almost identical to current law, except gives the Section greater latitude in determining the appropriate penalty for violations. [Section 213(a)] Adopts the Senate amendment with a modification to delete confined livestock feeding operations listing requirement in the Senate bill [Section 2301] 1985 FSA] 5. Duties of Producers. Lists 5 No provisions. duties; one is a prohibition against practices that counter the purposes of EQIP. [Section1240D of the 1985 FSA] 6. Program Plan. Lists the general contents of plans producers are required to submit to the Section to participate. [Section1240E of the 1985 FSA] Replaces mention of management and Almost identical structural practices with providing [Section 213(a)] greater environmental benefits. [Section 235] to current law. Adopts Senate amendment with modifications and adds a requirement that all recipients of funds for animal waste manure systems must have comprehensive nutrient management plans. [Section 2310] 7. Secretarial Duties. Assigns 5 Deletes incentive payments from duties to the Sec; one is to provide implementing structural and land technical assistance and cost-share or management practices. [Section 236] incentive payments for structural and land management practices; another is to prepare an eligibility assessment. [Section 1240F of the 1985 FSA] Almost identical to current law, Adopts Senate except that it deletes (by not [Section 2301] including) the duty of providing an eligibility assessment. [Section 213(a)] 8. Payment Limits and Timing. Limits payments to $10,000 annually and $50,000 per contract; specifies the annual limit can be exceeded to maximize the environmental benefits per dollar spent; and delays federal expenditures until the year after the contract has been signed. [Section Limits total payments under all contracts to $30,000 annually. Limits 3 year contracts to $90,000 , $120,000 for a 4 year contract, and $150,000 for a contract that is 4 years or longer. The Secretary can exceed the $30,000 payment limit under certain circumstances. [Section Limits payments to $50,000 annually and $200,000 per contract; deletes language allowing annual limits to be exceeded to provide maximum environmental benefit per dollar spent, and repeals provisions to delay federal expenditures until the year after the contract has been signed. [Section 237] amendment Adopts the House provision, modified to limit total EQIP payments to any individual or entity through FY2007 to $450,000 [Section 2301] CRS-66 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 1240G of the 1985 FSA] 9. Other Provisions. Lays out temporary transition provisions as EQIP replaces 4 repealed programs. [Section 1240H of the 1985 FSA] SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 213(a)] Replaces current language in Section 1240H, with provisions that provide $30 million, in FY2002, $45 million in FY2003, and $60 million annually in FY2004-11 from the CCC for cost share payments and low interest loans to encourage ground and surface water conservation. [Section 238] Replaces current language in Section1240H with provisions that provide $100 million annually from EQIP funds, starting in FY2003, for competitive innovative matching grants and specifies examples to include market systems for pollution reduction, promoting carbon sequestration in soil and other Best Management Practices, and protecting drinking water quality; permits funds from other sources; limits funding to 50% of cost; funds unobligated by April 1 each year can be spent on other EQIP purposes. Adds new program as Section 1240I for groundwater conservation in the southern high plains to improve irrigation efficiency and reduce water use using EQIP funds. ($15 million in FY2003, $25 million in FY2004-5, $35 million in FY2006, and $0 in FY2007) Adds new pilot programs as Section 1240J for drinking water supplies, and for nutrient reduction in the Chesapeake Bay watershed using EQIP funds. ($10 million in FY2003, $15 million in FY2004, $20 million in FY2005, $25 million in FY2006, and $0 in Adopts the House amendments with modifications to restate the activities to be funded through the new ground and surface water conservation program and to provide competitive innovation matching grants as described in the Senate bill. Provides $25 million in FY2002, $45 million in FY2003, and $60 million annually thereafter through FY2007 for the water conservation program, with $50 million of the total going to conservation activities in the Klamath Basin. Provides no funding or authorization for the innovative grants [section 2301] CRS-67 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 FY2007) [Section 213(a)] 10. Funding and Administration. Provides $200 million annually through FY2002 from the CCC for EQIP, with 50% of the total going to practices related to livestock production. [Section 1241 of the 1985 FSA as amended by several annual agricultural appropriations laws] Authorizes mandatory spending through the CCC through FY2011. [Section 241] Provides $.2 billion for FY2001, $1.025 billion for FY2002-3, $1.2 billion for FY2004-6, $1.4 billion for FY2007-9, and $1.5 billion for FY2010-11. [Section 242] Reauthorizes the livestock provision through FY2011. [Section 243] Provides $.5 billion in FY2002, $1.3 billion in FY2003, $1.45 billion in FY2004-5, $1.5 billion in FY2006, and $.85 billion in FY2007; provides funding for technical assistance from the CCC. [Section 241(b)] Reauthorizes funding from the CCC through FY2006, and includes funding for technical assistance in support of this program. [Section 211(c)] Reauthorizes mandatory funding from the CCC as follows: $400 million in FY2002, $700 million in FY2003, $1 billion in FY2004, $1.2 billion in FY2005 and FY2006, and $1.3 billion on FY2007. Funding for technical assistance is included in the total. 60% of funds are to be provided for practices related to livestock and 40% for practices relates to crops. [Section 2701] E. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) 1. Period of Authorization. Provides a total of $50 million from the CCC (from CRP funding) by the end of FY2002. [Section387(c) of the 1996 FAIR] Reauthorizes funding from the CCC at $25 million in FY2002, $30 million in FY2003-4, $35 million in FY2005-6, $40 million in FY2007, $45 million in FY2008-9, and $50 million in FY201011. [Section 252] Moves WHIP to Section1240M of the 1985 FSA, reauthorizes funding from the CCC at: $50 million in FY2002; $225 million in FY2003; $275 million in FY2004; $325 million in FY2005; $355 million in FY2006; and $50 million in FY2007; all funding to remain available until spent. Provides funding for technical assistance from the CCC. [Section 217(g)] Adopts House provision with modification to move WHIP to the 1985 FSA, making it subject to compliance, and to require that the Secretary recognize regional issues of concern when distributing funds. [Section 2502] Reauthorizes mandatory funding from the CCC: $15 million in FY2002, $30 million in FY2003, $60 million in FY2004, and $85 million annually in FY2005FY2007. [Section 2701] 2. Establishing WHIP No provisions. Requires consultation with STCs to Adopts Senate amendment CRS-68 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 No provisions. establish WHIP. [Section 217(b)] 3. Cost-sharing Payments. No provisions. Authorizes cost sharing payments for several approved purposes. [Section 387(b)] Requires the Secretary to use at least No provisions 15% of the cost-sharing funds on endangered and threatened species. [Section 217(c)] 4. Participation Related to Public No provisions. Lands. No provisions. Makes individuals and organizations No provisions leasing public lands eligible for grants. [Section 217(e)] Allows funds to be used on public lands if they will benefit private lands. [Section 217(f)] 5. Pilot Program. No provisions. Allows the Secretary to use up to Adopts the Senate amendment 15% of the funds to enroll land for at [Section 2501] least 15 years to protect “essential plant and animal habitat.” [Section 217(d)] No provisions. F. Farmland Protection Program (FPP) 1. Funding Level. Provides up to a Provides up to $50 million annually total of $35 million from the CCC by through FY2011 from the CCC. FY2002. [Section388(c) of the 1996 [Section 253(b)] FAIR] Moves the FPP to Section 1238H-J of the 1985 FSA[Section 218(a)], and repeals Section 388 of the 1996 FAIR. [Section 218(c)] Provides from the CCC: $150 million in FY2002; $250 million in FY2003; $400 million in FY2004; $450 million in FY2005; $500 million in FY2006; and $100 million in FY2007; provides funding for technical assistance from the CCC; limits the federal share to 50%, Adopts the Senate amendment to mover the FPP to the 1985 FSA. Reauthorizes mandatory funding from the CCC: $50 million in FY2002, $100 million in FY203, $125 million in FY2004 and FY2005, $100 million in FY2006, and $97 million in FY2007. [Section 2701] CRS-69 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 limits the portion of the non federal share provided by the landowner or in inkind goods and services to 25%, and prohibits bidding down. [Section 218(b)] 2. Eligible Land. Makes between 170,000 acres and 340,000 acres eligible if the soil is prime, unique or productive, and an offer is pending from a state or local government to limit non agricultural uses. [Section 388(a) of the 1996 FAIR] Deletes the maximum and minimum acreage limits, and makes historic and archaeological sites eligible. [Section 253(a)] Same as Section 253(a); and also defines eligible land to include cropland, rangeland, grassland, pasture land and forest land that is part of an agricultural operation. [Section 218] Adopts the Senate amendment with a clarification that forest land must be an incidental part of an agricultural operation. [Section 2503] Identical to current law. [Section 218] Same as current law [Section 2503] 4. Eligible Participants. Makes eligible any state or local agency that has made an offer to purchase a conservation easement. [Section 388(a) of the 1996 FAIR] Expands eligibility to also include Identical to Section 253(c). [Section federally recognized Indian tribes, and 218(a)] non profit organizations that meet specified qualifications. [Section 253(c)] Adopts House provision [Section 2503] 5. New Program Options. provisions. No provisions. Adopts Senate amendments, modified, calling it a farm viability program and authorizing appropriation of necessary funds for FY2002 through 2007. [Section 2503] 3. Conservation Planning. No provisions. Requires a conservation plan if the land is highly erodible; the Section can require conversion of land to a less intensive use in the plan. [Section388(b) of the 1996 FAIR] No Allows up to $10 million to be spent annually to provide matching grants for market development, and technical assistance to participants. [Section 218(a)] CRS-70 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 Permanently reauthorizes program, and makes numerous other, mostly minor or technical amendments. [Section 216] [Note: Many of the changes in the two bills are different from each other, but they do not change the basic intent or operation of the program.] Adopts the Senate amendment, modifies to prohibit RC&D Councils from using another person or entity to assist in developing or implementing an area plan.[Section 2504] G. Other Programs (Including Technical Assistance) 1. Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D). Provides assistance to encourage and improve the capacity of state and local governments and non profits in rural areas to develop and implement conservation programs. Authorized through FY2002. [Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act as amended by §1528-1538 of the 1981 AFA] Permanently reauthorizes program, and makes numerous other, mostly minor or technical amendments. [Section 254] [Note: Many of the changes in the two bills are different from each other, but they do not change the basic intent or operation of the program.] 2. Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Provides financial and technical assistance to rehabilitate water structures that are nearing or past the end of their design life. Authorizes appropriations of $5 million in FY2001, $10 million in FY2002, $15 million in FY2003, $25 million in FY2004, and $35 million in FY2005. [Authorized in Section 313 of the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000] Authorizes $15 million annually in No provisions. “FY2002 and each succeeding year” to fund the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program. [Section 257] Adopts House provision, modified to authorize mandatory funding from the CCC at: $45 million in FY2003, $50 million in FY2004, $55 million in FY2005, $60 million in FY2006, $65 million in FY2007. Additional funding from appropriations also was authorized at $45 million in FY2003, $55 million in FY2004, $65 million in FY2005, $75 million in FY2006 and $85 million in FY2007. [Section 2505] 3. Conservation of Private Grazing Adds encouraging the use of Moves the program to a new Section Adopts Senate amendment, Lands. Provide coordinated sustainable grazing systems to the list 1240P of the 1985 FSA and, makes modified to delete the findings technical, educational, related of activities for which assistance can be numerous other, mostly minor, section and reauthorized the CRS-71 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 assistance to preserve and enhance provided. [Section 251] privately-owned grazing lands; authorizes 2 demonstration districts, and authorizes $20 million in FY1996, $40 million in FY1997, and $60 million in FY1998 and each subsequent year. [Section 386 of the 1996 FAIR] changes, and authorizes $60 million program through annually through FY2006. [Section [Section 2502] 217(a)] Repeals provisions establishing program in Section 386 of the 1996 FAIR. [Section 217(b)] 4. Technical Assistance. Allows persons who need and apply a conservation compliance plan to obtain technical assistance from approved sources other than NRCS; the Section must document a rejection of assistance from those sources [Section 1243(d) of the 1985 FSA] Adds a new Section 1244(f) to the 1985 FSA f) requiring the Secretary to create a certification program for third parties to provide technical assistance, specifies standards for certification, permits the Section to repay landowners who use third parties, and establishes an advisory committee for the certification program. [Section 204] Allows producers to seek assistance from third parties, who have the specified expertise, and requires the Secretary to develop a system for approving qualified third parties who provide technical assistance to EQIP participants within 6 months of enactment. [Section 244(b)] 5. State Technical Committees No provisions. (STC) Creates STCs , lists the composition, outlines responsibilities to include providing “information, analysis, and recommendations” on implementing conservation provisions (including several specified topics) to the state FY2007. Adopts the House amendment, modified to: require that funding for technical assistance for each program under the Comprehensive Conservation Enhancement Program come from CCC funds; implement a program for certifying and paying third party technical assistance providers within 180 days of enactment; and specify eligible expertise, sources of assistance in the interim, and permits assistance by non-federal entities. [Section 2701] Expands membership in STCs to No provision include expertise in forestry, restates its responsibilities to mesh with other changes this legislation makes to conservation programs, and makes subcommittees and local working groups working on STC business exempt from FACA. [Section 221] CRS-72 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 conservationist, and exempts the STC from FACA meeting requirements. [Section 1261 of the 1985 FSA] 6. Conservation Compliance. No provisions Prohibits most federal farm program benefits for producers who cultivate highly erodible lands without an approved a n d i m plemented conservation plan or who alter wetlands to produce crops. [Section 1243(d) of the 1985 FSA] No provisions Makes technical changes and prohibits the Secretary from delegating authority to make highly erodible land and wetland determinations to a private person or entity. [Section 2002] 7. Agricultural Management No provisions Assistance. Provides cost-sharing assistance to producers to apply conservation in 15 specified states where Federal Crop Insurance Program participation has been historically low. [Section 524 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000] No Provisions Li s t s p e r m i t t e d t yp e s o f conservation practices; retains the $50,000 annual payment limit, and permanently appropriates mandatory funding from the CCC, with $20 million annually in FY2003 through FY2007 and $10 million annually thereafter. [Section 2501] 8. Repeals of Authorized Programs Repeals provisions: creating the and Activities. No provisions. Wetlands Mitigation Banking Program [Section 1222(k) of the 1985 FSA]; exempting CRP payments from any limits under the 1985 FSA, the 1990 FACTA, and the 1949 AA [Section 1234(f)(3)]; protecting the base history Repeals numerous conservation Adopts Senate provisions. programs in current law and reauthorizes them in other sections of farm law, as noted in the entries above. CRS-73 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 a. Places GRP in Section 1238N-P of the 1985 FSA, creating a 2 million acre grasslands reserve, of which up to 500,000 acres will be native grasslands in tracts of 40 acres or less. Section 1238N sets minimum size at 40 contiguous acres east of the 98th meridian and 100 contiguous acres west of the 98th meridian [Section 219(a)] Adopts House provision modified to enroll of up to 2 million acres in tracts of 40 acres or more, and permits the Secretary to waive the minimum acre per site limit. [Section 2401] of land enrolled in the CRP [Section 1236 of the 1985 FSA]; exempting WRP payments from any limits under the 1985 FSA, the 1990 FACTA, and the 1949 AA [Section 1237D(c)(3)] and ; creating the Environmental Easement Program [Section1239 of the 1985 FSA], the Conservation Farm Option [Section 1240M of the 1985 FSA], and the Tree Planting Ini t i at i v e [Section1256 of the 1985 FSA] [Section 261] Repeals the National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation [Section 351-360 of the 1996 FAIR] [Section 262] H. New Programs 1. Grasslands Reserve Program a. Places GRP in Section 1238 of the (GRP). 1985 FSA creating a 2 million acre a. Reserve Size. No provisions. grasslands reserve, split evenly between restored grasslands and virgin (never cultivated) grasslands. Section 1238(b)(1) sets minimum size for enrolled parcels at 50 contiguous acres east of the 90th meridian and 100 contiguous acres west of the 90th meridian. [Section 255(a)] b. Eligible Lands. No provisions. b. Defines eligible land to include b. Same definition of eligible land as b. Adopts Senate provision natural grass and shrub land that has a in H.R. 2646, except that it also modified to include restored, potential to serve as important plant or enrolls incidental additional land that improved, or natural grassland, CRS-74 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 animal habitat, or has been historically is necessary for the administrative dominated by natural grass or efficiency of an easement.[Section 219(a)] shrubland. [Section 255(a)] rangeland, or pasture land, including prairie. [Section 2401] c. Allows permanent easements, 30 year easements, the longest easements allowed by state law, and 30 year rental agreements. Allows the Secretary to delegate easements to private conservation organizations, land trusts, and state agencies. [Section 219(a)] c. Adopts Senate provision, modified to enroll 40% of acreage in 10, 15 or 20 tear rental agreements, and 60% in 30 year rental agreements, or 30 year permanent easements. [Section 2401] d. Permitted and Prohibited Uses of d. Permits contract holders to use d. Similar to H.R. 2646 for permitted Enrolled Lands. No provisions. common grazing practices, and permits and prohibited uses of enrolled haying and mowing outside the bird lands. [Section 219(a)] nesting season, but prohibits all agricultural production (except hay) and almost all practices that require disturbing the land surface in section 1238(A)(b). [Section 255(a)] d. Adopts House provision modified to also permit fire rehabilitation and construction of fire breaks and fences. [Section 2401] e. Ranking Criteria for Bids. No provisions. e. Adopts House provision modified to also emphasize land under the greatest threat of conversion. [Section 2401] c. Enrollment Options. provisions. No c. Spends at least 2/3 of funds on contracts of 10 to 20 years, and the remainder on 30 year or permanent easements. [Section 255(a)] e. Requires the Secretary to develop ranking criteria for reviewing applications, with emphasis on support for native vegetation, grazing operations, and plant and animal diversity, and to set the terms for restoration. [Section 255(a)] e. Requires the Secretary to work with STCs in developing ranking criteria, and to give priority to grazing operations, maintaining or restoring biodiversity, and land under the greatest threat of conversion. [Section 219(a)] f. Describes how payment levels are to f. Describes how payment levels are CRS-75 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 f. Payment Levels. No provisions. be set for each form of participation, sets cost sharing payments for restoration at 90% for virgin grasslands and 75% for restored grasslands, and provides technical assistance. [Section 255(a)] to be set for each form of participation, provides that rental agreements be reviewed and adjusted at least once every 5 years, limits cost-sharing payments to 75% for restoration, and provides technical assistance. [Section 219(a)] f. Adopts House provision modified to use State formula for 30 year agreements and all easements, and moves support for technical assistance to the funding subsection of the conservation title [Section 2401] g. Penalties for Violation. No provisions. g. No provisions. g. Describes the roles of the Secretary and the landowner in implementing restoration agreements, and lists the penalties for violations, and allows periodic site inspections. [Section 219(a)] g. Provides that agreements remain in force but that owner may be required to refund payments, with interests. [Section 2401] h. Funding. No provisions. h. Amends Section 1241 of the 1985 FSA to provide a total of up to $254 million through the CCC through FY2011 to implement this program. [Section 255(b)] 2. Farmland Stewardship Program. No provisions. h. Amends Section 1241 of the 1985 FSA to provide such CCC sums as necessary to implement this program. [Section 219(b)] Adds this program as a new Section No provisions. 1239 to the 1985 FSA. It is to be administered by NRCS “to more precisely tailor and target” current conservation programs, using program funding on a watershed basis, where possible. Participation requires matching funds, and can involve other agencies. Participants submit a h. Adopts House provision, modified to provide up to $254 million in mandatory funding from the CCC for FY2003-2007, and provide technical assistance. [Section 2701] No provision CRS-76 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 Conservation Security Program (CSP). Authorizes a CSP in Section 1238 — 1238B of the 1985 FSA. It defines 22 terms and lists 13 program purposes. To participate, producers must have an approved plan for eligible lands (land in the CRP and WRP, or that has not been in production at least 3 of the preceding 10 years, is ineligible). Producers can receive an advance payment when they enroll, base payments, and bonus payments for certain practices. Practices required for each of 3 tiers of participation are specified, and minimum requirements for each will be determined at the state level and approved by the Secretary. Land in an approved plan will be enrolled in a contract between FY2003 and FY2006; Tier 1 contracts will be 5 years; Tier II and III contracts will be 5 to 10 years, and contracts can be Adopt Senate amendment modified to: authorize the programs through FY2007, decrease the maximum tier II payment to $45,000, make participants subject to compliance, and delete the state pilot program provisions. [Section 2001] management plan and are encouraged to use easements to implement conservation management. [Section 256] [Note: No appropriations are authorized for this program, so all funding would come from existing programs] 3. Conservation Security Program No provisions. (CSP). No provisions. CRS-77 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 renewed. Total annual payments are limited to $20,000 for Tier I, $35,000 for Tier II, and $50,000 for Tier III. Specified practices are ineligible. State pilot programs are authorized. [Section 201] Amends Section 1241 of the 1985 FSA by adding a new subsection (c) to provide “such funds as are necessary” from the CCC through FY2006. [Section 202] Allows implementation to start on the date of enactment. [Section 206] 4. Partnerships and Cooperation. No provisions. No provisions. Adds a new Section 1242(f) to the 1985 FSA to allow special projects as recommended by a state conservationist, which can respond to meeting the requirements of specified federal laws or addressing watersheds or other areas with significant environmental problems. Participants agree to a plan to adjust implementation of conservation programs to increase environmental benefits. Funding uses 5% of EQIP funds annually, with any unused funds to go to other EQIP activities that year. [Section 203] Adopts Senate amendment modified to provide funds to address natural resource problems related to agricultural production, delete identification of specified federal laws, and provide funding by using up to 5% of all mandatory conservation program funding. [Section 2002] 5. Watershed Risk Reduction No provisions. Program. No provisions. Authorizes $15 million annually No provision through FY2006 to implement a new program to purchase floodplain CRS-78 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 easements at Section1240N of the 1985 FSA. [Section 217(a)] 6. Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion No provisions. and Sediment Control Program. No provisions. Authorizes $5 million annually through FY2006 to implement a new soil erosion and sediment control program for the Great Lakes basin at Section 1240O of the 1985 FSA. [Section 217(a)] Adopts Senate provisions modified, and authorizes appropriations of $5 million annually from FY2002-2007. [Section 2502] Note: Conference Committee report states that funding is to be provided through FY2006.] 7. Water Conservation Program. No provisions. No provisions. Reduces CRP enrollment ceiling No provisions. from 41.1 million acres to 40.0 million acres. [Section 215(a)] Authorizes two programs. One will allow up to 500,000 acres to be enrolled in state CREPs to contribute to the restoration of a watercourse or lake, and permit purchasing or leasing water rights. Priority given to places where more than 20% of the cost would be paid from non federal sources, and promotes any of 4 specified benefits for wildlife, fish and plants. Protection of state water laws are specified. Eligible states are Nevada, California, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, New Hampshire, and Maine; others can apply to participate. [Section 215(b)] Authorizes a new Water Conservation Program in Section CRS-79 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 1240R of the 1985 FSA. NRCS will provide cost sharing assistance to increase irrigation efficiency, convert production to less waterintensive crops, and acquire water rights. Protection of state and other water laws required. Nebraska and South Dakota are ineligible, while the same 7 states as in the program above are eligible, and others may apply. Authorizes funding from the CCC at $25 million in FY2002, $52 million in FY2003, and $100 million in FY2004-FY2006, with $5 million allocated each year to monitoring activities. [Section 215(c)] 8. Grassroots Source Water No provisions. Protection Program. No provisions. Authorizes $5 million annually through FY2006 in Section 1240Q of the 1985 FSA for a new program to use technical assistance capabilities of state rural water associations that operate wellhead or groundwater protection programs. [Section 217(a)] 9. Organic Agriculture Research Trust Fund. No provisions. Provides $50 million from the CCC No provision in FY2003, to remain available until spent and to accrue interest, in FY2003 to establish a new research fund on organic products. [Section 231] No provisions. Adopts Senate provision, modified to authorize appropriations of $5 million annually from FY2002-2007. [Section 2502] Note: Conference Committee report says funding is provided through FY2006] CRS-80 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 10. National Organic Research Endowment Institute. No provisions. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 No provisions. SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 Establishes a National Organic No provision Research Endowment Institute to develop and implement a plan for research on organic products using the trust fund (established in Section 231). [Section 232] 11. Cranberry Acreage Reserve. No provisions. No provisions. Authorizes purchase of permanent easements on wetlands and buffer strips that are part of a cranberry operation from willing sellers. Authorizes $10 million annually for this activity. [Section 261] Adopts Senate provision but moves to Miscellaneous Provision section of bill [Section 10608] 12. Klamath Basin. No provisions. Authorizes the Secretary to create a federal task force (membership specified) to develop a coordinated federal effort to manage water resources in this basin (6 duties specified). In addition to using existing programs, the task force will establish a grant program to carry out its responsibilities. [Section 262(a) and (b)] The task force will develop an initial report within 180 days of enactment, a draft 5-year plan to implement its duties within 60 days thereafter, and a final plan within 1 year of enactment. Eight items to be considered in the plan are specified. [Section 262(c)] Consultation with specified non- No separate provision, but provides $50 million to assist producers in this basin as soon as possible under the new Ground and Surface Water Conservation program under EQIP placed in Section 2301. No provisions. CRS-81 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 federal entities is required. [Section 262(d)] Authorizes a total of $175 million from the CCC from FY2003 through FY2006, and specifies where a small portion of the funds are to be spent. Funds may not be obligated after September 30, 2006. [Section 262(e)] 13. Desert Terminal Lakes No provision No provision No provision Adds new provision providing $200 million in mandatory funding from the CCC to the Bureau of Reclamation ro provide water to at-risk natural desert terminal lakes; specified that no funds can be used to purchase or lease water rights. [Section 2507] 14. Conservation Corridor No provision Demonstration Program. No provision No provision Adds new provision establishing a program on the Delmarva Peninsula to demonstrate local conservation and economic cooperation using existing USDA programs, based on a plan developed by 1 or more of the eligible states or local governments. Criteria and time limits for USDA review of proposals are specified. Programs are 3-5 years long and CRS-82 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 a progress report is required after 3 years. Authorizes appropriations as necessary annually from FY2002-2007 with the federal portion to pay for up to half of the total cost [Section 2601] 15. Administrative Requirements for Conservation Programs a. Relief for Good Faith Actions. No provisions. No provisions. a. Adds a new Section 1244(a) to the 1985 FSA giving the Secretary the option of granting relief to conservation program participants who act in good faith under a contract, and are subsequently determined to be in violation. Types of relief and exceptions are specified. [Section 204] a. Good faith provisions in the Administration subtitle of the Commodity programs title apply to both conservation and commodity programs. [Section 1613] b. Assistance for Limited Resource No provisions. Producers. No provisions. b. Adds a new Section 1244(b) which provides necessary funds from the CCC to assist certain limited resource, socially disadvantaged, and beginning producers, and Indian tribes to participate in conservation programs. The Secretary may contract with other entities to provide these services. Adds a new Section 1244(c) allowing the Secretary to provide incentives to these producers(except socially- Adopts Senate provisions, modified to provide this assistance to foster new farming opportunities and to enhance environmental stewardship [Section 2004(a)] CRS-83 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 disadvantaged ones) to participate in conservation programs. [Section 204] c. No provision c. Data Collection and Program Evaluation. No provisions. No provisions. c. Adds a new Section 1244(d) which requires the Secretary to collect data that would permit evaluation of conservation programs [Section 204] d. Mediation. No provisions. No provisions. d. Adds a new Section 1244(e) which requires the Secretary to provide mediation services when an adverse decision is made about a conservation program. [Section 204] [Note: Section 1244(f), on technical assistance, is discussed above in G4.] d. No provisions e. Privacy of Personal Information. No provisions. No provisions. f. Tribal Lands. No provisions. No provisions. Adopts Senate provisions, e. Adds a new Section 1244(g) to modified to protect information protect the privacy of personal at natural resource inventory information about individuals related collection data points. to conservation programs (not [Section 2004(a)] including public information on payments, etc). [Section 204] No provision, but law includes a f. Adds a new Section 1244(h) which section in the Miscellaneous title requires the Secretary to cooperate that requires the Secretary to with a tribal government when review the operation of programs carrying out conservation programs including conservation programs on tribal lands. [Section 204] available to producers on tribal and trust lands. [Section 10910] CRS-84 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 g. Adopts Senate provision, modifies to give priority to providing funds, excluding CPR, WRP, and CSP) in states that have not received $12 million by April 1 of each year. [Section 2701] g. Regional Equity of Conservation No provisions. Spending. No provisions. g. Requires that each state receive a total of $12 million annually from FY2002 through FY2006, in conservation funds. Of the total, $5 million is to be used for EQIP, and $7 million is to be used for other conservation programs, with any portion not obligated by April 1of the fiscal year to be reobligated to other specified programs. [Section 241] 16. Implementation. No provision relevant provisions No provisions No Provisions R equires all im pl em ent i ng regulations for conservation, unless otherwise specified, to be issued within 90 days of enactment. [Section 2702] No Provisions. Assessment of Conservation Programs. Requires the Secretary to develop a plan to better coordinate and consolidate the implementation of conservation programs. [Section 205(a)] Requires the Secretary to provide the plan (and recommendations) to both agriculture committees within 180 days of enactment. [Section 205(b)] Requires the Secretary to provide a plan (with a cost estimate) for Adopts Senate provision, modified to require that the report, with implementing proposals be submitted to the Committees by December 32,2005. Provisions related to the implementation of the Soil and Water Conservation Act and updating technical standards are deleted. [Section 2005] to new 17. Assessment of Conservation Programs. No provisions. CRS-85 CONSERVATION PRIOR LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT (S. 1731, AMENDED) COVERS 2002-2006 updating the national conservation program required by the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 to both agriculture committees within 180 days of enactment, and to report to both committees of the status of plan implementation by April 30, 2005. [Section 205(c)] Requires the Secretary to revise conservation technical standards within 180 days of enactment , and to update them at least once every 5 years. [Section 205(d)] NEW LAW (P.L.107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 CRS-86 III. AGRICULTURAL TRADE AND AID AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 a. Extends current law, except it increases mandatory funding to not more than $200 million yearly in CCC funds through FY2011. [Section 301] a. Extends current law, except that in addition to any funds specifically appropriated for the program, mandatory funding of not more than $100 million for FY2002; $120 million for FY2003; $140 million for FY2004; $180 million for FY2005; and $200 million for FY2006 (in CCC funds or equivalent CCC commodities). [Section 322] a. Extends current law through FY2007 at the following mandatory funding levels: $100 million for FY2002; $110 for FY2003; $125 million for FY2004; $140 million for FY2005; $200 million for FY2006; $200 million for FY2007. [Section 3103] b. No provision. b. No provision. b. Priority, for funds in excess of $90 million in any year, for eligible organizations that have not participated in the past, and for programs in emerging markets. [Section 322] b. In providing funds in excess of FY2001 levels (i.e., $90 million) Secretary shall, for proposals from new program participants and for emerging markets, give consideration equal to that given to current participants. [Section 3103] c. No provision. c. No provision. c. New U.S. Quality Export Initiative (using appropriated c. No provision. MAP, FMDP funds), to promote U.S. products with a new “U.S. A. Agricultural Export Assistance Programs 1. Market Access Program (MAP) a. MAP helps exporters (mainly nonprofit industry trade associations, who allocate the funds to others including agricultural cooperatives and small businesses) finance promotional activities overseas (usually for more consumeroriented, higher value products). Required (mandatory) funding of not more than $90 million yearly in CCC funds through FY2002. [Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 as amended by Section 244 of Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996] CRS-87 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 Quality” seal overseas. [Section 322] 2. Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMDP) a. FMDP helps U.S. exporters (mainly through commodity based trade associations) to finance promotional activities overseas. Statutory authority (at such sums as necessary) through FY2002; current funding is $28 million per year. [Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 as amended by Section 252 of FAIR Act of 1996] b. FMDP has focused on promoting mainly bulk and partially processed commodities, targeted to foreign importers/processors — although about a third of program promotes value-added products. a. Extends current law, except sets mandatory funding at $37 million in CCC funds yearly through FY2011. [Section 305] a. Extends current law, except sets mandatory funding of $37.5 million for FY2002; $40 million for FY2003; and $42.5 million for FY2004 and subsequent years (in CCC funds or equivalent CCC commodities). [Section 324] a. Extends current law, excepts sets mandatory funding at $34.5 million annually from FY2002 to FY2007. [Section 3105] b. New emphasis on exporting valueadded products to emerging markets. Requires annual report to Congress on program. [Section 305] b. Establishes a priority, for funds above $35 million in any year, for eligible organizations that have not participated in the past, and for programs in emerging markets. [Section 324] b. In providing funds in excess of FY2001 levels (i.e., $28 million) Secretary shall, for proposals from new program participants and for emerging markets, give consideration equal to that given to current participants. Calls for “a continued significant emphasis” on value-added products to emerging markets. Requires annual report to Congress. [Section 3105] 3. Export Enhancement Program (EEP) a. EEP authorizes cash payments or CCC a. Current law extended through a. Current law extended through a. Current law extended through commodities as bonus subsidies to help FY2011, at current level of up to FY2006 at current level of up to FY2007, at current level of up CRS-88 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 exporters sell agricultural products $478 million per year. [Section 304] (although not statutorily prescriptive, mainly wheat and other grains have used EEP) at more competitive prices in targeted foreign markets. Authority through FY2002, with CCC funding at up to $478 million per year. [Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 as amended by Section 245 of FAIR Act of 1996] $478 million per year. [Section 323] to $478 million per year. [Section 3104] b. EEP may be used to help mitigate or offset the effects of unfair trade practices, now defined as any foreign act or policy that “violates, or is inconsistent with, the provisions of, or otherwise denies benefits to the United States under, any trade agreement...” or “is unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” [Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, Section 102] b. Expands the definition of unfair trade practices to include: (1) pricing practices by an exporting state trading enterprise (STE) that “are not consistent with sound commercial practices conducted in the ordinary course of trade,” or (2) changing U.S. “export terms of trade through a deliberate change in the dollar exchange rate of a competing exporter.” [Section 323] b. Expands definition of unfair trade practices to include: (1) an exporting STE that prices its commodities inconsistently vs. sound commercial practice; (2) provision of subsidies that decrease U.S. export market opportunities or unfairly distort market opportunities to the detriment of U.S. exporters; (3) unfair technical barriers to trade including commercial requirements adversely affecting new technology like biotechnology and unjustified sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions; (4) unfair implementation of tariff rate quota rules; (5) failure to meet trade agreement obligations with the United States. [Section 3104] b. No expanded definition. CRS-89 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 4. Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) DEIP authorizes cash or CCC Extends current law through 2011. Extends current law through commodities as bonus subsidies to help [Title I-C, Section 143] FY2006. [Title I-C, Section 133] exporters sell specified dairy products at more competitive prices in targeted foreign markets. Authority through FY2002, with CCC funding to provide commodities to the maximum levels consistent with U.S. obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization. [Food Security Act of 1985 as amended by Section 148 of the FAIR Act of 1996] 5. Export Credit Guarantees (GSM) a. Authority through FY2002 with CCC a. Extends current law through funding, where USDA guarantees FY2011. [Section 306] commercial financing of not less than $5.5 billion annually of U.S. agricultural exports. Financing can be used for shortterm credit (GSM-102) for up to 3 years; and for long-term credit (GSM-103), for 3-10 years. GSM programs are used in countries where needed financing may not be available without the CCC guarantees. (At least 35% of total credit guarantees must be to promote processed or high-value agricultural products.) [Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 as a. Extends current law through FY2006. Requires a report to Congress within 1 year on the status of multilateral negotiations regarding agricultural export credit programs. [Section 321] NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 Extends current law through 2007. [Title I- E, Section 1503] a. Extends current law through FY2007. Instead of report, requires regular consultations with Congress on the status of multilateral negotiations regarding agricultural export credit programs. [Section 3102] CRS-90 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 amended by the Section 243 of the FAIR Act of 1996] b. No change in supplier credit term. b. Supplier Credits feature permits CCC to issue credit guarantees for repayment of credit made available by a U.S. exporter to a foreign buyer for up to 180 days. [Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 as amended by Section 243 of the FAIR Act] 6. Emerging Markets Program a. Requires CCC through FY2002 to a. Extends current law through offer no less than $1 billion per year in FY2011. [Section 308] direct credit, or credit guarantees, for exports to emerging markets (formerly emerging democracies). [Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 as amended by Section 277 of the FAIR Act of 1996] b. Permits guarantees of supplier b. Permits supplier credit credits for up to 12 months. guarantees for up to 360 days, [Section 321] subject to appropriations for any loan terms longer than the current 180 days. [Section 3102] a. Extends current law through FY2006. [Section 332] b. Requires CCC to provide $10 million b. Increases this funding to $13 b. No increase. annually through FY2002 to send U.S. million annually. [Section 308] advisors to emerging markets. Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 as amended by Section 277 of FAIR Act of 1996] a. Extends current law through FY2007. [Section 3203] b. No increase. B. Food Aid Programs 1. P.L. 480 (Food for Peace) General a. Seeks to combat hunger and encourage a. Extends P.L. 480 (i.e., authority a. Extends P.L. 480 through development overseas. Title I makes to enter into new agreements) FY2006. [Section 311] export credit available on concessional through FY2011. [Section 307] a. Extends P.L. 480 authority through FY2007. [Section 3012] CRS-91 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 terms (e.g. low interest rates for up to 30 years); Title II authorizes donations for emergency food aid and non-emergency humanitarian assistance. Authority to enter into new P.L. 480 agreements (which are funded mainly through annual appropriations) is through FY2002. [Section 408 of P.L. 480 (Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954) as amended by Section 217 of the FAIR Act of 1996] b. Congress has stated five specific b. Adds “conflict prevention” as a b. Same as House bill [Section b. Adds “prevent conflicts” as a purposes of P.L. 480 (e.g. combat hunger, new purpose. [Section 307] 301] new purpose. [Section 3001] expand international trade, etc.). [Section 2 of P.L. 480] c. Food Aid Consultative group consisting of specified federal officials, representatives of private voluntary organizations (PVOs), foreign nongovernment organizations, and agriculture producer groups, is authorized through FY2002. [Section 205 of P.L. 480] c. Extends Food Aid Consultative c. Ex t end s Food Aid c . E x t e n d s F o o d A i d Group through FY2006; clarifies Consultative Group through Consultative Group through what the group is to review to FY2006. [Section 305] FY2007. [Section 3005] include policies and guidelines. [Section 307] 2. P.L.480 Assistance Levels and a. Increases the minimum level of Funding commodities to 2.25MMT per year a. Minimum Title II assistance is 2.025 through FY2011. [Section 307] million metric tons (MMT) of agricultural commodities per year through FY2002; AID Administrator has some authority to a. Increases the minimum level of commodities to 2.1 MMT in FY2002, 2.2MMT in FY2003, 2.3 MMT in FY2004, 2.4 MMT in FY2005, and 2.5 MMT in FY2006. [Section 304] a. Increases the minimum level of commodities to 2.5MMT annually beginning in FY2002. Changes the sub-minimum requirement for non-emergency programs to 1.875 MMT CRS-92 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 waive minimum. Subminimum requirement for non-emergency programs is 1.55MMT. [Section 204 of P.L. 480] NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 annually. [Section 3004] b. Limits CCC Title II costs to $1 billion b. Removes limit on CCC Title II b. Doubles limit on CCC Title II yearly; some Presidential waiver costs. [Section 307] costs to $2 billion per year. b. Removes limit on CCC Title authority. [Section 206 of P.L. 480] [Section 306] II costs. [Section 3006] c. Provides that at least $10 million but not more than $28 million of Title II funding per year shall be use to support e l i g i b l e o r gan i z at i o n s ( P V O s , cooperatives, organizations like the World Food Program, etc.) in conducting Title II activities. [Section 202 of P.L. 480] c. Replaces dollar designations by setting support for eligible organizations at not less than 5% and not more then 10% of Title II funding. [Section 307] c. Replaces dollar designations by setting support for eligible organizations at not less than 5% and not more than 10% of Title II funding. [Section 302] a. Authorizes the use of U.S. dollars and other currencies for monetization in P.L. 480 — and also Food for Progress and Section 416 programs; permits PVOs to submit multi-country proposals; and permits food aid monetization in more than one country in the region. [Sections 302; 303; 307] a. Similar to House [Sections 303, 310, & 325]. Also, a food aid commodity sale is to be “at a reasonable market price in the economy” where the commodity is to be sold. [Section 310] a. Monetization language similar to House and Senate. Adopts Senate’s “reasonable market price” language. Contains language encouraging multi-country proposals, from all eligible organizations, not just PVOs. [Sections 3003; 3009; 3106] b. The AID Administrator has 45 days to b. Increases the time for decisions decide on Title II proposals submitted by from 45 to 120 days. [Section 307] eligible organizations or U.S. field missions. [Section 207 of P.L. 480] b. Increases, to 120 days, time the Administrator has to decide on Title II proposals. Contains other timelines for finalizing b. Increases, to 120 days, time the Administrator has to decide on Title II proposals; clarifies that the period begins after 3. P.L. 480 Operation & Administration a. Permits PVOs to sell Title II commodities in the recipient country (or a nearby country) to finance commodity transportation, storage, etc., and local development projects (“monetization”). [Section 203 of P.L. 480] c. Replaces dollar designations by setting support for eligible organizations at not less than 5% and not more than 10% of Title II funding. [Section 3002] CRS-93 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 program agreements and announcing programs each year. Permits USDA to approve an agreement that provides for direct delivery of commodities to foreign milling or processing facilities that are more than 50% U.S.-owned, with cash proceeds transferred to eligible organizations for carrying out projects. [Section 307] submission of the proposal to AID Administrator, who is encouraged to make decisions on proposals within that period. Deletes Senate provision on direct delivery of commodities. [Section 3007] c. Authorizes $2 million in each of c. Extends authorization through c. Extends authorization through c. Extends authorization FY2001 and FY2002 to “preposition” FY2011. [Section 307] FY2006. [Section 311] through FY2007. [Section food aid commodities in the U.S. and 3010] foreign countries. [Section 407 of P.L. 480] d. Authorizes appropriations of up to $3 d. Extends authorization through d. Extends authorization through d. Extends authorization million annually through FY2002 for FY2011. [Section 307] FY2006. [Section 308] through FY2007. [Section grants to PVOs and U.S. non-profits for 3008] stockpiling shelf-stable, pre-packaged foods. [Section 208 of P.L. 480] e. Requires USDA (if feasible) to e. No provision. establish a “micronutrient fortification” pilot program; authority expires in FY2002. [Section 415 of P.L. 480] e. Extends the authorization as an e. Adopts the Senate provision ongoing program through through FY2007 with technical FY2006. [Section 313] corrections, and includes language aimed at improving and insuring quality of fortified food aid commodities. [Section 3013] CRS-94 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 f. Lamb to Afghanistan . No provision. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 f. No provision. 4. Certified Institutional Partners No provision in current law. Currently No provision. PVOs and cooperatives generally must undergo the same application procedures to participate in various food aid programs each time they apply. SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 f. Permits President to establish, under Title II, a “pilot emergency relief program to provide live lamb to Afghanistan.” [Section 309.] f. As part of required report to Congress within 120 days on use of perishable commodities, Secretary of Agriculture must report on feasibility of transporting lambs and other live animals in food aid programs. [Section 3207] Requires AID or USDA, as applicable, to establish a process enabling PVOs and cooperatives that can demonstrate their capacity to carry out the programs (under P.L. 480; Section 416; or Food for Progress) to qualify as “certified institutional partners,” which would entitle them to use streamlined application procedures, including expedited review and approval to receive commodities for use in more than one country. [Sections 302; 325; 334] For Title II Food for Peace, AID Administrator must establish, within 1 year, streamlined guidelines and application procedures and, by FY2004, incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, the changes. Requires consultation with stakeholders and Congress, and a report to Congress within 270 days on improvements. [Section 3002]. For Food for Progress and S e c t i o n 4 1 6 , r e q u i r es , respectively, the President and Secretary of Agriculture, within 270 days, to review and make any needed changes in rules and procedures aimed at streamlining application procedures, including consideration of pre-screening CRS-95 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 organizations and proposals; requires consultations with Congress. [Section 3106; Section 3201]. 5. Farmer-to-Farmer Program Requires that no less than 0.4% of P.L. Extends funding authority at current 480 funds be used to provide U.S. 0.4% through FY2011. [Section farmers and other agricultural experts 307] technical assistance in developing, middle income and emerging market countries. [Title V of P.L. 480 as amended by Sections 224 and 277 of the FAIR Act of 1996] 6. CCC (Section 416) Surplus Donations Permanent law authorizes the use of CCC-owned surplus commodities for overseas donations. [Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 as amended] 7. Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Authorizes, through FY2002, a trust Extends funding authority through FY2006, and increases minimum funding to 0.5% of P.L. 480 funds. [Section 314] Extends funding authority through FY2007, and increases minimum funding to 0.5% of P.L. 480 funds. Farmers for Africa and Caribbean Basin Program is incorporated into this title (see No. 10, below, for details). [Section 3014] [Note: renames program “John Ogonowski Farmer-to-Farmer Program.”] Maintains current law, and requires USDA to publish in the Federal Register, by each October 31, an estimate of Section 416 commodities to be made available for the fiscal year. Also encourages Section 416 program agreements to be finalized by December 31. [Section 303] Maintains current law, and permits USDA to approve an agreement that provides for direct delivery of commodities to foreign milling or processing facilities that are more than 50% U.S.-owned, with cash proceeds transferred to eligible organizations for carrying out projects. [Section 334] Adopts House language regarding October 31 and December 31 deadlines. Omits Senate provision on direct delivery of commodities. [Section 3201] Extends the Trust through FY2011. Extends the Trust through Ex tends the Trust through CRS-96 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 totaling not more than 4MMT of wheat, [Section 309] rice, corn, sorghum, or any combination as a reserve solely to meet emergency humanitarian food needs. [Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act of 1998, which replaced Title III of the Agricultural Act of 1980 as amended (Food Security Commodity Reserve)] 8. Food for Progress (FFP) a. Provides commodities to support a. Reauthorizes FFP countries that have committed to expand FY2011. [Section 302] free enterprise in their agricultural economies; commodities may be provided under Title I of P.L. 480 or Section 416(b) authorities, or using CCC funds. Authority expires December 31, 2002. [Section 1110 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended by the FAIR Act of 1996] through SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 FY2006. [Section 331] FY2007. [Section 3202] a. Reauthorizes FFP under a new Title VIII of the 1978 Agricultural Trade Act called “Food for Progress and Education Programs,” authorized through FY2006. Permits USDA to provide agricultural commodities to support introduction or expansion of free trade enterprises in recipient country economies, and to provide food or nutrition assistance. [Section 325] a. Reauthorizes FFP through FY2007 under existing law (i.e., not a new Title VII). Encourages President to finalize agreements before beginning of relevant fiscal year. Requires him to submit to Congress by each December 1 a list of programs, countries, eligible commodities, and transportation and administrative costs for the ye a r . D e f i n e s e l i g i b l e commodities. Incorporates a definition section into the statute; establishes program purposes and quality assurance requirements; and requires President to ensure that eligible organizations are optimizing use of donated commodities. [Section 3106] CRS-97 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 b. Increases annual limits on administrative costs to $15 million, and on transportation costs to $40 million. [Section 302] b. Permits up to $55 million per year to be used for transportation, administrative, processing, and related costs. [Section 325] b. Increases annual limits on administrative costs to $15 million, and on transportation costs to $40 million. [Section 3106] c. Annual limit on commodity assistance c. Increases annual limit on is 500,000MT. commodities to 1 million MT. Also, excludes from the tonnage limit those commodities furnished on a grant basis or on credit terms under Title I. [Section 302] c. Sets an annual minimum tonnage requirement for FFP of 400,000MT through FY2006, using the CCC. In addition, authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to carry out FFP, plus permits the use of P.L. 480 Title I funds. All commodities and related expenses must be in addition to any other P.L. 480 assistance. [Section 325] c. Annual minimum tonnage requirement: “not less than 400,00MT may be provided” through CCC. Excludes, from the current annual tonnage limits, those commodities furnished on a grant basis or on credit terms under P.L. 480 Title I. [Section 3106] Requires establishment of an International Food for Education and Nutrition Program whereby the Secretary of Agriculture may provide commodities and technical and nutrition assistance for programs that improve food security and enhance educational opportunities for preschool and primary school children in recipient countries. CCC authority and funds of not more Permits President to establish the McGovern-Dole In t e r n a t i o n a l Fo o d f o r Education and Child Nutrition Program, with mandatory funding from CCC of $100 million in FY2003 to continue existing pilot projects; and subject to appropriations in FY2004-2007. Eligible costs include commodity acquisition, processing, transportation, b. Annual limits on CCC funds for administrative costs and for commodity transportation costs are $10 million and $30 million, respectively. 9. International Food for Education School feeding and child nutrition projects have been operated within broader PVO and United Nations World Food Program (WFP) food aid portfolios. Clinton Administration initiated a pilot global food for education initiative whereby USDA has committed to provide up to $300 million (under Section 416 authority) for commodities and transportation costs for school and preschool nutrition projects and related activities in developing countries. Authorizes George McGovernRobert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program whereby the President is permitted to direct the provision of U.S. agricultural commodities and financial and technical assistance for foreign preschool and school feeding programs to reduce hunger and improve literacy (particularly among girls), and nutrition programs for pregnant and nursing women and CRS-98 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 Approved projects conducted through the WFP, PVOs, and eligible foreign governments using USDA discretionary authorities. [General authority under Section 416] 10. Farmers for Africa & Caribbean Basin No provision in current law. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 young children. Authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary each year through FY2011. Gives President authority to designate the federal agency to administer program; defines eligible recipients to include PVOs, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, governments and their agencies, and other organizations. [Section 312] than $150 million shall be used in each of FY2002-2005. Eligible organizations include PVOs, cooperatives, nongovernmental organizations, and foreign countries, which are subject to a “graduation requirement” to provide for continuation of program after end of funding. [Section 325] handling (including specified in-country costs if President makes certain determinations). Eligible organizations: cooperatives, PVO’s, intergovernmental organizations, governments of developing countries and their agencies, and other organizations. Includes Senate graduation requirement; program funding priorities and application guidelines; assurances that recipient country production and marketing are not disrupted. [Section 3107] Creates a Farmers for Africa and No provision. Caribbean Basin Program offering grants to eligible organizations to conduct bilateral exchange programs utilizing African-American and other U.S. farmers and agricultural specialists. Authorizes $10 million in annual appropriations annually through FY2011. [Section 311] House provision is incorporated into the John Ogonowski Farmer-to-Farmer Program, w i t h a u t h o r i z a t i o n for appropriations of up to $10 million annually through FY2007. Up to 5% of appropriation can be used for administrative expenses. [Section 3014] CRS-99 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 Sense of Senate that U.S. foreign aid should play increased role in addressing conditions breeding global terrorism. [Section 338] Sense of Congress that U.S. foreign aid should play increased role in addressing conditions breeding global terrorism. [Section 3209] If the Secretary of Agriculture determines that total spending for such commodity support will exceed the limits in the URAA, the Secretary may make adjustments in the programs to reduce spending to (but not below) such limits. [Section 181] Same as House bill, but with additional language requiring annual notifications to Congress on current and following marketing year estimates of support to be reported to the World Trade Organization, and effectively requiring Congress to consider amending (within 18 months) any programs that might cause the URAA limits to be breached. [Section 164] If Secretary determines that expenditures will exceed URAA allowable levels for any applicable reporting period, Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, make adjustments in such expenditures to ensure that they do not exceed allowable levels. Prior to doing so, Congress must be notified of the adjustment types and levels. [Title I, Section 1601] Requires USDA to establish a “Technical Assistance for Speciality Crops” program, providing direct assistance through public and private projects and technical assistance, to help overcome the “unique barriers” — such as SPS and related barriers A section within the Biotechnology and Agricultural Trade Program (see below) directs USDA to assist U.S. exporters harmed by “unwarranted and arbitrary” barriers to trade due to marketing Requires USDA to establish, outside of the Biotechnology and Agricultural Trade Program (see below), a “Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops” program providing direct assistance through public and 11. Terrorism and Foreign Assistance No provision. No provision. C. Other Trade Provisions 1. Trade Agreement Compliance Under the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA) the United States agreed to limit the value of trade-distorting U.S. domestic farm supports to $19.1 billion per year. However, U.S. law itself does not place an upper limit on such supports. 2. Technical Assistance for Barriers to Trade Various trade agreements discipline countries’ use of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and other technical barriers to trade, used by countries to protect their consumers, agricultural and natural resources. USDA agencies, the U.S. Trade Representative, and other CRS-100 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 — inhibiting exports of U.S. specialty crops (e.g., fruits, vegetables). Requires use of $3 million annually in CCC funds through FY2011. [Section 310] of biotechnology products, food safety, disease, or other SPS concerns; authorizes appropriations of $1 million annually through FY2006. [Section 333] private projects and technical assistance to remove, resolve, or mitigate SPS and related barriers to exports of U.S. specialty crops. Requires use of $2 million annually in CCC resources through FY2007. [Section 3205] No provision. Requires USDA to establish a Biotechnology and Agricultural Trade Program to address the market access, regulatory, and marketing issues related to exports of U.S. agricultural biotechnology products. Requires CCC to make available $15 million for the program annually through FY2006. [Section 333] Establishes a Biotechnology and Agricultural Trade Program, using technical assistance and public and private sector project grants, to remove, resolve, or mitigate significant regulatory nontariff barriers to U.S. exports involving: agricultural commodities produced through biotechnology; food safety; disease; or other SPS concerns. Authorizes appropriations of $6 million annually through FY2007. [Section 3204] 4. Trade Negotiating Objectives No provision. U.S. is now in multilateral negotiations to reform further the terms of agricultural trade in place under the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Sense of Congress provision also contains an explicit description of agricultural trade negotiating objectives. [Section 336] Senate provision, changed to be a Sense of Senate rather than Sense of Congress. [Section 3210] federal agencies have established mechanisms for identifying such barriers and attempting to resolve disputes over them. [various laws] 3. Biotechnology and Agricultural Trade Program No provision. CRS-101 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 5. Exporter Assistance Initiative No provision. Various federal agencies routinely provide market intelligence, trade data, and other information aimed at helping U.S. agricultural exporters find, understand, and sell into overseas markets. For example, both USDA’s Economic Research Service and Foreign Agricultural Service maintain written and web-based publications and data series containing much of this information .[various laws] Authorizes appropriations ($1 million for each of FY2002-2004 and $500,000 for each of FY2005-2006) for an “Exporter Assistance Initiative” to create an Internet website providing a single source of information from all federal agencies to help U.S. agricultural exporters. [Section 326] Requires Secretary to maintain a website with information to assist U.S. agricultural exporters. No appropriations authorized. [Section 3101] [Note: extensive conference report language directs Secretary to improve FAS webbased information.] 6. Cuba Trade Sanctions No provision. FY2001 agriculture appropriations law codified the lifting of unilateral sanctions on commercial sales of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical products to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan; and extended this policy to apply to Cuba, but in a more restrictive way by prohibiting all financing of such sales, even with private credit sources. [Section 908 of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Act, 2001] Lifts restrictions on private No provision. financing of agricultural sales to Cuba [Section 335] Present trade law contains a list of explicit U.S. objectives and consultation requirements for agriculture that U.S. negotiators are supposed to follow. [Trade and Development Act of 2000] CRS-102 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 a. Requires USDA to study and a. No provision. report to Congress within 1 year on the feasibility of a program charging fees to pay for providing commercial services abroad on matters under USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. [Section 313] a. Requires study in House bill, but only of fees for services beyond those already provided by FAS as part of an overall market development strategy for a particular country or region. [Section 3208] b. Secretary of Agriculture is required to b. Requires USDA to report to b. No provision. develop a long-term agricultural trade Congress within 1 year on national strategy every 3 years. Subsequent farm export strategy. [Section 314] bills have provided more explicit guidance on trade strategy goals and procedures. [Agricultural Trade Act of 1978; Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990; FAIR Act of 1996.] b. Requires USDA to consult with relevant congressional committees on Global Market Strategy within 180 days of enactment and every 2 years after that. [Section 3206] c. No provision. c. Requires USDA annual report to c. No provision. Congress on U.S. beef and pork imports each calendar year. [Section 946] c. No provision. d. No provision. d. No provision. d. Requires USDA to report to Congress within 120 days on implications of storage and transportation capacity and funding for use of perishable and semiperishable commodities in food aid programs. [Section 3207] 7. New Studies and Reports a. Services provided by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service are generally taxpayer-funded. d. Requires USDA to report to Congress within 120 days on transportation, infrastructure, and funding deficiencies that have limited the use of perishable commodities in food aid programs. [Section 337] CRS-103 AGRICULTURAL TRADE OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 8. Country of Origin Labeling; Grading a. Most imports, including many food items, must bear labels informing the final purchaser of their country of origin. However, certain “natural products” including fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, live and dead animals (e.g., meats), and fish, among others, generally are exempted. [Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended; Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act as amended] HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2006 a. Requires retailers other than restaurants and other food service establishments to inform consumers of the country of origin of “perishable agricultural commodities” (fresh or fresh frozen fruits and vegetables) through labels, marks, or other in-store information; specifies the daily fines for violations. [Title IX, Section 944] a. Requires retailers other than restaurants and other food service establishments to inform consumers of the country of origin of ground and muscle cuts of beef, lamb and pork, of wild and farm-raised fish, of perishable agricultural commodities, and of peanuts, through labels, marks, or other instore information. Defines what is meant by country of origin for each of these categories; authorizes the Secretary to set up a record-keeping system; authorizes but does not specify fines for violations. [Title X, Section 1001] a. Requires retailers other than restaurants and other food service establishments to inform consumers of the country of origin of ground and muscle cuts of beef, lamb, and pork, of farm-raised and wild fish, of perishable agricultural commodities, and of peanuts, through labels, marks, or other in-store information. Defines what is meant by country of origin for each category (e.g., meats must be from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the United States); includes language on implementation and enforcement. Program is voluntary beginning September 30, 2002, and mandatory beginning September 30, 2004. [Title X, Section 10816] b. USDA provides fee-based service to b. No provision. the industry to grade both domestic and imported meat and products based on their quality, and affixes grades to the products [Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 as amended] b. Prohibits imported carcasses, b. No provision. meats, or meat food products from bearing a USDA quality grade label. [Title X, Section 1002] CRS-104 IV. NUTRITION PROGRAMS NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 A. Food Stamp Program, Food Title IV of the Farm Security Act Stamp Act (FSA) of 2001 1. Child Support Child support payments are deducted No provisions. from the paying household’s income in determining its benefits and eligibility — after all income has been counted. The Secretary may prescribe the methods to be used to determine the amount of the deduction. [Section 5(e)(4) of the FSA)] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 Title IV of the Agriculture Conservation and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 Title IV of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 Allows states to exclude child support Adopts Senate provision payments from income (before allowing states to exclude or calculating any deductions) or deduct child support payments. continue to deduct them. Lifts some administrative and reporting requirements on program operators and recipients by (1) requiring the Secretary to establish simplified procedures for determining the amount of child support payments that allow states to use information from state child support enforcement agencies and (2) permitting states to freeze the amount of any child support e x cl u s i o n / d e d u c t i o n u n t i l a household’s eligibility is redetermined. [Section 411] Adopts Senate provision requiring the Secretary to establish simplified procedures that allow states to use information from state child support enforcement agencies. No provision as to freezing the amount of any child support exclusion/ deduction. [Section 4101] 2. Definition of Income For determining eligibility and Allows states to conform food stamp Same as the House bill, with minor Adopts Senate provision adding benefits, household income excludes: income exclusions with those of and technical differences. new income exclusions. noncash income, most education other major assistance programs and [Section 412] [Section 4102] CRS-105 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 assi st ance, l oans, most reimbursements for expenses, money received for third parties, nonrecurring lump-sum payments, the cost of producing self-employment income, federal energy assistance benefits, certain payments related to supporting work efforts, and income excluded by other federal laws. [Section 5(d) of the FSA] 3. Standard Deductions When determining food stamp benefits and eligibility, all households are allowed a “standard deduction” from counted income. It is $134 a month for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, $229 for Alaska, $189 for Hawaii, $269 for Guam, and $118 for the Virgin Islands. [Section 5(e)(1) of the FSA] HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 Establishes multiple standard deductions equal to an increasing percentage of the inflation-indexed poverty guideline amounts. For FYs 2002-2004, the new standard deductions would equal 8% of each year’s poverty guideline amounts. This percentage would rise, in stages, to 10% for FY2011 and following years. Requires that the new standard deductions not be less than the current amount for each jurisdiction or greater than the applicable percentage (see above) of the poverty amount for 6person households. [Section 171(c)] [Note: The House bill would initially Establishes multiple standard deductions equal to 8.31% of the inflation-indexed poverty guideline amounts. Requires that the new standard deductions not be less than the current amount for each jurisdiction or greater than 8.31% of the poverty amount for 6-person households. [Section 4103] lift some administrative and reporting requirements on program operators and applicants/recipients by adding new income exclusions: (1) education assistance and “state complementary assistance program payments” ex cluded under Medicaid; and (2) any other types of income a state does not consider when judging eligibility for cash assistance under its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or Medicaid. [Section 401] Establishes fixed multiple standard deductions equal to 9.7% of the federal poverty income guideline amounts used for food stamp income eligibility determinations in FY2002. The new standard deductions would not increase over time. Requires that the new standard deductions not be less than the current amount for each jurisdiction or greater than 9.7% of the FY2002 poverty guideline [Note: Standard (and other) deductions amount for 6-person households. increase benefits by reducing the [Section 402] amount of income counted when calculating them. They also may [Note: Poverty guideline amounts affect eligibility because “net” vary by household size and are [Note: The conference agreement effectively takes the House proposal for a fixed percentage of the poverty amounts and the Senate proposal to allow for CRS-106 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 household income (after deductions) is inflation-indexed annually. In both a factor in some income eligibility the House and Senate measures, the decisions.] new standard deductions would vary by household size and would be somewhat higher than current law.] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 provide higher deduction levels. But inflation indexing.] the Senate measure would, over time, result in somewhat higher deductions because it is keyed to each year’s inflation-indexed poverty guideline amount (not fixed at the FY2002 level).] 4. Shelter Costs a. Households are entitled to an a. No provision. “excess shelter expense deduction” for a portion of their shelter expenses (if they are very high in relation to their income). As with the standard deduction (see above), this deduction reduces households’ counted income (thereby increasing benefits) and can affect eligibility determinations. The amount that may be claimed as an excess shelter expense deduction is “capped” for households without an elderly/disabled member. The cap is indexed for inflation, and, for FY2002, it is $354 a month for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, $566 for Alaska, $477 for Hawaii, $416 for Guam, and $279 for the Virgin Islands. [Section 5(e)(7) of the FSA] a. Increases the cap on the amount that a. No provision affecting the cap may be claimed as an excess shelter on excess shelter expense expense deduction. For FY2003, the deductions. cap would rise to $390 a month for the 48 states and the District of Columbia (with commensurate increases for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands). For FY2004-FY2009, each amount would be annually adjusted for inflation. Effective with FY2010, all caps would be eliminated. [Section 169(c)] CRS-107 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 b. By regulation, only payments b. No provision. directly related to shelter may be counted when calculating the excess shelter expense deduction. b. Mandates that any required payment b. No provision as to payments to a landlord be treated as a shelter to landlords. cost — without regard to the specific charge it covers. [Section 414] c. States may develop (and must document) a shelter “allowance — not c. No provision. to exceed $143 a month — that homeless households not in free shelter throughout the month can use (like a deduction) when their income is calculated for benefit purposes. [Section 5(e)(5) of the FSA] c. Permits homeless households not c. Adopts Senate provision as to receiving free shelter throughout the homeless households. month to claim a standard deduction [Section 4105] from income ($143 a month) — in lieu of a shelter expense deduction. Repeals the current shelter “allowance.” [Section 414] d. “Standard utility allowances” (SUAs) are used to figure shelter costs d. No provision. for the excess shelter expense deduction. States may make their use mandatory for all households. SUAs may not be used for households that (1) live in certain centrally metered public housing or (2) share expenses with others (unless expenses are prorated). [Section 5(e)(7) of the FSA] d. Allows states choosing to make d. Adopts Senate provision as to SUAs mandatory to do so for all SUAs. households incurring heating or [Section 4104] cooling expenses — without regard to the current metered public housing and expense pro-rating rules. [Section 415] 6. Calculating Earned Income By regulation, whenever income is No provision. received on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, the state must convert it to a monthly amount — by multiplying weekly income by 4.3 and bi-weekly income by 2.15 or using the state’s Eases some administrative and No provision. reporting requirements on program operators and recipients by allowing states more leeway in how they convert weekly/bi-weekly income to monthly amounts — as long as they CRS-108 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 public assistance conversion standard. 7. Establishing Deductions By regulation, states must adjust No provision. households’ benefits for most changes in circumstances/ expenses that affect the amount of deductions (and thereby benefits) they may receive. 8. Resources (Assets) Eligible households are limited to No provision. those with total counted liquid resources (assets) of $2,000 (or $3,000 for households with elderly members). Resources that are excluded include items such as: a household’s home and personal belongings/ furnishings, life insurance, income-producing property, some retirement accounts, and (to a varying degree) the value of vehicles. [Section 5(g) of the FSA] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 make adjustments to ensure costneutrality. [Section 416] Lifts significant administrative and reporting requirements on program operators and recipients by allowing states to disregard many changes in household circumstances/expenses that affect the amount of deductions they may claim — until the household’s next eligibility redetermination. [Section 417] Adopts Senate provision allowing states to disregard many changes in household circumstances/expenses. [Section 4106] Adds households with disabled Adopts Senate provision as to members to those covered by the households with disabled $3,000 asset limit. [Section 171(c)] members. [Section 4107] Allows states to conform food stamp resource (asset) rules with those of other major assistance programs and lift some administrative requirements on program operators and recipients by permitting states to exclude any types of resources they do not consider when judging eligibility under their TANF or Medicaid programs — with exceptions set by the Secretary. [Section 418] Adopts Senate provision permitting states to exclude resources they do not consider under their TANF or Medicaid programs. [Section 4107] CRS-109 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 9. Issuance Systems in Disasters. Emergency food stamp benefits are No provision. required in the case of disasters. Benefits can be issued through coupon allotments or electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems.[Section 5(h) of the FSA] Allows the Secretary to issue disaster Adopts Senate provision as to assistance in the form of cash when disaster assistance. ot her issuance system s are [Section 4108] impracticable. [Section 419] 10. Reporting Requirements for Households. With some exceptions, most recipient No provision. households must report significant changes in their circumstances as they occur, those with earnings may report every 6 months, and certain others may report quarterly. [Regulations & Waivers under Section 5(c) of the FSA] Lifts some administrative and reporting requirements on program operators and recipients by allowing states to require households to report most changes in their circumstances as infrequently as every 6 months — in lieu of other reporting requirements. [Section. 420] 11. Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) ABAWDs are ineligible if, during the No provision. preceding 36 months, they received benefits for 3 months without (1) working 20+ hours a week, (2) participating in a work program 20+ hours a week, or (3) participating in a workfare program. ABAWDs denied eligibility under this “3-months-out-of-36-months” rule can Eases work requirements for No provision. ABAWDs by: changing the “3months-out-of-36-months” rule to make ABAWDs ineligible if, during the preceding 24 months they received benefits for 6 months while not meeting 1 of the 3 work-related requirements, and by changing the rule for regaining eligibility to provide Adopts Senate provision allowing states to require reporting as infrequently as every 6 months. [Section 4109] CRS-110 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 regain it if they meet 1 of 3 workrelated requirements for a full month. Qualifying “work programs” do not include job search or job search training. [Section. 6(o) of the FSA] NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 eligibility whenever ABAWDs meet 1 of the 3 work-related requirements. Changes the definition of “work program” to include job search or job search training. [Section. 421] 12. Access through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Systems By regulation, states may take benefits No provision. provided through EBT systems “offline” after 3 months of inactivity in the recipient’s EBT account. 13. Cost of EBT Systems The cost of EBT systems must not exceed those of the prior issuance system. [Section 7(i)(2)(A) of the FSA] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 No provision. 14. Group Living Facilities a. Where recipients live in substance a. No provision. abuse treatment centers, states may require them to designate the center as their authorized representative and provide their benefits to the center. [Section 8(e) of the FSA] Requires that benefits provided No provision. through EBT systems not be made inaccessible until at least 6 months have elapsed since the recipient last accessed the EBT benefit account. [Section 422] Deletes the current EBT “cost- Adopts Senate provision deleting neutrality” requirement. cost-neutrality requirement. [Section 423] [Section 4110] a. In the case of recipients living in substance abuse treatment centers, small group homes for the disabled, or shelters for battered women/children or the homeless, permits states to use new methods of calculating and issuing standardized benefits. [Section 424] a. Allows the Secretary to authorize nationwide implementation of new methods of calculating and issuing standardized benefits for recipients in substance abuse centers, group homes for the disabled, or shelters — at the conclusion of pilot projects to test the feasibility of these new methods. [Section 4112] CRS-111 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 b. Without a waiver, group living facilities may not redeem food stamp b. No provision. benefits through direct (on-site) use of EBT cards. Recipients’ EBT cards must be presented and used at approved retail food outlets. [Sec. 10 of the FSA] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 b. Allows the Secretary to authorize group living facilities to redeem food stamp benefits through direct use of EBT cards. [Sec. 425] b. Adopts Senate provision allowing group living facilities to redeem benefits through direct use of EBT cards. [Sec. 4113] Requires that states make food stamp applications available on their Internet websites. [Section 426] Adopts Senate provision for applications on Internet websites, effective 18 months after enactment. [Section 4114] 15. Food Stamp Applications States have responsibility for No provision. developing food stamp applications.[Section 11(e)(2)(B) of the FSA] 16. Continuing Eligibility Eligible households are assigned No provision. “certification periods” of up to 12 months (or 24 months for the elderly or disabled). At the end of a certification period, specific procedures must be followed to “recertify” a household and continue issuing benefits.[Sections 3(c) & 11(e) of the FSA] Replaces assigned certification periods No provision. and rules governing recertification with new “eligibility review periods” under which states would periodically review the eligibility status of recipient households following procedures set by the state. [Section 427] [Note: These provisions would lift significant administrative requirements on program operators and recipients by allowing states to conform their method of reviewing food stamp eligibility with the method used for other major public assistance programs.] CRS-112 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 17. Transitional Food Stamp Benefits Regulations permit 3 months’ “transitional food stamp benefits” for households leaving TANF. Transitional benefits generally are adjusted for any loss of income on leaving TANF and reported changes in circumstances that would increase benefits. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 Lifts significant administrative and reporting requirements of program operators and recipients by explicitly permitting states to provide expanded transitional food stamp benefits to households leaving TANF. Food stamps could automatically be continued for 6 months at the level the household was receiving immediately prior to leaving TANF. [Section 403] Same as the House bill, except that (similar to current policy) transitional benefits would be adjusted upward for the loss of TANF cash aid or any reported changes in household circumstances that would increase food stamp benefits. [Section 429] Permits states to provide transitional food stamp benefits to households leaving TANF for up to 5 months. The transitional benefit amount is the amount received prior to leaving TANF, adjusted for loss of TANF income and (at state option) for information received from another program in which the household participates. [Section 4115] 18. Notices to Retailers “Adverse action” notices must be No provision. delivered to retailers by certified mail or personal service. [Section 14(a)(2) of the FSA] Permits notices to be delivered to Adopts Senate provision as to retailers by any form of delivery that notices to retailers. provides evidence of delivery. [Section 4117] [Section 430] 19. Quality Control (QC) System & Bonus Payments a. The Food Stamp program’s QC system measures the degree to which states make erroneous benefit and eligibility decisions. State “error rates” reported from annual QC sample surveys are used to (1) provide financial rewards to states with very a. Same as the House bill, except that it reduces, then ends, added federal funding for states with error rates below 6%, and requires the Secretary to conduct annual “investigations” of states with error rates above the new (higher) threshold and fine them if a. Substantially changes the QC system as it relates to fiscal sanctions by raising the threshold above which states are sanctioned to the national average error rate, plus 1 percentage point. Requires a statistical adjustment to individual state error a. Ends added federal funding for states with error rates below 6%. Raises the threshold above which states are held liable to 105% of the national average. Requires a statistical adjustment to individual state error rates that CRS-113 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 low error rates and (2) assess fiscal sanctions on states having high error rates. Each year, states with total error rates below 6% receive added federal matching money for administration. States with error rates above the national average are assessed fiscal sanctions based on how far above the national average they are. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 rates that effectively lowers all state they are found to be seriously error rates. Provides that sanctions negligent in their administration of the will not be assessed until a state has Food Stamp program. [Section 431] been above the new (higher) threshold for 3 consecutive years. Sanctions states based on how far they are above a 10% error rate in the 3rd year. [Section 404] NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 effectively lowers all state error rates. Effectively penalizes only states with persistent (over 3 years) high error rates. Makes states liable for amounts equal to 10% of the value of erroneous benefits above 6% , calculated for the 2nd consecutive year in which a state exceeds the threshold. Authorizes the Secretary to resolve states’ liability amounts by (1) requiring them to invest up to 50% of the amount in administrative improvements, (2) placing up to 50% of the amount “at risk” for collection in the next year, or (3) waiving any amount. If a state fails to reduce its error rate for a 3rd consecutive year, the “at-risk” amount is collected. [Section 4118] b. The Secretary has established a b. No provision policy whereby assessed sanctions are reduced for states serving high proportions of households with earners or non-citizens (“error-prone” households). b. Establishes in law a requirement to b. No provision. adjust all states’ error rates to account for high proportions of error-prone households. [Section 431] c. Federal reviews of QC error-rate c. No provision. c. Changes current-law deadlines to c. Adopts Senate provision CRS-114 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 determinations and arbitration of federal-state differences must be completed by the end of March each year. By the end of April, final QC error rates must be determined and states notified. [Section 16(c)(8) of the FSA] d. QC provisions provide additional f e d e r a l fu n d i n g ( “ e n h a n c e d administrative cost-sharing”) for states with error rates below 6%. d. Requires the Secretary to measure states’ performance with respect to (1) compliance with deadlines for prompt determination of eligibility and the issuance of benefits and (2) the percentage of negative eligibility decisions that are made correctly. Each year, requires the Secretary to make “excellence bonus payments” of $1 million each to (1) the 5 states with the highest combined performance in the 2 measures noted above and (2) the 5 states whose combined performance in the 2 measures is most improved. Retains funding for states with error rates below 6%. [Section 404] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 May 31st and June 30th. [Section 432] changing deadlines. [Section 4119] d. Requires the Secretary to measure states’ performance with respect to (1) serving working poor households with children and (2) 4 additional measures set by the Secretary in consultation with the National Governors Association, the American Public Human Services Association, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. Each year, requires the Secretary to make “high performance bonus payments” totaling $6 million for each of the 5 measures noted above. Reduces, then ends funding for states with error rates below 6%. [Section 433] d. Requires the Secretary to measure states’ performance with respect to (1) actions taken to correct errors, reduce rates of error, and improve eligibility determinations and (2) other indicators of effective administration determined by the Secretary. Requires the Secretary to make performance bonus payments totaling $48 million a year to states that meet the Secretary’s standards for high or most improved performance. Ends added federal funding for states with error rates below 6%. [Section 4120] 20. Grants for Simple Application and Eligibility Systems and Improved Access to Benefits No provision. Requires the Secretary to spend up to Authorizes grants to states and other Requires the Secretary to spend $9.5 million a year to pay states the entities to pay the federal share (75%) up to $5 million a year to make CRS-115 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 full cost of developing and implementing simple application and eligibility determination systems. [Section 405] of the cost of projects to improve access to food stamp benefits or outreach to eligible individuals. Authorizes appropriations totaling $3 million. [Section 438] grants to states and other entities covering the full cost of projects to (1) improve program access for eligible households or (2) develop and implement simple food stamp application and eligibility determination systems. [Section 4116] a. Extends the requirement for unmatched federal funding for E&T programs through FY2011. Sets the amount at the current FY2002 level (a total of $165 million a year). [Section 406(a)] a. Extends the requirement for unmatched federal funding for E&T programs through FY2006. Sets the amount at $90 million a year, available until expended. Rescinds the unspent carryover balance. a. Extends the requirement for unmatched federal E&T funding at $90 million a year through FY2007. Rescinds the unspent carryover balance. [Section 4121] b. States must use at least 80% of their b. No provision. total allocation of unmatched federal funds for services to ABAWDs. b. In addition to the $90 million noted above, provides up to $25 million a year for services to ABAWDs. Eliminates the current-law “80%” requirement for services to ABAWDs. b. Adopts Senate provisions (1) for funding of ABAWD services (but limits it to $20 million a year) and (2) eliminating the “80%” requirement. [Section 4121] c. To receive a portion of their federal c. No provision. funds allocation (e.g., $75 million in FY2002), states must maintain their E&T spending at the FY1996 level. c. Eliminates the current-law c. Adopts Senate provision “maintenance of effort” requirement. eliminating the “maintenance of effort” requirement. [Section 4121] 21. Employment and Training (E&T) Programs a. Through FY2002, food stamp law requires unmatched federal funding for E&T programs for food stamp recipients. For each year, specific amounts are provided (e.g., a total of $165 million for FY2002). Unmatched money is available until expended (about $300 million is now unspent). CRS-116 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 d. The Secretary may set specific d. No provision. dollar amounts that the federal government will pay for each E&T program placement. d. Ends the Secretary’s authority to set per-placement funding amounts. d. Adopts Senate provision ending authority to set perplacement funding amounts. [Section 4121] e. Federal matching funds are provided e. No provision. for non-child-care E&T participant support costs (e.g., transportation) — i.e., half of all costs up to half of $25 per person per month. e. Eliminates current-law limits on e. Adopts Senate provision federal funding for participant support eliminating limits on funding for costs. participant support costs. [Section 4121] [Section 6(d) & 16(h) of the FSA] [Sections 169(c) & 434] [Section 4121] Makes explicit states’ ability to use TANF funds for food stamp informational (“outreach”) activities. [Section 436] No provision. [Note: A federal guidance is to be issued to notify states of their ability to use TANF funds for food stamp informational activities.] [Section 406(a)] 22. Food Stamp Informational Activities States may be barred from using No provision. TANF funds to conduct food stamp informational (“outreach”) activities. [Section 16(k) of the FSA] 23. Pilot Project Waivers The Secretary may grant waivers from No provision. Food Stamp Act rules when carrying out pilot projects. This authority is unclear for pilot projects implemented by non-federal entities. [Section 17 of the FSA] Makes clear that the Secretary may Adopts Senate provision on grant waivers from federal food stamp granting of waivers. rules in all pilot projects, regardless of [Section 4123] the entity that implements them. [Section 437] CRS-117 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 24. Reauthorization Expiring at the end of FY2002 are: Extends expiring authorities through Extends expiring authorities through Extends expiring authorities — appropriations authorizations for FY2011. FY2006. through FY2007 — except for the Food Stamp program and the Food [Section 406] [Section 435] the authority for outreach pilot Distribution Program on Indian projects (see Item #20 above for Reservations; similar authority). [Section — authority to reduce administrative 4122] cost payments to states by $197 million a year; — authority for a limited number of pilot projects granting cash food stamp benefits; and — authority for outreach pilot projects. [Section 18(a), 16(k), 17(b), & 17(i) of the FSA] 25. Puerto Rico and American Samoa a. In lieu of regular food stamp program, Puerto Rico receives an annual nutrition block grant, authorized through FY2002. It covers all benefits costs and 50% of any administrative costs and is annually indexed for food price inflation. FY2002 grant amount is $1,350,518,000. [Section 19 of FSA] a. Extends Puerto Rico’s block grant through FY2011, retaining annual inflation indexing. Also permits Puerto Rico to use up to $6 million of its FY2002 grant to pay costs of upgrading electronic systems without matching the amount. [Section 406(f)] a. Consolidates nutrition assistance grant funding for Puerto Rico and American Samoa. Mandates the consolidated grant through FY2006. The base consolidated grant is $1.356 billion (FY2002). It is then adjusted for food-price inflation beginning with FY2003. Puerto Rico’s annual share is 99.6%. Like House bill, permits Puerto Rico to use up to $6 million in FY2002 for costs of upgrading electronic systems. [Section 439] a. Consolidates nutrition assistance grant funding for Puerto Rico and American S amoa. Mandat es t he consolidated grant through FY2007. The base consolidated grant is $1.401 billion (FY2003). It is then adjusted for food-price inflation beginning with FY2004. Puerto Rico’s annual share is 99.6%. Permits Puerto Rico to use of to $6 million of its CRS-118 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 FY2002 grant (in either FY2002 or FY2003) for costs of upgrading electronic systems. Allows Puerto Rico to carry over up to 2% of any year’s grant to the following year. [Section 4124] b. American Samoa receives annual grant covering all expenditures for its general nutrition assistance program. The grant is authorized through FY2002 at $5.3 million a year. [Section 24 of the FSA] b. Extends American Samoa’s grant through FY2011. Increases it to $5.75 million for FY2002 and $5.8 million for later years. [Section 406(g) & (j)] 2 6 . V i t a mi n a n d Mi n e r a l Supplements Food stamp benefits can be used only No provision. to purchase food items (or, in some cases, prepared meals). [Section 3(g) of the FSA] 27. Noncitizens a. Children — Legal permanent a. No provision. residents who were living in the U.S. as of August 22, 1996, and who are under age 18 are eligible for food stamps. b. American Samoa’s share is .4% of each year’s new consolidated grant. b. American Samoa’s share is Its current grant is repealed. [Section .4% of each year’s new 439] consolidated grant; may carry over up to 2% of any year’s grant to the next year. Its current grant is repealed. [Section 4124] Permits the use of food stamp benefits No provision. to purchase dietary supplements that “provide exclusively one or more vitamins or minerals.” Requires a report on the effects of this new provision. [Section 445] a. Makes legal permanent residents under age 18 eligible for food stamps regardless of their date of entry. Also exempts them from requirements that their sponsor’s financial resources be deemed to them in determining food a. Adopts Senate provisions as to legal permanent residents under age 18 — effective October 1, 2003. [Section 4401(b)] CRS-119 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 stamp eligibility. [Section 452(a)] b. Work history requirement — Legal permanent residents with a substantial work history (defined as 40 quarters, or 10 years) are eligible for food stamps. b. No provision. b. Reduces the work history b. No provision. requirement to 16 quarters (4 years). [Section 452(b)] c. Humanitarian cases — Asylees, c. No provision. refugees, Cuban/ Haitian entrants, certain aliens whose deportation/removal is being withheld for humanitarian reasons, and Vietnam-born Amerasians fathered by U.S. citizens are eligible for food stamps for 7 years after entry/grant of status. d. Disability benefit recipients — d. No Provision Legal permanent residents who were living in the U.S. as of August 22, 1996, and who are receiving federal disability benefits are eligible for food stamps. c. Removes the 7-year limit on c. No provision. [Note: The new eligibility for humanitarian cases. 5-year residence rule described [Section 452(c)] below has the effect of removing the 7-year limit.] d. Makes eligible disabled legal permanent residents receiving federal disability benefits — without regard to their date of entry. [Section 452(d)] d. Adopts Senate provision as to disabled legal permanent residents receiving federal disability benefits — effective October 1, 2002. [Section 4401(a)] e. Makes eligible individuals who have continuously resided in the U.S. legally for a period of 5 years (e.g., as legal permanent residents, refugees/asylees, but not as temporary residents). This new 5-year residence e. Makes eligible individuals who have resided in the U.S. legally for a period of 5 years (e.g., as legal permanent residents, refugees/asylees, but not as temporary residents) — e. No provision. e. No provision. [Section 402(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996] CRS-120 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 rule would not apply in the case of effective April 1, 2003. [Section aliens who entered the country 4401(c)] illegally and remain illegally for 1 year or more (or who have been “illegal aliens” for 1 year or more), unless they have continuously resided in the U.S. for 5 years as of enactment. [Section 170(b) & (c)] [Note: The changes made for children in item (a) above would be effective beginning in FY2004. The 5-year residence rule noted in item (e) above would be effective April 2003.] B. Commodity Assistance Programs The Food Stamp Act (FSA), the Title IV of the Farm Security Act of Title IV of the Agriculture, Title IV of the Farm Security and Emergency Food Assistance Act, and 2001. Conservation and Rural Enhancement Rural Investment Act of 2002. the Agriculture and Consumer Act of 2001. Protection Act of 1973 1. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) a. Commodity Purchases - From amounts available under the Food Stamp Act, the Secretary is required to use $100 million a year through FY2002 to purchase commodities for TEFAP. [Section 27 of the FSA] a. Extends the purchase requirement through FY2011; raises the amount to $140 million a year beginning in FY2002 and requires the Secretary to use $10 million a year to pay for costs related to processing, storing, transporting and distributing commodities. [Section 406(i) & (j)] a. Extends the purchase requirement through FY2006 and raises the amount to $110 million a year beginning in FY2002. Same as House bill with respect to $10 million set aside for processing, storing, transport and distribution costs. [Section 441] [Note: Section 166 of the Senate a. Extends the purchase requirement through FY2007 and raises the amount to $140 million a year beginning in FY2002. [Section 4126] [Note: The $40 million in CRS-121 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 b. Administrative/distribution costs$50 million a year is authorized through FY2002 for the costs of administering the program and distributing commodities. [Section 204(a) of the Emergency Food Assistance Act] 2. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and commodity authorities. a. Expirations. Expiring at the end of FY2002 are: authority for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), requirements to provide cheese and nonfat dry milk to the CSFP, requirements for commodity processing agreements, and general authority to obtain commodities to maintain traditional levels of support for various commodity distribution activities. [Sections 4 & 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973; Section 1114(a)(2) of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981] HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 b. In addition to $10 million setaside noted above, extends through FY2011, the $50 million authorization for administrative and distribution costs. [Section 443] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 amendment requires the Secretary to buy not less than $40 million a year in additional commodities for TEFAP each year through FY2006.] additional commodities in Section 166 of the Senate amendment is not included in the conference agreement.] b. Same as the House bill, except the b. Extends the authorization for authorization is extended through administrative and distribution 2006. [Section 451(d)] costs through FY2007 and raises the authorized amount to $60 million a year. [Section 4204] a. Extends expiring CSFP and a. Extends expiring CSFP and commodity authorities/requirements commodity authorities/requirements through FY2011. [Sections 441 & through FY2006. [Section 451] 442] b. CSFP Administrative Costs: The b. No provision b. Replaces the current limit on a. Extends expiring CSFP and commodity authorities/ requirements through FY2007. Also requires the Secretary to provide funds to permit Montana and Vermont to continue to participate in the CSFP at their originally assigned (FY2000) caseload levels through the FY2002 “caseload cycle.” [Sections 4201 & 4203] b. Replaces the current limit on CRS-122 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 Secretary is required to pay the CSFP administrative costs of state/local agencies — but may not use more than 20% of the CSFP appropriations. [Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 administrative payments with a requirement for “grants per caseload slot.” Requires the Secretary to provide each state a grant per assigned caseload slot set — set by law at $50, indexed beginning in FY2003. [Section 451] administrative payments with a requirement for “grants per caseload slot.” Requires the Secretary to provide each state a grant per assigned caseload slot — set at the FY2001 actual amount, indexed for FY2003 and following years. [Section 4201(b)] 3. Use of Approved Food Safety Technology No provision. No provision. Bars the Secretary from prohibiting the Adopts Senate provision, with use of “any technology that has been technical changes. [Section approved by the Secretary or the 4201(b)(3) & (d)] Secretary of Health and Human Services” in acquiring commodities for distribution through domestic nutrition programs. [Section 442] No provision. Provides that any commodities Adopts Senate provision on use acquired in the conduct of Commodity of commodities. [Section 4202] Credit Corporation (CCC) operations and any “Section 32” commodities may be used for any domestic feeding program. Covered domestic programs include: TEFAP, and programs 4. Use of Commodities for Domestic Feeding Programs No provision. CRS-123 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 authorized under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, the Older Americans Act, or other laws the Secretary determines appropriate. This authority would apply to the extent that the commodities involved are in excess of those needed to carry out other obligations (including quantities otherwise reserved for specific purposes). [Section 457] C. Child Nutrition Programs Richard B. Russell National School Title IV of the Farm Security Act of Title IV of the Agriculture, Title IV of the Farm Security and Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act of 2001 Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Rural Investment Act of 2002 1966 Act of 2001 1. Commodities for the School Lunch Program Beginning with FY2002, any No provision. commodities supplied to the School Lunch program are to be counted in meeting the requirement that 12% of all federal school lunch support (cash + commodities) be in the form of commodities. This would include commodities provided to meet the entitlement (15 cents in value per lunch) and “bonus” commodities Delays until FY2004, the date by Adopts Senate which bonus commodities supplied to [Section 4301] the School Lunch program will count toward the 12% requirement — in effect, mandating that only entitlement commodities count toward meeting the requirement until then. This was the case under pre-FY2002 law. [Section 453] provision. CRS-124 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 [Note: Section 166 of the Senate amendment requires the Secretary to provide at least $50 million a year through FY2006 to the Defense Department (DoD) for the purchase and distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables to schools and institutions participating in child nutrition programs.] [Note: Section 10603 of the conference agreement provides for at least $50 million a year in fresh fruit and vegetable purchases (through the DoD) for schools and institutions in child nutrition programs.] a. Through FY2003, requires that, in cases where military personnel live in [Note: H.R. 3216 — passed by the “privatized” housing, their housing House on December 11, 2001 — allowance will not be counted in contains the provision included in determining eligibility for free and the Senate amendment.] reduced-price school meals. [Section 454] a. Adopts Senate provision as to school meal eligibility and military personnel in “privatized” housing. [Section 4302] provided at the Secretary’s discretion from stocks acquired to support the agricultural economy. [Section 6(e)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act] 2. Eligibility for Free and ReducedPrice School Meals and WIC Benefits: Military Housing a. School meals — All military housing allowances reported on leave and earnings statements are counted as income in determining eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals. The value of on-base (free) housing is not. In the case of “privatized” military housing — where formerly free housing is converted to privately operated housing (or families are moved from free housing to privately operated housing) and military personnel are given a housing allowance to pass on to the housing operator — the allowance is counted. [Regulations under Section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act] a. No Provision CRS-125 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 b. The WIC program — In b. No provision. determining income eligibility for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program), state may choose to exclude any housing allowance received by military personnel residing “off-base.” [Section 17(d)(2)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act] 3. Funding for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program No comparable provision. [Note: No provision. Budget documents indicate that $11 million will be made available for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program in FY2002. For FY2003, no money was requested for the program.] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 b. Adds an option for states to exclude any housing allowance provided to military personnel living in on-base “privatized” housing. [Section 455] b. Adopts Senate provision as to WIC eligibility and military personnel in “privatized” housing. [Section 4306] Makes available an additional $15 Adopts Senate provision for the million in mandatory funding for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program. [Section 4307] program — no later than 30 days after enactment. [Section 460] D. Special Projects 1. Nutrition Clearinghouse No provision. Education No provision. Requires the Secretary to establish (on No provision. [Note: In March the Department’s website) a nutrition 2002, the Department established education clearinghouse. [Section 428] a website that features a clearinghouse for nutrition education initiatives.] 2. Community Food Projects Through FY2002, the Secretary is Extends authority for community Extends authority for community food Extends authority for community CRS-126 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 authorized to make grants to private nonprofit entities for “community food projects.” Funding is reserved from Food Stamp Act appropriations. And grants may not exceed a total of $2.5 million a year. [Section 25 of the FSA] HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 food project grants through FY2011. Increases the amount reserved to $7.5 million a year. [Section 406(h) & (j)] project grants through FY2006. Maintains the amount reserved at $2.5 million a year. Increases the federal share of project costs from 50% to 75%. Modifies the list of projects that must be given preference for grants. [Section 440] food project grants through FY2007. Increases the amount reserved to $5 million a year. Modifies the list of goals that projects are designed to achieve and the list of projects that must be given preference for grants. Requires that the Secretary contract with (or make a grant to) a non-governmental organization to coordinate with federal agencies, states and political subdivisions, and nongovernmental organizations to gather information (and make recommendations)about innovative programs for addressing “common community problems” — including loss of farms, rural poverty, welfare dependency, hunger, the need for job training, and individuals’ and communities’ need for selfsufficiency. Reserves $200,000 a year (from the $5 million a year total provided for community food projects) for this initiative. [Section 4125] 3. Innovative Programs Addressing Common Community Problems No provision. No provision. Requires the Secretary to contract with Adopts provisions comparable to CRS-127 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 a non-governmental organization to Senate provisions in Section recommend innovative programs for 4125 (see Community Food addressing “common community Projects, Item #2 above). problems” — including loss of farms, rural poverty, welfare dependency, hunger, the need for job training, juvenile crime, and individuals’ and communities’ need for selfsufficiency. Makes available $400,000 for the contract. [Section 443] 4. Report on Electronic Benefit Transfer Systems No provision. No provision. 5. Report on Conversion of the WIC Program into an Individual Entitlement Program No provision. No provision. Requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress on EBT systems (e.g., difficulties relating to their use, fraud, efforts to address difficulties). [Section 444] Adopts Senate provisions for a report on EBT systems and revises and expands the elements to be included in the report. [Section 4111] No later than December 31, 2002, No provision. requires a report from the Secretary — to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry — that analyzes conversion of the WIC program from CRS-128 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 a discretionary program into an individual entitlement program. [Section 456] 6. Purchases of Locally Produced Foods No provision. 7. Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program Using funding available under Commodity Credit Corporation authorities, a Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program was instituted by the Secretary in January 2001. Initial No provision. For FYs 2002-2011, authorizes a Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program and requires the Secretary to support it with $15 million a year from Commodity Credit Corporation Requires Secretary to encourage the purchase of locally produced foods in school meal programs and authorizes appropriations for start-up grants ($400,000 a year) to defray costs incurred in carrying out this policy. [Section 458] Adopts Senate provisions as to the purchase of locally produced foods. [Section 4303] For FYs 2002-2006, requires the Secretary to carry out and expand a Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program. Provides mandatory funding of $15 million a year. Authorizes the Adopts the House provision as to the Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program, but (1) reduces the FY2002 amount to $5 million and (2) authorizes the In ad d ition, adopt s an amendment to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act that requires — to the maximum extent practicable — school food authorities to purchase commodities or food products that are produced in Puerto Rico in sufficient quantities to meet their meal program needs. [Section 4304] CRS-129 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 funding was set at $15 million. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 funds. Authorizes the Secretary to Secretary to issue regulations to carry program through issue regulations to carry out the out the program. [Section 4402] program. [Section 925] [Section 459] FY2007. Under the FY2002 Agriculture Department appropriations law, $10 million is provided as a direct [Note: These provisions are located appropriation for a Seniors Farmers’ in Title IX of the House measure.] Market Nutrition program. This amount may be supplemented with support from the Commodity Credit Corporation. 8. Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program No provision. No provision. 9. Congressional Hunger Fellows Program Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships are provided through the Congressional Hunger Center and given funding through annual Agriculture Department appropriations laws (e.g., $2.496 million in FY2002). In the 2002-2003 school year, requires the Secretary to use “Section 32” funds to conduct and evaluate a pilot program to make free fruit and vegetables available to elementary and secondary school students. Provides $200,000 for the pilot. [Section 461] Adopts Senate provision with technical changes; increases funding to $6 million. [Section 4305] Establishes — as an independent Same as the House bill, with minor Adopts the House provision, agency of the legislative branch — and technical differences. [Section with minor and technical the Congressional Hunger Fellows 462] revisions. [Section 4404] Program to offer fellowships that provide training and placements with domestic and international policy development organizations. The purposes of the program are to: encourage careers in humanitarian CRS-130 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 Authorizes a 15-state pilot program to increase domestic consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. The federal share of project costs would be 50%, and $25 million a year is authorized to be appropriated for the projects. [Section 463] Adopts Senate provision, with revisions reducing the number of states in which the pilot will operate to 5 and lowering the appropriations authorization to $10 million a year. [Section 4403] service; recognize the needs of poor and hungry persons; provide aid to those in need, increase awareness of the importance of public service, and provide training and development opportunities for future leaders. The program would be funded from the earnings of a trust fund invested in federal securities (an $18 million appropriation is authorized) and gifts. [Section 461] 10. Nutrition Information and Awareness Pilot Program. No provision. No provision. E. Effective Dates and Cost Estimates Effective Dates Generally effective October 1, 2002. Generally effective September 1, 2002 Adopts House [Section 462] — except that states may choose not [Section 4405] to implement provisions until October 1, 2002. [Section 464] provision. Cost Estimates 10-year CBO estimates (April 2001 10-year CBO estimates (April 2001 10-year CBO estimates (April “baseline”) “baseline”) 2001 “baseline”) Title IV: $3.65 billion (budget Title IV: $8.31 billion (budget Title IV: $6.40 billion (budget CRS-131 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 authority); $3.64 billion (outlays). Food stamp program: $3.18 billion (budget authority); $3.17 billion (outlays). Commodity assistance programs (TEFAP): $400 million (budget authority); $398 million (outlays). Child nutrition programs: No provisions. Special projects (community food projects, senior farmers’ markets): $223 million (budget authority); $215 million (outlays). [Note: $150 million of these amounts is attributable to senior farmers’ market provisions in Title IX.] authority); $8.89 billion (outlays). Food stamp program: $8.01 billion (budget authority); $8.59 billion (outlays). Commodity assistance programs (TEFAP): $300 million (budget authority); $298 million (outlays). [Note: $200 million of these amounts is attributable to TEFAP commodity purchases called for under Title I.] Child nutrition programs (commodity purchases & WIC farmers’ markets): $115 million (budget authority/outlays). [Note: This amount does not include special DoD fruit & vegetable purchases provided for in Title I ($50+ million a year).] Special projects (community food projects, senior farmers’ markets, fruit & vegetable pilots): $85 million (budget authority); $90 million (outlays). authority); $6.97 (outlays). Food stamp program: $5.72 billion (budget authority); $6.29 billion (outlays). Commodity assistance programs (TEFAP & CSFP): $401 million (budget authority/outlays). Child nutrition programs (commodity purchases & WIC farmers’ markets): $115 million (budget authority/ outlays). [Note: This amount does not include special DoD fruit & vegetable purchases provided for in Title I ($50+ million a year).] Special projects (community food projects, senior farmers’ markets, fruit & vegetable pilots): $168 million (budget authority/outlays). 6-year CBO estimates (April 2001 6-year CBO estimates (April 2001 6-year CBO estimates (April “baseline”) “baseline”) 2001 “baseline”): Title IV: $1.94 billion (budget authority; $1.92 billion (outlays). Food stamp program: $1.65 billion (budget authority/outlays). Commodity assistance programs (TEFAP): $240 million (budget Title IV: $3.11 billion (budget authority); $3.63 billion (outlays). Food stamp program: $2.85 billion (budget authority); $3.37 billion (outlays). Commodity assistance programs Title IV: $2.66 billion (budget authority); $3.17 billion (outlays). Food stamp program: $2.19 billion (budget authority); $2.71 billion (outlays). CRS-132 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 authority); $238 million (outlays). Child nutrition programs: No provisions. Special projects (community food projects, senior farmers’ markets): $118 million (budget authority); $110 million (outlays). [Note: $75 million of these amounts is attributable senior farmers’ market provisions in Title IX). (TEFAP): $260 million (budget authority); $258 million (outlays). [Note: $200 million of these amounts is to TEFAP commodity purchases under Title I.] NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 Commodity assistance programs (TEFAP & CSFP): $241 million (budget authority/outlays). Child nutrition programs (commodity purchases, WIC farmers’ markets): $115 million Child nutrition programs (commodity (budget authority/outlays). purchases, WIC farmers’ markets): Special projects (community $115 million ( b u d g e t food projects, senior farmers’ authority/outlays). markets, fruit & vegetable Special projects (community food pilots): $107 million (budget projects, senior farmers’ markets, fruit authority); $103 million & vegetable pilots): $85 million (outlays). (budget authority); $90 million (outlays). 10-year CBO estimates (March 2002 “baseline”) Title IV: $6.63 billion (budget authority); $7.02 billion (outlays). Food stamp program: $5.94 billion (budget authority); $6.34 billion (outlays). Commodity assistance programs (TEFAP & CSFP): $401 million (budget authority/ outlays). Child nutrition programs (commodity purchases, WIC farmers’ markets): $115 million (budget authority/ outlays). Special projects (community CRS-133 NUTRITION PROGRAMS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2008 food projects, senior farmers’ markets, fruit and vegetable pilots): $168 million (budget authority/outlays). 6-year CBO estimates (March 2002 “baseline”) Title IV: $2.79 billion (budget authority); $3.18 billion (outlays). Food stamp program: $2.33 billion (budget authority); $2.72 billion (outlays). Commodity assistance programs (TEFAP & CSFP): $241 million (budget authority/ outlays). Child nutrition programs (commodity purchases, WIC farmers’ markets): $115 million (budget authority/outlays). Special projects (community food projects, senior farmers’ markets, fruit & vegetable pilots): $108 million (budget authority); $103 million (outlays). CRS-134 V. FARM CREDIT FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Con Act) HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Title V, Farm Security Act of 2001 Title V, Agriculture Conservation, Rural Enhancement Act of 2001 Title V, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. a. Expands direct loan use to include refinancing of a “bridge” loan taken out if a person was approved for a USDA loan, but is waiting on available funds. [Section. 502] a. Senate provision with an amendment allowing refinance for all farmers or ranchers, not just beginning farmers or ranchers. [Section 5002] A. Farm Ownership/Real Estate Loans 1. General Provisions a. Currently, if a person qualifies for a No provision. farm ownership loan from USDA after all of USDA’s funds have been allocated, the person must wait to receive USDA funds until: the next fiscal year; enactment of a supplemental funding bill; or, until funds are re-allocated from another state. [Section 303(a)(1)] b. Purposes for which USDA may b. Allows USDA to make or No provision. make and guarantee loans. [Section guarantee loans for value-added or 310B(a)] processing projects. [Section 523] b. No provision 2. Eligibility a. Requires persons to have No provision. “operated” a farm for at least three years in order to receive a loan from USDA. [Section. 302(b)(1)] b. USDA cannot make a down b. No provision payment loan if a farmer receives other a. Expands eligibility to persons who have “participated in the business operations of” a farm. [Section 501] b. Changes time limit to 20 years [Section 507(2)] a. Senate provision [Section 5001] b. Senate provision amended to make time limit 15 years. CRS-135 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 financing requiring a balloon payment within 10 years (Section 310E(c)(3)(B)] SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 [Section 5005(2)] 3. Beginning Farmers a. Sets $200,000 limit on amount No provision. USDA may lend and $700,000 limit on the amount USDA may guarantee to a borrower [Section 305(a)] a. Sets $250,000 limitation on farm a. No provision ownership loan by USDA for a beginning farmer. [Section 503] b. Sets Interest rate terms on real estate loans. [Sec 307(a)] No provision. b. Sets interest rates for beginning b. No provision farmers 50 basis points below other borrowers. [Section 504] c. Permits but does not require USDA to guarantee up to 95% of a down payment loan for a beginning farmer. [Section 309(h)(6)] No provision. c. Requires USDA to guarantee c. No provision 95%. [Section 505] d. State loans guarantee. No Provision No provision. d. Adds Section 309(j) to the Con d. Senate provision [Section Act to allow USDA to guarantee 5004] loans made under a State beginning farmer program. [Section 506] e. Allows USDA to make loans to Raises loan period to up to 15 years. e. Raises percentage to up to 40% e. Adopts Senate percentage qualified beginning farmers for down [Section 515] and time up to 20 years. [Section (40%) and House loan period (15 payments on farm ownership loans at 507] years). [Section 5005(1)] up to 30% of the farm’s value and for CRS-136 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 f. Adds Section 310F requiring USDA to carry out a pilot program in at least 10 states with up to five borrowers per state in each year FY2003-2006, to guarantee ownerfinanced loans made to a beginning farmer. [Section 508] f. Senate provision amended to require a pilot program in at least 5 states if the Secretary determines risk of guarantees is similar to risk in commercial lenders’ guarantees. Authorizes program for FY20032007.[Section 5006] up to 10 years. [Section 310E(b)] No provision. f. Guarantee owner-financed loans. No provision B. Operating Loans 1. General Provisions a. Allows USDA to make direct No provision. operating loans to farmers for up to seven years. [Section 311(c)] a. Allows one-time waivers for two a. Senate provision [Section years if a borrower meets certain 5101(2)] conditions. Also, waives the sevenyear limit for Indian farmers on reservations if USDA determines commercial credit is not generally available. [Section 512] b. Allows USDA to guarantee an b. Suspends 15-year limit during No provision. annual operating loan each year for up calendar years 2002-2006. [Section to 15 years to a borrower, after which 502] the borrower must graduate to commercial sources of credit. [Section 319(b)] b. House Provision [Section 5102] 2. Beginning Farmers Allows USDA to make direct operating loans to beginning farmers No provision. Removes five year limit. [Section 511] Senate Provision 5101(1)] [Section CRS-137 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 a. Guarantees on loans are set at 90%, No provision. with exceptions for refinanced loans and beginning farmer loans, which are guaranteed at 95%. [Section 309(h)] a. Adds Section 309(h)(7) to allow USDA to guarantee 95% of an operating loan made to a member of an Indian tribe for a farm within a reservation. [Section 512] a. Senate provision, revised to specify that the operating loan guarantee be for operations subject to the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.[ Section 5101(2)] b. Allows USDA to make direct operating loans to farmers for up to seven years. [Section 311(c)] b. Waives the seven-year limit for Indian farmers on reservations if USDA determines commercial credit is not generally available. [Section 512(b)] b. Senate provision amended to waive 7-year limit for operations subject to jurisdiction of an Indian tribe. [Section 5101(2)] who have operated a farm for up to five years. [Section 311(c)(1)(A)] 3. Indian Farmers No provision C. Emergency Loans Emergency loan procedures. [Section 321, 323, 324, 329] Expands eligibility for emergency No provision. loans to include plant or animal quarantines, and sharply increasing energy costs. — Allows financial assistance when energy prices during a three-month period are at least 50% greater than the average price for the preceding five years. — Allows loans of up to $500,000 due to a quarantine and $200,000 due to increased energy costs. House provision amended to provide new authority for emergency loans only for plant or animal quarantines. [Section 5201] CRS-138 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 [Section 510] D. Administrative Provisions 1. Eligibility a. Sets forth persons and entities eligible for loans and guarantees from USDA. [Secs. 302(a), 311(a), and 321(a)] a. Extends USDA loan eligibility to a. Same as House Bill. [Section limited liability companies engaged 521] in farming and controlled by farmers [Section 501] a. House provision amended to also include trusts as eligible entities. [Section 5302] b. Requires a county committee to b. Removes requirement. [Section certify in writing that an annual review 505] of borrowers’ credit history and continued eligibility for loans has been performed. [Section 333] b. Removes requirement that reviews be certified in writing. [Section 525] c. Requires a borrower to complete No provision. educational training unless the county committee determines the borrower has adequate knowledge, in order to be eligible for a direct loan from USDA. [Section 359(f)] c. Removes the requirement of the c. Senate provision [Section committee’s determination before 5316] USDA may grant a waiver, and requires USDA to set up criteria for granting a waiver. [Section 532] d. Requires Secretary to evaluate the farming plan of each applicant after the county committee has determined the applicant is eligible for a loan. [Section 360(a)] [Note: The Department of Agriculture d. Technical amendment striking the d. House provision [Section words “established pursuant to 5317] section 332 “ (which is authority for county committees that was repealed by P.L.103-354. [Section 552(d)] d. Technical amendment removing language requiring county committee to determine loan eligibility. [Section 507] b. Senate provision [Section 5306] CRS-139 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Reorganization Act of 1994 (P.L. 103354) repealed Section 332 of the Con Act, which established county committees.] e. Prohibits USDA from making a direct loan to a borrower who has received debt forgiveness. [Section 373(b)(1)] f. Eligibility for USDA employees and employees of State, county and area committees. No provision e. Amends to allow direct loans to No provision. borrowers who have not received debt forgiveness more than two times, and allow loan guarantees to borrowers who have not received debt forgiveness more than three times. [Section 519] e. Replaces House provision with provision allowing operating loans to a borrower who has received debt forgiveness not more than once due to a natural disaster designated by the President [Section 5319] f. Adds a new section (Section 377) No provision. to Subtitle D of the Con Act to allow USDA employees to obtain direct or guaranteed loans, so long as a local county office other than the applicant’s home office approves the loan application. [Section 509] f. House provision with an amendment that county or area committee employees apply to the State level and State employees apply to the Federal level. [Section 5321] 2. General Provisions a. Sets forth various loan a. Allows USDA to administer the a. No provision administration procedures. [Section certified and preferred lender 331(b)] guaranteed loan programs through central offices in states or multi-state areas. [Section 503] b. Debt Settlement. Sets forth No provision procedures for the Secretary to use in settling debts [Section 331(b)(4)] b. Deletes the provision that the Secretary may not release a borrower from a debt obligation on more favorable terms than recommended by the county committee under a. House provision amended to make authority discretionary. [Section 5309] b. Senate provision with an amendment changing the role of local or area FSA committees to one of consultation only regarding potential debt CRS-140 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Section 332. [Section 522] settlement agreements. [Section NOTE: More or less technical since 5303] Section 332 was repealed by the 1994 USDA Reorganization Act. c. Allows USDA to contract with c. Extends authority through private lenders to service loans FY2011. [Section 511] through the end of FY2002. [Section 331(d)] c. Removes Section 331(d).[Section c. Senate provision [Section 523] 5304] d. Allows USDA to use a private collection agency to collect loan obligations. [Section 331(e)] No provision. e. Requires USDA to provide a short, simplified application for guarantees of loans up to $50,000. [Section 333A(g)(1)] e. Raises amount to $150,000. [Section 504] e. Sets the amount at $100,000. [Section 526] d. Removes this authority for d. Senate Provision [Section contracts entered into after 5304] enactment of the new farm bill. [Section 523] e. Sets amount at $125,000 [Section 5307] f. Allows USDA to guarantee 80% of f. Allows USDA to guarantee less No provision. a loan made to a qualified borrower. than 80%, if a borrower’s income is [Section 339] below expenditures. [Section 506] f. No provision g. Describes the term “debt forgiveness.” [Section 343(a)(12)] g. Excludes from the definition any g. Similar to House bill. [Section write-down provided as part of a 528] resolution of a discrimination complaint against USDA. [Section 518] g. House provision [Section 5310] h. Definitions. [Section 343] h. Includes “horses” under the term “livestock.” [Section 521] h. No Provision h. No provision. CRS-141 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 i. Sets loan authorization levels and i. Removes limitation on total loan i. Authorizes total USDA loans and i. Senate provision amended to program administration. [Section 346] amounts USDA may make or guarantees up to $3.796 billion authorize for FY2002-2007. guarantee. [Section 512] annually for FY2002-6, with $770 [Section 5311] million for direct loans and $3.026 billion for guaranteed loans. [Section 169] j. Shared appreciation arrangements j. Prohibits USDA from foreclosing (SAA). [Section 353(e)] or collecting payments on SAAs until after December 31, 2002. [Section 522] j. Allows SAA borrowers an alternative to repaying the recapture amount by allowing USDA a 25year agricultural use protection and conservation easement in lieu of payment of recapture amount. [Section 531] NOTE: CBO estimates one-year FY2002 cost of $66 million for this provision j. New provision permits Secretary to modify a recapture loan on which a payment has become delinquent; reamortized loans are not to exceed 25 years and the outstanding principal or unpaid interest may not be reduced. [Section 5314] k. Reserves funding for socially k. Allows remaining, unused funds disadvantaged farmers. [Section to be reallocated to other states. 355(c)(2)] [Section 520] No provision. k. House Provision [Section 5315] l. Requires loan assessments to be l. No provision. conducted biannually to assess the progress of a borrower in meeting the goals for the farm operation. [Section 360(d)(1)] l. Changes to annual assessments. l. Senate provision [Section [Section 533] 5318] m. Making and servicing loans. No provision m. Adds a new section (Section m. No provision. 376) to Subtitle D of the Con Act to require USDA to use Farm Service Agency (FSA) county office m. House Provision [Section 5320] CRS-142 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 employees to make and service loans if personnel are trained to do so. [Section 508] n. Studies of USDA loans. No provision n. New provision directing USDA No provision. to conduct studies of direct and guaranteed loan programs to include number of loans, average principal amount, and delinquency and default rates. [Section 517] 3. Interest Rates a. Provides that the interest rate on a No provision. loan being rewritten is to be the lower of the original interest rate or the rate in effect at the time the loan is rewritten. [Section 331B] a. Provides a third option of the rate a. Senate provision [Section in effect on the date the borrower 5305] applies for servicing. [Section 524] b. Authorizes USDA to administer an b. Reauthorizes program through b. Permanent [Section 530] interest rate reduction program for FY2011. [Section 514] guaranteed loans, through FY2002. [Section 351] c. Allows USDA to make payments to No provision. a lender to reduce a borrower’s interest up to 4%; sets spending limit at $490 million. [Section 351] n. House Provision [Section 5301] reauthorization. b. Senate provision [Section 5313] c. Sets the limit for beginning farmers at 4%, and 3% for other borrowers. Increases spending to $750 million per FY and requires at least 25% of the funds to be reserved for beginning farmers until April 1 of each FY. [Section 530] c. Authorizes spending up to $750 million per fiscal year, retains current law on interest rate, and reserves at least 15% of the funds for beginning farmers until March 1 of each fiscal year. [Section 5313(2)] CRS-143 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 4. Beginning Farmers a. When USDA acquires property, No provision. within 75 days the property must be offered for sale to a beginning farmer at current market value. [Section 335(c)] b. Allows a “qualified beginning No provision. farmer” to own land in an acreage amount up to 25% of the median acreage of farms in the county. [Section 343(a)(11)] SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 a. Changes time period to 135 days, and allows USDA to combine/divide acquired properties in order to maximize opportunity for beginning farmers to purchase. Specifies that when USDA sells acquired property, it may offer to sell or grant an easement for the purpose of farmland preservation. [Section 527] a. Senate provision with amendment removing language regarding easements. [Section 5308] b. Increases acreage amount to 30%. [Section 528] b. Senate Provision [Section 5310(a)] c. Reserves 35% for FY2002-2006. c. Loans reserved for beginning c. Reserves 35% of loan amounts [Section 529] Requires $5 million c. House provision revised for farmers and ranchers. [Section for beginning farmers and ranchers of CCC funds be used for direct farm reauthorization to FY2003-2007. 346(b)(2)(A)(ii)] during FY2002-2011. [Section 513] ownership loans. [Section 169] [Section 5312] E. Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 Provides that decisions by FSA county Excludes credit decisions from the Similar to House bill [Section 551] committees become final within 90 90-day finality rule . [Section days after the date a person applies for 508(b)5] benefits. [Section 281(a)] House provision [Section 1613(i)(2)(B)] F. Farm Credit System (Farm Credit Act of 1971) a. Requires prior approval by the FCS No provision. a. Removes the requirement that a. Senate Provision [Section CRS-144 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 bank before a bank for cooperatives can purchase a loan originated by a commercial bank to an entity that can be financed by another Farm Credit System (FCS) bank. [Section 3.1(11)(B)] prior approval must be given by the 5401] FCS bank. [Section 541] b. Allows CoBank to finance the No provision export of farm machinery and other farm-related products that are intended for use on farms in foreign countries. [Section 3.7] b. Expands CoBank’s ability to lend b. Senate Provision [Section by removing the “on farm” 5402] requirement and allowing it to finance agriculture-related processing equipment and machinery and other capital goods related to storing or handling agricultural commodities. [Section 542] c. Contains provisions for premiums No provision with regard to the insurance of loans for the Farm Credit System (FCS), which has GSE status that implicitly protects against failure and reduce risk. [Section 5.55] c. Allows the FCS Insurance c. Senate Provision made Corporation to adjust premiums applicable beginning in calendar charged according to FCS’ year 2002. [Section 5403] government sponsored enterprise (GSE) status. [Section 543] d. Establishes a 15-member Board of No provision. Directors for Farmer Mac, a secondary market agricultural lender. [Section 8.2] d. Increases Board to 17 members, No Provision and makes other changes to the Board’s structure. [Section 544] G. Miscellaneous Credit and Finance Provisions 1. Horse Breeder Loans [Note: language was included in the New provision authorizing loans to No provision. No provision CRS-145 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 FY2002 Agricultural Appropriations law (P.L.107-76; Section 759(c)), providing for loans with loan terms up to 20 years.] HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Amends repayment period to 54 months. [Section 1064] Senate provision amended to extend repayment period to 36 months. [Section 10103] horse breeders to assist for losses as a result of mare reproductive loss syndrome: — at least 30% of mares failed to produce live, healthy foal; — breeder was unable to meet expenses or obtain credit elsewhere; — loan amount up to $500,000, with term up to 15 years; — loan authority expires end of FY2003. [Section 516]. Note: House bill also proposed to include horses within the meaning of livestock under the ConAct. This also was dropped by Conferees. 2. Emergency Loans for Seed Producers Producers of the 1999 crop of seed No provision. who did not receive payments from AgriBiotech as a result of bankruptcy proceedings, were eligible for nointerest loans from USDA with repayment due within 18 months. [Section 253 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, PL 106-224] 3. Family Farmer Bankruptcy Provisions No provision. Chapter 12 of Title 11 USC, sets forth Reenacts Chapter 12, effective to Extends chapter 12 provisions October 1, 2001. [Section 1071] through December 31, 2002 CRS-146 FARM CREDIT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 bankruptcy provisions for family farmers. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 [Section 10814] CRS-147 VI. RURAL DEVELOPMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 A. Rural Community Advancement Program Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). Subtitle E, 7 U.S.C. (2009 et seq.). Authorizes all RCAP loans and grants under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 (P.L.92-419), 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926(a), 1926(c), 1926(d), and 1932 except for sections 381-H, 381N and 381(0) of the 1972 Act. [FAIR Act, Section 761] [Note: RCAP integrates 13 different loan and grant program accounts into 3 funding accounts: Rural Utilities, Rural Business and Cooperative Development, and Rural Communities Facilities. RCAP permits local authorities to transfer up to 25% from one account to another. RCAP is not scored by CBO under the farm bill, but the funding streams are part of the loan and grant programs administered under USDA Rural Utilities Services (RUS), Rural Business and Cooperative Service (RBS), and Rural Housing Service (RHS). Conference appropriation agreement authorizes $940.3 million, including $133.7 million in salaries and expenses.] B. Fund for Rural America Fund for Rural America, 7 U.S.C. Not Extended 2004(f). Three program accounts: rural development, competitive research grants, and a Secretary’s discretionary fund. [FAIR Act, Section 793] [Note: FAIR authorizes the Fund for Rural America for 1997, 1999, and 2000. The Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (P.L.105-185) extends authorization through 2002 at $60 million per year. Although funds were appropriated, appropriators in both House and Senate prohibited expenditures to carry out Fund programs in 2002 as they did in FY1999.] Not Extended Repeals Fund for Rural America. [Section 6403] CRS-148 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 C. Telecommunications 1.Authorizes grants to broadcast No Provision systems. [FAIR, Section759B] Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, U.S.C. 1932(f), [Section 310B(f)] Grants to Broadcasting Systems. Senate Provision [Section 6016] Authorizes $5 million each year, FY2002-2006. [Section 632] 2. Title X of the District of Columbia Authorizes $200 million during No Provision Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L.106- FY2002-2006 for loan guarantees. 553) authorizes the Launching Our [Section 601] Communities’ Access to Local Television Act of 2000. 3. Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act ,7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq. Provides $80 million FY20022006. [Section ] No Provision Establishes Rural Teleworks Provides $30 million each fiscal Program and authorizes funding of year, FY2002-2007. [Section $150 million. [Section 641] 6022] 4. Telemedicine and Distance Learning No Provision Grants authorized through 2002. Statutory authority provided by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq. Distance learning/medical link program established under Section 2335A of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa-5). Reauthorizes the Telemedicine Senate Provision. [Section 6203] and Distance Learning Program . [Section 652] 5.The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 No Provision (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) Enhanced Access to Broadband Provides $20 million in each of Services. Provides $100 million FY2002-2005 and $10 million per year, FY2002-2006 for grants for each of FY2006 and 2007. CRS-149 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 and loans. [Section 605] [Section 6103] [Note: Limited to communities of less than 20,000 population; standards to be reconsidered every 3 years.] D. Value-added Agriculture Development 1. Establishes value-added market grants under the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (P.L.106-224; 7 U.S.C. 162. [ Section 231(a)] Value-Added Agricultural Prod u ct Mark et Gran t s . Establishes expanded eligibility for value-added grants Authorizes $60 million each year FY2002-2011. [Section 602] 2. Establishes the intermediary lending No Provision program under the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1932 note; Public Law 99-198). [Section 1323(b)(2)(C)] Value-added Agriculture Market Development Grants. Provides $75 million per year, FY2002-2006. [Section 606] House Provision [Note: Provides $40 million in grants each year, FY2002-2007 to independent producers and producer-owned enterprises]. [Section 6401] V a l u e - A d d ed In termed i a ry No Provision Relending Program. Provides $15 million in each year, 2003-2006. [Section 634] 3. Agricultural Risk Protection Act of Agriculture Innovation Center No Provision 2000 (P.L.106-224; 7 U.S.C. 162). D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o g r a m . [Section 231(a)(1)] Authorizes $5 million in FY2002 and not less than $10 million in FY2003 and 2004. [Section 603] [Note: The provision makes available part of the funding for value-added market grants in Section 602. Provides not less than $3 million for FY2002 and not less than $6 million for FY2003 and 2004. [Section 6402] CRS-150 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 4. Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq. SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Delta Region Agricultural Senate Provision [Section 6027] Economic Development. Provides $7 million each fiscal year 20022006 for animal nutrition technology development and valueadded manufacturing. [Section 647, Section 379f] 5. Consolidated Farm and Rural Training for Farm Workers in No Provision Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. new technologies necessary for 1922-1949. higher value crops. Authorizes up to $10 million each year, FY20022011. [Section 617] House Provision [Section 6025] E. Water and Waste Treatment Programs 1. Subtitle A, Consolidated Farm and G r a n t s t o N o n p r o f i t No Provision Rural Development Act of 1972, 7 Organizations to finance the U.S.C. 1922-1949. construction or improvement of well-water systems for low or moderate income households. [Section 614] Provides $10 million each year FY2002-2007. [Section 6012] 2. Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq. Senate Provision [Note: Eligible rural communities are those under 2,500 population. [Section 6301, Subtitle D] SEARCH Grants for Small Communities Provides $51 million to communities under 3,000 in population. [Section 646] [Note: SEARCH grants assist very small communities in meeting various environmental regulations associated with water and waste disposal. Program would create a CRS-151 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 new Subtitle J to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972.] 3. Amends Section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926a(i)) to reauthorize and increase from $500 million to $590 million annual funding for Water and Waste Treatment grants and loans to assist local communities in meeting State standards established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) [FAIR, Section 741] [Note: The FAIR amendment redefines “small communities” and “smallest community” as those under 10,000 and 3,000 population, respectively.] Removes the specification of $590 million in authorized funds, effectively providing for no cap on the amount of funding authorized for water and wastewater treatment. [Section 621] Raises funding authorization for water and waste water programs from $590 to $1.5 billion and authorized $30 million each years through FY2006 to capitalized revolving loan funds.[Section 621] 4. Amends Section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 to authorize the Emergency Conservation Water Assistance Program. Reauthorizes program and deletes “Emergency” from the title. Provides $75 million annually in mandatory funding for each of FY2002-2011. [Sections 604 and 943] Reauthorizes Community Water Assistance Program through FY2006 with no changes. [Section 629]. Maintains current law $590 million authorization ceiling, but included language allowing additional spending of such sums as may be necessary. Also provides $30 million each year through 2006 to capitalize revolving loan funds [Section 6002]. Authorizes the a “emergency and Imminent Community Water Assistance Grant Program. Sets aside not less than 3% or more than 5% of appropriated water Note: Also fully funds the existing and waste water funds (above) backlog of applications for rural for communities facing drinking development loans and grant water shortages, and authorizes programs Increases authorization $35 million each year in for Water and Waste Treatment additional funding for the CRS-152 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 grants from $590 million to $1.5 program for FY203-2007. billion, FY2002-2006. [Section [Section 6009] 621] Note: The CBO has scored this as a discretionary spending program. Although conference report language suggests the adoption of the House provision, the legislative language is quite different from the House bill. F. Rural Entrepreneur and Business Investment Programs 1. Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1891 et seq. R u r a l E n trep re n e u r s a n d No Provision Microenterprise Assistance Program. Authorizes $50 million each year, FY2002-2006. [Section 638] [Note: Program creates a new Subtitle D to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972.] S.Amdt. 2615 makes budget authorization for [Section 638] discretionary. 2. Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act of 1972 7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq. National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund. Authorizes appropriation of $150 million to be matched by private investors. USDA will guarantee 50% of each investment with a maximum total of $300 million. Administered by the Small Business Administration. No Provision [Note: Conferees created a new Rural Strategic Investment Program [Section 6030, Subtitle I] and provides $100 million in grants. CRS-153 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 [Section 601] [Note: Program would create a new Subtitle G to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972.] 3. Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act of 1972 7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq Rural Business Investment Program. Provides for grants up to $1 million each to establish Rural Business Investment Companies to be administered by the Small Business Administration. CBO estimates the cost at $70 million in loan subsidies and $50 million in grants. [Section 602] S.Amdt. 2853 permits up to 10% of the funds to be invested in rural areas with a city of up to100,000 population. [Note: Program would create a new Subtitle H to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972.] Provides $100 million in grants and loan subsidies and $280 million in loan guarantees FY2002-2007. [Section 6029, Subtitle H] [Note: Permits up to 10% of investments to be made in areas containing a city of over 150,000 population] G. Strategic Rural and Regional Planning Programs 1.Provides implementation authority through (I) the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.); (II) subtitle G of title XVI and title XXIII of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990; (III) title V of the Rural Development Pilot Program for Development of No Provision Strategic Regional Development . Plans. Authorizes $60 million each year FY2002-2011. Secretary will select 10 states in which to implement the strategic plans. [Section 613]No Provision Conferees created a new Rural Strategic Investment Program [Section 6030, Subtitle I] that provides $100 million in planning grants CRS-154 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Act of 1971 (7 U.S.C. 2661 et seq.); or (IV) section 1323(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-198; 7 U.S.C. 1932 note). [FAIR, Section.793(c)(1)(A)(ii)] 2. Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1926(a). [Section 306(a)] Multijurisdictional Regional Senate Provision [Section 6006] Planning Grants. Authorizes $30 million each year FY2003-2006 to fund regional planning organizations. Maximum grants of $100,000, “not to exceed 75% of the federal share of the cost of providing assistance to local governments.” [Section 624] 3. The Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C.1921 et seq. Rural Endowment Program. $82 No Provision million for planning grants [Section 385C(d)], endowment grants [Section 385C(f]), and private technical assistance [Section 385C(h)] [Section 604] [Note: For rural areas with populations under 25,000] H. Rural America Infrastructure Account 1. Authorizes various loans and grants No Provision under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 (P.L92-419), 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926(a), 1926(c), 1926(d), and 1932 except for Sections 381-H, 381N and 381(0) of the 1972 Full Funding for Pending Rural Development Loans and Grants. [Section 603] [Note: Establishes an account in the U.S. Treasury to be known as the ‘’Rural America Infrastructure Provides $360 million FY20022007. [Section 6031] [Note: Restricts program to backlogged applications for water and waste water projects] CRS-155 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 Act. SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Development Account.” This provision authorizes a one-time removal of the backlog of pending applications for rural development loans and grants. CBO estimates the cost at $454 million.] I. Other Rural Development Programs 1. Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act, 7 U.S.C. 1926(a). [Section 306(a)] R u r a l F i r e f i g h t e r s a n d Provides $10 million each fiscal Emergency Medical Personnel year 2003-2007. [Section 6405] Training Program. Authorizes $10 million in first year and $30 million annually, FY2003-2006. [Section 627] 2. Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1891 et seq. Rural Seniors. Provides $125 No Provision million in grants for programs targeting rural seniors. [Section 639] 3. Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act ,7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq. Historic Barn Preservation Program. Authorizes $25 million in each year, FY2002-2006. [Section 642] No Provision 4. Consolidated Farm and Rural No Provision Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq. Authorizes such sums as are necessary. [Section 6023] Northern Great Plains Regional Senate Provision [Section 6028] Authority. Creates the Authority and provides $30 million in each year, FY2002-2006. [Section 647] [Note: Program would create a new Subtitle K to the Consolidated Farm CRS-156 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 and Rural Development Act of 1972.] 5. Section 4, Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 904); Section 310B(a)(3) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(3). Authorizes loans and loan No Provision guarantees for Renewable Energy Systems [Sections 605 and Section 606] House Provision [Section 6013] 6. Changes legal status of the No Provision Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Center by converting it to a wholly-owned government corporation within USDA. [Section 721 of FAIR Act, Amends Section 1658 of the Food , Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L.101-624) (7 U.S.C. 5902)] Repeals corporate authorization and Senate Provision. [Section 6201] transfers assets to an account to support “critical emerging issues” in future food production, environmental management, and farm income. [Section 651] [Note: Repeals Subtitle G of Title XVI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.) 7. National Rural Development Authorizes the National Rural Partnership. Subtitle D of the Development Partnership. Section Consolidated Farm and Rural 615 Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq). Authorizes the National Rural House and Senate Provisions. Development Partnership. Section Provides $10 million for each 612 fiscal year 2002-2007. [Section 6021] 8. Rural Business and Cooperative Service: Miscellaneous loans and grants: (1) Establishes Business Opportunity Amends Section 306(a)(11)(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C.1926(a)(11)(D)) to Authorizes Rural Business Opportunity Grants [Section 607] , Rural Coop erative Development Grants [Section Reauthorizes Rural Cooperative Development Grants [Section 6015], Rural Business Enterprise Grants CRS-157 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Grants. [FAIR Act Section741(a)(10)]; (2) Establishes Business Enterprise Grants under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, [Section 310B(c)]; (3) Authorizes Rural Economic Development Loans under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 [Section 313]; (4) Authorizes Rural Cooperative Development grants under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972 7 U.S.C. 1932, [Section 310(B)(e)]; (5) Title VIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L.103-66) and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L.105277) establishes Rural Empowerment Zo n es and Rural Enterpri s e Communities (EZ/ECs) . [Note: The 1996 FAIR Act incorporates EZ/ECs. The Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (P.L.103354) reorganizes USDA Rural Development into the RUS, RBS, and RHS(former Farmers Home Administration non-farm functions); Act provided for the transfer to RBS of the assets and liabilities of Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program (310)a))1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972.] 609], Rural Venture Capital Demonstration Program [Section 611], at same funding level through 2011. Makes Rural Empowerment Zones and Rural Enterprise Communities eligible for direct and guaranteed loans for essential community facilities. [Section 616] reauthorize Business Opportunity Grants through FY 2006. [Section 622] Amends Section 310B(e)(9) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)(9) to reauthorize Rural Cooperative Development Grants through FY2006. [Section 631] [Section 6014] and Rural Business Opportunity Grants [Section 6003]. Repeals the Rural Venture Capital Demonstration Program [Section 6026] Cost of Rural Development Title CBO Estimate: $1.5 billion in direct CBO Estimate: $1.711 billion in CBO Estimate: $870 million in CRS-158 RURAL DEVELOPMENT OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE AMENDMENT S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 authorization. Total direct and direct authorization for rural discretionary authoriz ation development programs. Total FY2002-2011, $3.6 billion. direct and discretionary authorization FY2002-2006, $3.4 billion. [Note: This estimate excludes $550 million for energy related programs also budgeted by CBO under Title VI. Including this funding brings the total estimated direct authorization for Title VI to $2.261 billion.] NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 mandatory spending FY20022007. [Note: This figure excludes energy related program spending. It also reflects recision of $160 million in previous authorization for the Fund for Rural America which was repealed. [Section 6043]. CBO has not estimated discretionary spending] CRS-159 VII. RESEARCH RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 National Agricultural Research, Title VII, Research and Related Title VII, Agricultural Research, Title VII, Research and Related Extension, and Teaching Policy Act Matters Education, and Extension and Matters o f 1977 (NARETPA); t h e Related Matters Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998; omnibus farm legislation passed in 1985 and 1990; and others, as noted A. Funding Authority: University Research and Cooperative Extension 1. Authorizes $850 m. annually for Extends authority through FY2011 Increases funding authority to $1.5 Authorizes the appropriation of research at land grant colleges of with no changes. [Section 708] billion annually through FY2006. such funds as may be necessary [Section 716] through FY2007. [Section 7113] agriculture (excluding competitive grants and Hatch Act of 1887 formula funds) [Section 1463 of NARETPA] 2. Authorizes $420 m. for Extends authority through FY2011 Increases funding authority to Authorizes the appropriation of cooperative extension programs with no changes. [Section 714] $500 million annually through such funds as may be necessary through FY2007. [Section 7114] FY2006. [Section 717] through FY2002. [Section 1464 of NARETPA] B. The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems 1. Authorizes the transfer of $120 m. annually in FY1999-2002 from the U.S. Treasury to USDA for a competitive grants program on critical emerging issues and high-priority research. [Section 401 of 1998 Act] Requires the Secretary to transfer $1.16 billion into the Initiative from the Commodity Credit Corporation in equal annual amounts over a 9year period ending in FY2011. [Section 750] Authorizes the transfer of $130 million annually through October 1, 2002, and of $225 million annually through 2006 from the Commodity Credit Corporation [per Section 1099B] for the Initiative [Section 169], and recommends that the Secretary Authorizes the transfer from the Commodity Credit Corporation of $120 million in FY2003, $140 million in FY2004, $160 million in FY2005, and $200 million annually in FY2006-07 for the Initiative, and gives priority for grants to small, mid-sized, and CRS-160 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 reserve 10% of Initiative funds for minority-serving institutions that grants to minority-serving have not been successful in institutions. [Section 741] winning grants under other programs. [Section 7205] Designates $25 million of Initiative funds in FY2004-08 to be awarded to minority-serving schools for research on biotechnology to benefit developing countries. USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) would administer the program. [Section 763] Contains a comparable provision, with funding authorized under Title IV of the 1998 Act. [Section 750] Authorizes such sums as necessary through FY2007 for an FAS-administered competitive grant program for research on biotechnology to benefit developing countries. All institutions with an agricultural or bioscience curriculum would be eligible. [Section 7505] 2. Defines priority mission areas for Adds alternative fuels, precision Makes no change to existing law. the Initiative. [Section 401 of the agriculture, crop diversification, and 1998 Act] small livestock farm improvement to the list of areas to be addressed by the Initiative. [Section 743] Adds rural economic, business and community development policy to the list of priority research areas. [Section 7205] C. Land Grant Institutions in Insular Areas 1. Defines the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the District of Columbia as “states” for the purposes of the Act. [Section 1404 of NARETPA] Creates a new grant program to strengthen the food and agriculture curriculum at land grant institutions in the U.S. territories. [Section 761] Redefines U.S. territories as “insular areas” rather than as states. Retains “state” definition for the District of Columbia. The change does not affect the eligibility of land grant institutions in these areas for formula funds under the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. [Section 701] Authorizes such sums as are necessary through FY2007 for a new grant program to strengthen resident instruction at insular area land grant schools and distance learning programs using advanced technologies. [Section 7503] Included in Section 7503. CRS-161 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Creates new authority for $20 million through FY2006 for competitive or non-competitive grants to insular institutions to strengthen distance learning programs in agriculture using advanced technologies. Requires 50% matching funds. [Section 775] 2. Requires institutions to match federal formula funds for research and extension at 50% beginning in FY2002, and prohibits the Secretary from waiving the requirement. [Section 3(d) of the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended] Sets the matching fund requirement at 50% for the U.S. Territory institutions through 2011 and grants the Secretary authority to waive the requirement if a Territory cannot meet the obligation. [Section 749A] Sets a 50% matching fund Establishes the matching fund requirement through FY2006 for requirement using the Senate bill land grant institutions in insular language. [Section 7213] areas, and grants the Secretary authority to waive the requirement. [Section 776] D. 1890 Land Grant Universities 1. Authorizes appropriations of such Contains no provision addressing funds as may be necessary for funding authority for 1890 land grant research programs, and establishes a colleges. 6% minimum (of appropriation for 1862 schools) for extension programs. [Section 1444 of NARETPA] Raises the minimum amount that can be appropriated for extension programs from 6% to 15% of e x t e n s i o n f o rm u l a f u n d s appropriated for the 1862 schools. [Section 757] Establishes a minimum amount to be appropriated for research programs at 25% of the amount appropriated for the 1862 schools. [Section 757] Adopts the Senate provisions regarding minimum appropriations for formula funds to support both research and extension at the 1890 schools, with language stating that increased appropriations for formula-funded programs, not redistribution of current levels, are the intent. [Section 7203] CRS-162 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 2. Authorizes $15 m. annually Extends authority through FY2011 Increases authorization to $25 Authorizes such sums as through FY2002 for grants to upgrade with no changes. [Section 709] million annually through FY2006. necessary through FY2007. facilities. [Section 1447(b) of [Section 760] [Section 7109] NARETPA] 3. Requires 50% in state funds to match federal formula funds for research and extension. [Section 1449 of NARETPA] Requires an annual 10% increase in state matching funds beginning in FY2003, to reach 100% in FY2008. The Secretary may waive the requirement above 50% if a state cannot meet the obligation. [Section 749] Raises the matching funds requirement to 60% in FY2003 and annually in 2004-06 by 110% of the previous year’s amount. The Secretary may waive the requirement above 50% if a state cannot meet the obligation. [Section 762] Requires an annual 10% increase in state matching funds beginning in FY2003, to reach 100% in FY2007. The Secretary may waive the requirement above 50% if a state cannot meet the obligation. [Section 7212] E. 1994 Institutions (Tribally Controlled Land Grant Institutions) 1. Authorizes annual appropriation of $4.6 m. in FY1996-2002 for an endowment fund. [Section 533 of Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994] Removes authority for appropriations to an endowment fund and authorizes appropriations of such sums as are necessary in FY1996(sic)-2011. [Section 729] 2. Authorizes $50,000 annual Increases payment authority to payments to each institution. [Section $100,000 annually. [Section 741(a)] 534 of 1994 Act] 3. Bases withdrawals and expenditures from the endowment fund on a formula using an Indian student count as defined in the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. [Section Authorizes the appropriation of Adopts the Senate provision and such sums as necessary through extends endowment fund FY2006 for the endowment fund. through FY2007. [Section 7128] [Section 755(c)] Provision identical to House. [Section 755(e)] Increases payment authority to $100,000 annually. [Section 7201(a)] Bases withdrawals and expenditures Provision identical to House Adopts the Senate language that on a formula using an Indian student (slightly different language). changes the authority under count as defined in the Tribally [Section 755(d)] which 1994 Institutions make Controlled College or University withdrawals and expenditures Assistance Act of 1978. [Section from the endowment fund. 741(b)] [Section 7201(b)] CRS-163 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 4. Authorizes $5 m. annual Authorizes such sums as are appropriations for extension programs necessary through FY2011. [Section and contains formula for distribution 753] of funds. [Section 3(b) of Smith-Lever Act of 1914] Authorizes such sums as are necessary and directs the Secretary to develop a new distribution formula. [Section 754] Authorizes such sums as necessary through FY2007 and allows funding to carry over till expended. [Section 7215] 5. Excludes 1994 Institutions from eligibility for formula funds under the Hatch Act of 1887 and the SmithLever Act of 1814. [Section 533(a)(2) of 1994 Act] Adds the 1994 Institutions to the definition of colleges and universities eligible to receive Hatch and Smith-Lever Act funds for research and extension programs. [Section 742] No comparable provision to Adopts the Senate provision and House, but makes the 1994 authorizes it through FY2007. Institutions eligible to compete for [Section 7209] grants for integrated research and extension projects under Section 406 (b) of the 1998 research reform act. [Section 756] Adds wind erosion, crop loss, land use management, water and air quality, revenue insurance, agrotourism, fruit and vegetable harvesting, nitrogen fixation, Adds animal infectious diseases, childhood obesity, integrated pest management, beef cattle genetics, and development of publicly held plant and animal varieties to the 533(c)(4)(A) of 1994 Act] HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 NOTE: Makes student count mechanism more flexible and clarifies calculation of full-time Indian students. Previous calculation was designed for two specific tribal colleges under the Carl Perkins Act, and the new one is designed for 24 of the now 31 tribal colleges under the 1978 Act. F. Priority Research Areas 1. Authorizes a competitive grants program to support research and extension programs on 24 specified topics. [Section 1672 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Combines priority areas from House and Senate bills; adds sugarcane genetics as a priority area, and amends the AgrAbility program to encourage the CRS-164 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 marketing, private lands research, livestock disease threats, and plant gene expression to the list of priority research areas. [Section 744(b)] list of priority research areas. Authorizes $100,000 annually for high priority research on reducing hazards from dairy pipeline cleaners. [Section 734] awarding of grants to applicant institutions that have not received them previously. [Section 7208] 2. Authorizes agricultural genome Adds plant pathogens to research Makes no change to existing law. research. [Section 1671(b) of the 1990 subjects under the Agricultural Act] Genome Initiative. [Section 744] Adopts House language as part of the above provision on priority research areas. [Section 7208] 3. Authorizes competitive grants for Contains no provision addressing Reauthorizes and expands the research and extension programs on existing authority. research focus for organic organic agriculture. [Section 1672B of agriculture to include genomics the 1990 Act] research, improvement of publicly held crop and livestock varieties, marketing research, and on-farm research. [Section 736] Authorizes through FY2007 the annual transfer to USDA of $3 million in mandatory funds (above whatever funds may be appropriated) for research on organic agriculture, including genetic, on-farm, and social science research. [Section 7218] 4. Authorizes research and extension Extends authority through FY2011. Extends authority through FY2006 programs on precision agriculture. [Section 730] and adds emphasis on horticulture, [Section 403 of the 1998 Act] mechanization, robotics, and energy use efficiency. [Section 743] Combines the House and Senate provisions and extends authority through FY2007. [Sections 7129 and 7207] 5. Authorizes selected high-priority Contains no provision addressing Adds bovine Johne’s disease research areas. [Title IV of the 1998 existing authority. control and grants for youth Act] organizations to high-priority subjects under the 1998 Act. [Sections 748 and 749] Establishes a research program on bovine Johne’s disease [Section 7207]; and authorizes a one-time transfer of $8 million in CCC mandatory funds in FY2002, and appropriation of such sums as necessary in Act of 1990] CRS-165 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 FY2003-07, for grants to Girl Scout, Boy Scout, 4-H, and FFA organizations to expand programs in rural areas and small towns. [Section 7412] G. International Research 1. Authorizes cooperative international research, extension, and teaching programs. [Section 1458 of NARETPA] Authorizes placement of agriculture Contains no provision addressing Adopts the House provision. students at U.S. colleges and existing authority. [Section 7209] universities at USDA Foreign Agricultural Service field offices overseas. [Section 745(c)] H. Biotechnology 1. Authorizes USDA to withhold 1% of biotechnology research funding to support risk assessment research on bioengineered organisms. [Section 1668 of 1990 Act] Increases withholding to 3% and adds authority to study the environmental effects of biotechnology and develop a longterm policy for introduction. [Section 747] Increases withholding to 3% and directs the Secretary to give priority in awarding biotechnology risk assessment grants to a p p l i c a n t s w h o t ak e a n interdisciplinary approach that includes environmental, biosafety, and nutritional aspects. [Section 732] Increases withholding to 2% and adds genetically modified organisms and international partnerships on bio-safety as priority topics for risk assessment research. [Section 7210] I. Research Facilities 1. Provides general authority for Makes no change to existing law. federal funds to construct or modernize research facilities at colleges and universities. [Research Facilities Act of 1963] Adds new authority to Section Makes no change to existing law. 1417 of the 1977 Act for competitive grants to land grant schools and Hispanic-serving schools for construction or CRS-166 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 modernization of research facilities. Preference would be given to proposals offering matching funds. [Section 704] 2. Protecting agriculture facilities. [No existing authority] Creates new authority to assess civil penalties against anyone who damages or disrupts an animal or agricultural enterprise, research facility, or other agricultural or biomedical facility. Also authorizes recovery of economic damage and establishes a fund to compensate the victims of such attacks. [Section 790] 3. Competitive grants for purchasing No comparable provision. lab equipment. [No existing authority] Contains a similar provision, with stronger penalties and greater emphasis on bioterrorism. [Section 1058] No provision in this law, but a language similar to the House provision is contained in the conference report (H.Rept. 107481) on H.R. 3448, the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001. Creates new authority for $250 million over 5 years for competitive grants to land grant and non-land grant schools for purchasing specialized scientific equipment. [Section 715] Adopts the Senate provision and authorizes the appropriation of such sums as necessary through FY2007. [Section 7402] Permits institutions awarded a competitive grant to receive reimbursement for indirect costs (excluding equipment costs) at a percentage established by the granting agency’s audit agency. [Section 714] Adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to exempt grants awarded competitively under the Small Business Innovation Research program. [Section 7222] J. Competitive Research Grants Administration 1. Reimbursement for indirect costs Makes no change to existing law. associated with competitive grants is limited to 19% of the total grant. [Section 1462 of NARETPA] CRS-167 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 2. Competitive grants are disbursed Makes no change to existing law. in the year in which the funds are appropriated. [Section 1467 of NARETPA] Makes funds appropriated for Adopts the Senate provision. competitive grants available for [Section 7217] obligation over a 2-year period. [Section 718] 3. Joint requests for proposals. [No existing authority] No comparable provision. Adds authority for the Secretary to transfer grant funds to or receive grant funds from other federal research agencies in order to facilitate joint research and eliminate duplication. [Section 719] Provides authority for USDA to issue joint requests for proposals with other federal agencies and to establish joint peer review panels, but not to transfer funds between federal agencies or to negotiate indirect cost recovery rates for grants awarded. [Section 7403] 1. Agriculture Infrastructure No comparable provision. Security. [No existing authority] Adds a new biosecurity subtitle to NARETPA to establish a fund to protect ARS, Forest Service, APHIS, and other federal facilities related to the safety of crops, livestock, and food. Establishes an advisory board on the use of the fund. [Section 723, Chapter 1] Authorizes the appropriation of such sums as necessary for a competitive grants program to construct and upgrade the security of facilities conducting counterterrorism research at public colleges and universities. [Section 7221] 2. Biosecurity Planning and Response. [General authority exists for high priority research and extension initiatives under Section 1672(e) of the 1990 Act] New subtitle authorizes such sums as necessary for research on counterbioterrorism. Authorizes $100 million annually in FY200305 for construction or renovation of bioterrorism research facilities. Expresses sense of Congress that Authorizes the appropriation of such sums as necessary for research and extension activities to improve bioterrorism prevention, preparedness, and response. [Section 7221] K. Biosecurity Amends the 1990 farm act to list research on technology to protect agriculture (including livestock) and the food supply from bioterrorism and naturally occurring threats as a high priority research topic. [Section 744] CRS-168 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 funding for USDA agencies with biosecurity responsibilities should be increased as necessary. [Section 723, Chapter 2] L. Research related to Rural and Beginning Farmers 1. Risk management education. No comparable provision. [Section 524(a)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act] Creates a competitive grant No provision. program to be administered by CSREES to enhance land grant and non-land grant education programs on risk management for beginning farmers. [Section 785] 2. Research on rural issues. [Section No comparable provision. 1417 of NARETPA] Adds an emphasis on rural No provision. economic, community, and business research to existing rural research authority. [Section 703] 3. Technology transfer for rural development. [No existing authority] Establishes a joint ARS- Rural Business-Cooperative Service program to make ARS and RBCS rural development technologies available to rural areas more quickly. [Section 795] No comparable provision. 4. Rural electronic commerce No comparable provision. development program. [No existing authority] No provision; conference report language states that the Managers expect RBCS to promote technology transfer to rural businesses in cooperation with ARS, the Forest Service, and other USDA agencies. Authorizes $60 million annually Adopts the Senate provision in FY2002-06 for an extension (FY2003-07). [Section 6202] program to help small businesses in rural areas adopt electronic commerce business practices and technologies. [Section 733] CRS-169 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 5. Beginning farmer and rancher No comparable provision. education. [No existing authority] Creates a competitive grant program to help local and regional education, training, outreach, and technical assistance organizations assist beginning farmers and ranchers. Authorizes $15 m. annually through FY2006 to be transferred from the U.S. Treasury to support the program. [Section 796] Adopts the Senate provision and authorizes $15 million annually through FY2007 in mandatory money (but subject to appropriation). [Section 7405] 6. Rural research fund. [No existing No comparable provision. authority] Establishes a Rural Research Fund No provision. account within USDA, funded by $60 million transferred from the U.S. Treasury over 4 years, to support competitive research grants on rural public policy. [Section 798] 7. Alternative Agriculture Research Extends authority for appropriations and Commercialization Revolving through 2011. Fund. [Section 1664(g)(1) of 1990 Act] Title VI (Rural Development) of the Senate-passed H.R. 2646 contains a provision to repeal the authority for the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation (AARCC) and transfer its funds to USDA to be used for research on future food production, environmental protection, and farm income. [Section 651] Repeals the authority for AARCC; any remaining funds are to cover the cost of closing the program and then revert to the U.S. Treasury. [Section 6201] CRS-170 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 M. Miscellaneous Research Provisions 1. National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economic Advisory Board. [Section 1408 of NARETPA] Adds to the advisory board one Extends authority for advisory Adopts the House provision. member from a non-land grant board with no changes. [Section 7209] institution, and requires the Board to consult with the House and Senate Agriculture and Appropriations Committees. [Section 745] 2. ARS review. [First authorized in No comparable provision. 1998 Act] Reauthorizes an outside review of the purpose, efficiency, and effectiveness of ARS research. [Section 794] NOTE: S.Rept. 107-117 indicates that the earlier review was not carried out according to the intent of the original language. 2. Senior Scientific Research Service. [No existing authority] Establishes a 100-member Senior Adopts Senate Scientific Research Service [Section 7219] comprised of highly qualified scientists. Minimum GS-15 salary. [Section 750B] No comparable provision. 3. Regulatory and inspection No comparable provision. research. [No specific authority exists for this type of research, but such work currently is conducted under general authority found in NARETPA] Adopts the Senate provision and adds authority for a task force to study and report to Congress whether the structure of federal agricultural research should be modeled after the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. [Section 7404] Authorizes the Secretary to No provision. conduct urgent applied research to support the regulatory programs of AMS, APHIS, FSIS, and FGIS. [Section 792] provision. CRS-171 RESEARCH OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L.107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 4. Repeal of certain activities and authorities. [Sections 615(b) and (c) of the 1998 Act] Food safety research national conference and report. [Section 771] [Section 617 of the 1998 Act] Reimbursement of expenses under No comparable provision. the Sheep Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1994. [Section 772] [Section 1634 of the 1990 Act] National Genetic Resources Program. [Section 773] [Sections 1639 and 1640 of the 1990 Act] National Advisory Board on No comparable provision. Agricultural Weather. [Section 774] Adopts the House provision. [Section 7304] [Section 1420 of the 1985 Act] Agricultural information exchange No comparable provision. with Ireland. [Section 775] Adopts the House provision. [Section 7305] [Section 1437 of the 1985 Act] Pesticide resistance study. [Section No comparable provision. 776] Adopts House [Section 7306] provision. [Section 1438 of the 1985 Act] Expansion of education [Section 777] Adopts House [Section 7307] provision. [Sections 1412 and 1413(c) of NARETPA] Support for advisory board. [Section No comparable provision. 778] No comparable provision. Task force on 10-year strategic plan for agricultural research facilities. [Section 779] [Research Facilities Act of 1963] No comparable provision. Adopts House [Section 7301] provision. Adopts the House provision. [Section 7302] Extends program through FY2006. Adopts Senate provision through [Section 731] FY2007. [Section 7118] study. No comparable provision. No provision. Adopts the House provision. [Section 7308] CRS-172 VIII. FORESTRY FORESTRY OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 Primarily, provisions of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (CFAA), P.L. 95-313 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 Title VIII - Forestry Initiatives Title VIII - Forestry Title VIII - Forestry A. Forest Landowner Assistance 1. Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) provides cost-sharing for tree planting and other forest improvement practices. [Section 4, CFAA] 1. Repeals FIP. [Section 801] 1. Reauthorizes FIP through 2006. 1. House Provision. [Section 8001] NOTE:FIP expires at the end of [Section 804] FY2002. The repeal in the House bill is not needed to effectively end the program. 2. Stewardship Incentives Program 2. Repeals SIP. [Section 801] (SIP) provides cost-sharing for a wide variety of forestry practices. [Section 6, CFAA] 2. No provision. 2. House Provision [Section NOTE: SIP is permanently 8001] authorized, and requires no reauthorization 3. No provision. 3. Establishes new Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) to supplant FIP and SIP, with costsharing for the same practices (and more) and $20 million annually in mandatory spending. [Section 802] NOTE: The House bill replaces former programs with this new program 3. Establishes new Sustainable Forest Management Program to supplement FIP and SIP, with costsharing for additional practices and $48 million annually in mandatory spending. (Section 806) NOTE: The Senate Bill adds to existing programs. 4. No provision. 4. No provision. 4. Establishes new Sustainable 4. No provision Forestry Cooperative Program to Generally follows House provision establishing new Forest Land enhancement Program to supplant FIP and SIP, with costsharing for the same practices (and More) and $100 million in mandatory spending through FY2007. [Section 8002] CRS-173 FORESTRY OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 assist landowners in creating cooperatives for sustainable forest management. (Section 805) B. Suburban and Community Forestry Initiative (NOTE: Existing financial and No provision. technical assistance programs to urban areas, communities, and private nonprofit organizations are permanently authorized in Section 9 of CFAA, and are unchanged in the House and Senate bills.) Creates new Suburban and No provision Community Forestry and Open Space Initiative, to conserve private forest land and working forests in suburbs and help control urban sprawl, through 50% cost share grants to states and nonprofits. Authorized at $50 million for FY2003, as needed thereafter. (Section 813) C. Watershed Forestry 1. (Many existing forestry assistance 1. No provision. programs include activities to protect watersheds, but none focuses on watershed protection.) 2. No provision 2. No provision. 1. Creates new Watershed Forestry 1. No provision Assistance Program, for costsharing by states for forest practices to protect and enhance water quality, authorized at $20 million annually. (Section 812) 2. No provision 2. Creates new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Forestry Program to use forest management to improve wildlife habitat, water quality, watershed planning, et al., with up to 75% cost-share grants; authorized at $3 million for FY2002 CRS-174 FORESTRY OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 and $3.5 million for FY2003FY2006. (Section 810) D. Fire Protection (NOTE: Existing financial and technical assistance programs to states and to volunteer fire departments are permanently authorized in Section 10 of CFAA, and are unchanged in the House and Senate bills. Fire research is authorized under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act (P.L. 95-307), and 3 fire research centers already exist.) Creates new Enhanced Community 1. Similar to H.R. 2646. (Section Fire Protection program to inform and 811) assist landowners in wildfire protection; authorized at $35 million annually. Appears to allow federal activities on private lands (Section 804) 1. Generally follows House provision, creating new Enhanced Community Fire Protection program, authorized at $35 million annually; appears to allow federal activity on private lands [Section 8003] 2. No provision. 2. Authorizes creation of 2 forest 2. No provision fire research centers. (Section 808) 3. Authorizes new hazardous fuel reduction grants of $5-10 per ton of hazardous fuel removed from forests to operators of facilities that produce energy from biomass, with monitoring of grant recipients and of treatment effects (the latter being limited to federal lands), authorized at $50 million annually. (Section 921, in Title IX) 3. Authorizes new hazardous fuel 3. No provision reduction grants of $5-10 per ton to (both provisions dropped in operators of facilities that produce conference) energy from hazardous fuel removed from forests, or to persons to use or increase value of hazardous fuels; grant allocation based on minimizing environmental effects and maximizing community benefits, with monitoring of grant recipients, and of environmental a n d e m p l o ym e n t e f f e c t s . Authorized at $50 million annually. (Section 809) CRS-175 FORESTRY OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 4. No provision. 4 . R e q u i r e s i n d e p e n d e n t 4. No provision. investigation of firefighter fatalities by USDA Inspector General. (Section 820) (NOTE: Existing forest health 1. No provision. protection program authorizes insect and disease survey and control on federal lands and with consent, cooperation, and participation, on other lands. This is permanently authorized in Section 8 of CFAA, and is unchanged in the House and Senate bills.) 1. Authorizes new research, 1. No provision monitoring, and treatment program for Sudden Oak Death Syndrome, with an advisory committee to oversee implementation; authorized at $14.25 million annually, with allocation among activities specified. (Section 819) 2. No provision. 2. Authorizes new program of 2. No provision Adaptive Ecosystem Restoration of Arizona and New Mexico Forests and Woodlands, to improve ecological health and reduce threats to forests while encouraging collaboration, by creating two ecological institutes, requiring federal cooperation, and monitoring results; annual authorization is $10 million. (Section 821) E. Forest Health Protection F. Forestry Research Forestry research at land grant Reaffirms the importance of forestry Identical to House version. (Section universities is authorized under the research under McIntire-Stennis. 802) McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962 (P.L. 87- (Section 807) House bill [Section 8201] CRS-176 FORESTRY OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 788). (NOTE: Forest Service research Note: Incorrectly cites the public law is authorized under the Forest and number as P.L.87-88. Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978, P.L. 95-307.) G. Renewable Resources (RREA) The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA; P.L. 95-306) authorizes educational assistance in natural resources management. Reauthorizes RREA, doubles authorized funding to $30 million annually, and establishes new Sustainable Forestry Outreach Initiative. (Section 803) House and Senate provisions are similar, but not identical. Reauthorizes RREA, doubles authorized funding to $30 million annually, and establishes new Sustainable Forestry Outreach Initiative. (Section 803) Generally follows House bill, reauthorizing RREA, doubling authorized funding to $30 million annually, and establishing a new Sustainable Forestry Outreach Initiative. [Section 8101] H. International Forestry 1. Technical forestry assistance to other 1. Effectively reauthorizes the 1. No provision. countries is permanently authorized International Forestry “ through 2011. under Title VI of P.L. 101-513 (Foreign (Section 805) Operations Appropriations, 1991). 1. No provision 2. The Forest Service Office of 2. No provision International Forestry expires at end of FY2002 under Section 2405(d) of the 1990 Farm Bill. 2. Generally follows Senate bill, reauthorizing the Office of International Forestry through FY2007. [Section 8102] 2. Reauthorizes “Office of International Forestry” through 2006. (Section 801) I. Tribal Forestry 1. No provision. 1. No provision. 1. Establishes Office of Tribal 1. No Provision Relations to improve communication between tribal governments and USDA and Forest Service. (Section 817) CRS-177 FORESTRY OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 2. No provision. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW (P.L. 107-171) COVERS 2002-2007 2. No provision. 2 . E s t a b l i s h e s p r o g r a m f o r 2. No Provision Assistance to Tribal Governments, to provide technical, financial, educational, and related forestry assistance; authorized funding “as needed.” (Section 818) Authorizes “Long-Term Forest Stewardship Contracts” for reducing hazardous fuels in the national forests as part of timber sale contracts (i.e., authorizes goods-for-services contracts, where the Forest Service can use timber to pay for fuel treatment services). (Section 806) Authorizes 28 Long-Term Forest No provision (both Stewardship Contracts for reducing provisions dropped) hazardous fuels in the WildlandUrban Interface in national forests as part of timber sale contracts, with 14 using goods-for-services contracts (where the Forest Service can use timber to pay for fuel treatment services) and the other 14 using separate contracts to collect woody material and to sell the timber.[Section 815] J. National Forest Management (Many programs and authorities exist. The broadest authorization is in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA; P.L. 93-378) as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; P.L. 94-588).) bills CRS-178 IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 A. Federal Crop Insurance Prohibition on Continuous Coverage No provision. The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000, requires participating producers in the federal crop insurance program to select a coverage level that is a multiple of 5, between the 55% and 85% level of crop yield coverage, for the 2001 through 2005 crop years. [Section 508(e)] Note: “Continuous coverage” refers to the ability of farmers to select any level of coverage between 50% of normal yield and 85% of yield. The reason farmers are not allowed to choose any level of coverage and must choose in 5% increments is because the premium subsidy structure is set in law in 5% increments. The percentage of the premium subsidized by the federal government falls as a producer selects higher levels of coverage. The continuous coverage prohibition is a federal cost-saving measure that prevents producers who would normally choose, for example, a 65% Makes permanent the temporary Adopts Senate prohibition on continuous coverage in [Section 10002] current law. [Section 1012] Note: CBO scored an average annual savings of approximately $320 million beginning in FY2006. provision CRS-179 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 level of coverage, from dropping back to 64% coverage just to receive the higher subsidy level. Quality Loss Adjustment Procedures No provision. The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended, requires USDA to contract a study reviewing the quality loss adjustment procedures of the crop insurance program, and make adjustments based on this review. [Section 508(m)(3)] Requires USDA to implement the Extends Senate requirement for review findings by the 2003 insurance implementation of review year. [Section 1013] findings by 2004 insurance year and allows certain warehouse operators to make adjustments for quality for the purposes of quality loss adjustment. [Section 10003] Conservation Requirements No provision. The 1985 farm bill (P.L. 99-198) prohibits any farmer from receiving certain federal farm payments or loans when the producer grows a crop on either highly erodible land [Sect. 1211], or a converted wetland [Sect. 1221] Prohibits farmers from receiving a No provision crop insurance indemnity payment when the producer grows a crop on highly erodible land or a converted wetland. [Section 1014] Sweet Potatoes The Federal Crop Insurance Act prohibits farmers from receiving crop insurance indemnity payments once the crop leaves the field, except for tobacco and potatoes. [Section 508(a)(2)] The FY2002 agriculture appropriations act (P.L. 107-76) allows sweet potatoes to receive indemnity payments after harvest for FY2002 only. [Section 760] Permanently includes sweet Identical to the House provision. potatoes as a crop that would be [Section 1011] eligible for indemnity payments after harvest. [Section 928 ] Adopts House and Senate provision [Section 10001] Specialty Crop Insurance Initiative No provision. Adopts Senate provision (with Increases funding for research and CRS-180 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended, authorizes USDA to reimburse private entities for the cost of research and development of new crop insurance programs. Mandatory funding of $10 million for each of FY2001 and 2002, and not more than $15 million in FY2003 and subsequent years is provided [Section 522(b)]. The act also authorizes USDA to establish crop insurance education and information programs for producers in states that traditionally have a low participation rate in the crop insurance program or are underserved by the program. Mandatory funding of $5 million for FY2001 and each subsequent year is provided. [Section 524] Restriction of Crop Insurance No provision. SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 development reimbursements to $32 million in FY2002 (up $22 million); $27.5 million for each of FY2003 and FY2004 (up $12.5 million in each year); and $25 million for each of FY2005 and FY2006 (up $10 million in each year). Also increases funding for education and information programs to $10 million in FY2003 (up $5 million); $13 million in FY2004 (up $8 million); and $15 million for each of FY2005 and FY2006 (up $10 million in each year). Total 5-year increase for R&D reimbursements is $67 million; total 4-year increase for education programs is $33 million. The combined $100 million additional cost is funded through savings associated with reducing the payment limits for farm commodity support programs. Also requires USDA to complete a report by September 30, 2002 focusing on progress made by USDA in the research development of new risk management programs for specialty crop growers, small and moderate-sized farms, and underserved areas. [Section 169] amendments) requiring that USDA complete a report on specialty crop insurance and complete the study within 180 days. Deletes Senate provisions that increased funding for specialty crop initiatives, and adds sense of Congress language requiring the USDA to address the needs of producers through expansion of the federal crop insurance pilot programs, including revenue insurance for Georgia pecans and coverage for continuous crops of Kansas wheat. [Section 10005] Prohibits the subsidization of any No provision CRS-181 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Payments to Previously Cropped Land No restriction in current law federal crop insurance policy that covers a farm commodity that is planted on land that has not been farmed for at least 1 of the 5 crop years prior to 2002, or 3 of the previous 10 crop years. Requirement is reduced to 1 of 20 years if the farmer has used and continues to use crop rotation practices. [Section 194(c)] Adjusted Gross Revenue Insurance No provision. Pilot Program The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended, authorizes USDA to conduct pilot programs to evaluate whether a new risk management program is suitable for the marketplace and addresses the needs of farmers. [Section 523] USDA currently implements an Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) pilot program which allows a farmer to insure a percentage of historical revenue for all crops grown on the farm rather than insuring each crop separately. Requires USDA to continue through at least the 2004 insurance year, the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) insurance pilot program in effect for the 2002 crop year. Expands the pilot program in 2003 to include at least 8 counties in the state that produces the highest quantity of specialty crops for which AGR insurance is currently not available (i.e, California). Counties selected by USDA should produce a significant quantity of specialty crops. [Section 1079D] Adopts Senate provision with an amendment that expands the pilot program for the 2003 crop year to include at least 8 counties in California and at least 8 counties in Pennsylvania. Also requires the USDA to work with the respective state Departments of Agriculture of Pennsylvania and California to determine which counties are to be included. [Section 10004] Study on Producer Indemnification No provision. for Government-Caused Disasters The Federal Crop Insurance Act limits covered perils under the crop insurance Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study of the feasability of expanding crop insurance and the noninsured assistance program to Adopts Senate provision with an amendment to clarify that the study must focus on disaster conditions caused by Federal CRS-182 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 program to drought, flood, or other natural disaster (as determined by the Secretary). [Section 508(a)(1)] farmers experiencing disaster conditions caused primarily by a federal agency action. Report to be submitted to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees within 150 days of enactment. [Section 1085] agency action restricting access to irrigation water, including any lack of access to an adequate supply of water caused by the failure of the Secretary of Interior to fulfill a contract in accordance with the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. [section 10108] Risk Management Education for No provision. Beginning Farmers The Federal Crop Insurance Act established a “Partnership for Risk Management” program within USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), whereby competitive grants are made to qualified public and private entities to educate farmers about various available strategies to manage farm financial risk. Annual mandatory funding of $5 million is authorized. [Section 524(a)(3)] Allows the Secretary, (through No Provision CSREES,) to establish risk management education programs targeted to the needs of beginning farmers and ranchers, using existing available funds in Section 524 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act. [Section 785] B. Noninsured Assistance Sea Grass and Sea Oats The 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-624) makes eligible for the noninsured assistance program all crops that are not eligible for federal crop insurance Specifically includes sea grass and No provision. sea oats as an eligible crop under the noninsured assistance program. [Section 929] Adopts the House Provision [Section 10101] CRS-183 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 coverage, and certain specific crops. [Section 196(a)(2)] C. Emergency Crop Disaster and Income Loss Assistance a. Crop Disaster Payments. Various No provision. emergency supplemental acts in recent years have provided ad hoc direct payments to crop producers to compensate them for major production losses caused by natural disasters. Most recently, the FY2001 agriculture appropriations act (P.L. 106-387) provided such sums as are necessary for disaster payments for 2000 crop year losses. [Section 815] a. Authorizes the Secretary of No Provision Agriculture to use $1.8 billion in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds for payments to producers who experienced losses to the 2001 crop caused by natural disasters. Payments are to be made in the same manner as for 2000 losses. Secretary has discretion to use some of the funds to reimburse farmers for income losses not caused by a natural disaster. [Section 191] Transfers $50 million from the U.S. Treasury to USDA to pay salaries and expenses of administering emergency crop and livestock programs. [Section 195] All funds made available for these programs carry an emergency designation, and therefore do not count toward the budget limitations placed on new farm bill spending. [Section 197] CRS-184 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 a. Allows USDA to make payments to persons eligible to receive assistance under P.L. 107-25 who did not receive payments or assistance prior to October 1, 2001, Specifies that the amount of payment or assistance cannot exceed that which the person would have been eligible to receive under the law. [Section 175] a. Adopts Senate provision and extends similar privileges to eligible producers under all previous market loss assistance programs who did not receive payment by the respective deadline date. [Section 1617] b. Provides $100 million in CCC funds to make payments to apple producers for the loss of markets curing the 2000 crop year. [Section 193] b. Provides $94 million to apple growers for 2000 crop year losses [Section 10105} Also provides $10 million as a grant to the state of New York to be used to support current onion producers in Orange county, New York who suffered losses to onion crops during one or more of the 1996-2000 years. [Section 10106] D. Market Loss Assistance a. Extension of Deadlines for Market Loss Assistance Payments No Provision Various emergency supplemental funding laws enacted since 1998 have provided direct payments to growers of specific commodities to compensate them for low market prices. Most recently P.L.107-25 provided $5.5 billion in market loss assistance with a payment deadlines of September 30, 2001] b. Apple and Onion Income Loss No Provision Assistance FY2002 agriculture appropriations (P.L.107-76) made $75 million available exclusively to apple producers for their loss of markets for their 2000 crop. E. Livestock Assistance 1. Emergency Livestock Assistance a. Various emergency supplemental acts in recent years have authorized ad hoc assistance for livestock farmers when on-farm feed or forage is damaged or a. Permanently authorizes livestock assistance, subject to annual appropriations, and at discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. Such a. Requires the Secretary of a. Adopts House Provision Agriculture to implement a program [Section 10104] to provide feed assistance to livestock producers affected by disasters, CRS-185 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 destroyed by a natural disaster (Livestock Assistance Program) or to replenish herds when a natural disaster causes widespread livestock mortality (Livestock Indemnity Program). HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 assistance would include indemnity payments for livestock mortality losses, livestock feed assistance, compensation for sudden increases in production costs, and other assistance as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Agriculture. [Section 931] subject to annual appropriations. For FY2003 through FY2008, $500 million is authorized to be appropriated. [Section 168] NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 b. Programs are generally funded b. No provision. through the borrowing authority of USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation. Most recent authority was granted for calendar year 2000 livestock losses in emergency provisions included within the FY2001 agriculture appropriations act (P.L. 106-387) [Section 806] b. Requires the Secretary to use $500 b. No provision million of Commodity Credit Corporation funds to make payments for livestock losses in 2001 in a county that has received emergency designation by the President or Secretary after January 1, 2001. Of this amount, $12 million is for the American Indian Livestock Program. All 2001 livestock assistance is to be administered the same as that provided for 2000 losses by the FY2001 agriculture appropriations act. The CCC funding is given an emergency designation and therefore does not count toward the spending limitations on the 2002 farm bill [Section 192 and 197] 2. Lambs for Afghanistan Authorizes a pilot emergency relief Amends Senate provision to program to provide live lamb to require a feasibility report by the Afghanistan and requires USDA to USDA on U.S. food aid No provision. CRS-186 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 submit a report by January 1, 2004. programs. [Section 3207 (Trade [Section 309] title)] F. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Assistance The 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) gave No provision. permanent authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to disburse up to $20 million in grants (subject to annual appropriations) to public agencies or private tax-exempt organizations that have experience providing emergency services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers. [Section 2281] Note: To date, one appropriation has been made to the program, in an emergency supplemental act in FY1999 (P.L. 106-31). In c r e a s e s t h e a u t h o r i t y f o r appropriations to $40 million for FY2002 through FY2006. No authority for appropriations beyond FY2006. [Section 1061] Eliminates the current law $20 million authorization limitation, effectively authorizing such a sums as are necessary, subject to appropriations. [Section 10102] a. Same as House bill, except that it contains an authorization for appropriations for fiscal years 20022006. [Title X, Subtitle D, Section 1062] a. Adopts House provision with amendment that person may not receive payments on more than 500 acres and adds “lightning” to the definition of natural disaster. [Section 10205] G. Tree Assistance and Caneberries 1. Tree Assistance Program: a. Implemented on an ad hoc basis, usually under temporary authority given in various emergency supplemental acts over the years. NOTE: Program implemented in 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-174) reimbursed tree and vine owners up to 100% of the cost of replanting when owners suffer 20% or greater loss (adjusted for normal mortality). a. Authorizes a program of assistance to growers who planted trees, vines and bushes for commercial purposes and suffered losses as a result of a natural disaster. Assistance would consist of reimbursement of 75% of the cost of replanting trees lost in excess of 15 % mortality (adjusted for normal mortality), or sufficient seedlings to reestablish the stand. CRS-187 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 [Title IX, Subtitle A, Sections 901902, 904] b. Payment limit of $25,000 per eligible tree and vine owner. Excludes assistance to owners earning more than $2.5 million gross annual revenue in the tax year preceding the year when the losses occurred. [See note above] 2. Caneberries Marketing Order: No provision b. Payments may not exceed $50,000 for each grower, or an equivalent value in tree seedlings. No requirement on amount of gross annual revenue, but grower must own 500 acres or less of commercial trees. [Title IX, Subtitle A, Section 903(a)] b. Payments may not exceed $100,000 to each grower or an equivalent value in tree seedlings. No requirement on amount of gross annual revenue or acreage. [Title X, Subtitle D, Section 1062] Amends the Agricultural Marketing No provision. Agreement Act of 1937 to authorize a marketing order for caneberries (including raspberries, blackberries, and logenberries). Not applicable to canned and frozen caneberries unless approved by processors. Provides for research and market promotion, including paid advertising. Imports of caneberries must comply with the market order restrictions as domestic caneberries [Title IX, Section 925] NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 b. House provision with amendment setting payments limit of $75,000 [Section 10204] Senate Provision [Subtitle G, Section 10601] H. Energy Miscellaneous laws and regulations (see Various titles below) Title IX - Energy, and other sections Ti tle IX, Energy and ot her sections CRS-188 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 1. Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Bioenergy Program Under the Bioenergy Program, CCC may grant payments to ethanol and bioproducers who expand their production capacity. Payments intended to help cover the purchase cost of the additional commodities necessary for that ex pansion. All o w able commodities include crops such as barley, corn, soybeans, and wheat, as well as cellulosic crops such as switchgrass and short rotation trees. [7 CFR 1424] Note: This program was scheduled to expire at the end of 2002. A n i m a l f a t s , a gr i c u l t u r a l No Provision. byproducts, and oils are added to the list of allowable commodities. Note: S. 1731 expresses the sense of [Section 922] the Congress that the Bioenergy Program should be continued and expanded. In addition, the section states that expanded ethanol and biodiesel production will be needed to phase out methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) — a common additive in gasoline that has contaminated groundwater in several states.[Section 907] S.Amdt. 2676, and S.Amdt. 2678, substitutes, add the House language to the Senate bill. [Sec 921] Program is extended and expanded. Mandatory spending of up to $150 million is provided annually for FY2003-2006. CBO estimates $204 million total will be authorized between FY2002 and FY2003. [Section 9010] 2. Renewable Energy on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Lands The Farm Security Act of 1985 created the Conservation Reserve Program (16 U.S.C. 3830 et. seq.) To assist and encourage farmers and ranchers to conserve and enhance soil and other resources [Section 3832(a)(7)(A)] Amends the Act to allow the use of CRP land for wind energy generation and biomass harvesting for energy production (with reduced payments). [Section 213] Amends the act to allow the use of CRP land for wind energy generation (with reduced payments). [Section 212(h)] Similar to House Provision [Section 2101] CRS-189 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 3. Emergency Loans to Respond to Sharply Increasing Energy Costs The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1969) provide for emergency loans for natural disasters. [Section 329] Amends the Act to allow loans in No provision. response to economic emergencies, which are defined to include sharply increasing energy costs. [Section 501] No Provision 4. Grants to Reduce Hazardous Forest Fuels for Energy Production The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101 et. seq) provides for technical and financial assistance for rural fire control. There are no provisions for biomass reduction grants.[P.L. 95-313] Creates a new section of the code which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide grants to energy producers who purchase biomass that poses a wildfire hazard for the production of electric power, useful heat, or transportation fuels. Authorizes $50 million each fiscal year.[Section 921] Similar to the House provision, but No Provision amends the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act to add a section on hazardous fuels reductions instead of establishing a new section of the code.[Section 809] 5. Clean Energy Under the current law, the Consolidated General sections amend various Several sections amend various laws Adds new sections (see below) Farm and Rural Development Act laws (see below) (see below).CFRDA is amended to (CFRDA) (7 U.S.C. 1921 et. seq.), add a Subtitle L (3 chapters) on there are no provisions for clean energy. “Clean Energy” that establishes [P.L. 87-128] programs on biobased products, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and carbon sequestration. [Section 902] CRS-190 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 a. No provision for biobased products 1. No provision under CFRDA. a. Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a list of biobased products that are environmentally preferable (defined as a having a reduced effect on human health and the environment compared with competing products). Federal agencies are required to purchase environmentally preferable biobased products, if available. For FY2002 through FY2006, mandatory spending is increased by $2 million per year, to remain available until expended. [Section 388B] Similar to Senate provision but products are not required to be environmentally preferable,. Mandatory spending of $1 million is provided for each of fiscal years 2002-2007. [Section 9002] b. No provision for biorefineries under b. There is no provision for CFRDA. biorefineries. However, the bill amends the Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Reform Act of 1988 (7 U.S.C. 7624) to extend authority to provide grants for pilot projects on biobased product development. Authority, which expired at the end of FY2001, is extended to FY2011. [Section 725] b. Establishes a new grant program to Similar to Senate provision, but assist in the development and no mandatory spending is construction of biorefineries, defined authorized [Section 9003] as facilities that convert biomass into fuels and chemicals. For FY2002 through FY2006, mandatory spending is increased by $15 million per year, to remain available until expended. [Section 388C] Also, Section 379 of the Act is amended to give priority to bioenergy and biochemical projects for grants.[Section 644] 6. Clean Energy - Chapter 1: Biobased Product Development CRS-191 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 c. No provision for Biodiesel fuel under CFRDA. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 c. No provision. SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 c. Establishes a new program to provide grants to nonprofit organizations that educate fleet operators and the public about the benefits of biodiesel. For FY2002 through FY2006, $5 million annually is authorized to remain available until expended. [Section 388D] Similar to Senate provision, but only $1 million in annual mandatory spending is provided for fisca l ye ars 20032007.[Section 6013] 7. Clean Energy - Chapter 2: Renewable Energy Development and Energy Efficiency a. CFRDA allows loans and loan a. Amends Section 30 of the Act to guarantees for the installation of solar allow loans and loan guarantees for energy systems. renewable energy systems. No new [Section 30] budget authority is granted. [Section 606] a. Establishes a new program to Similar to House provision. No assist farmers, ranchers, and rural new budget authority granted. business ventures in the establishment [Section 6013] or expansion of electrical facilities powered by renewable energy. For FY2002 through FY2006, mandatory spending is increased by $16 million, to remain available until expended. [Section 388E] b. No provision for energy audits under b. No provision CFRDA. b. Establishes a new program to provide grants to entities that assist farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses in performing audits to identify potential for improving energy efficiency and developing renewable energy. For FY2002 through FY2006, mandatory spending is increased by $15 annually, to Similar to Senate provision, except that no mandatory spending authorized. [Section 9005] CRS-192 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 remain available until expended. [Section 388F] c. No provision for energy systems under CFRDA. c. No provision. c. Establishes new a system of grants and loans to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses for the purchase of renewable energy systems. Recipients must have sales less than $1 million per year. For FY2002 through FY2006, mandatory spending is increased by $33 million per year, to remain available until expended. [Section 388G] Similar to Senate except that energy efficiency improvements also are eligible, and the Secretary of Agriculture is given authority to define a “small business” and $23 million in mandatory spending is provided annually for fiscal years 20032007. [Section 9006] d. No provision for hydrogen and fuel cells under CFRDA. d. No provision. d. Establishes a new grant program for cooperative research on hydrogen and fuel cell technologies for use in farm, ranch, and rural applications. For FY2002 through FY2006, mandatory spending is increased by $5 million annually, to remain available until expended. [Section 388H] d. Requires the Departments of Agriculture and Energy to cooperate on research into farm and rural applications of hydrogen fuel and fuel cell technologies. No new budget authority or funding is provided for this. [Section 9007] e. No provision for technical assistance e. Amends the Food Security Act to support energy development under of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa) to CFRDA. allow the Secretary to provide education and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to develop and market renewable energy resources. No new budget authority is created. e. Establishes a new program e. No Provision providing technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to develop renewable energy resources. The Secretary may retain up to 4% of the funds in the above areas to assist farmers and ranchers in developing and marketing renewable energy. CRS-193 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 [Section 942] SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 [Section 388I] 8. Clean Energy - Chapter 3: Carbon Sequestration Research, Development and Demonstration Program a. No provision for carbon sequestration research under CFRDA. Note: Other USDA programs including its general research authority provide for some similar research. b. Carbon Sequestration Projects. No provision. a. Amends the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106224, Section 211) to extend the authorization of the Carbon Cycle Research Program, which provides grants to land grant universities for carbon cycle research. Authorization is extended through 2011 (originally a one-time authorization of $15 million). [Section 751] a. Authorizes new funding for basic and applied carbon sequestration research, conducted either by the Secretary of Agriculture, or by other entities funded through competitive grants. The research goals include the study of net sequestration of carbon by soils and plants, and the net greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. $25 million is authorized annually for FY2002 through FY2006. S.Amdt. 2546 added state forestry agencies to the list of eligible entities. [Section 388J] b. No provision. b. Authorizes projects, administered b. No provision by the Secretary, to demonstrate the ability to monitor and verify carbon sequestration, and to educate farmers and ranchers about the economic and environmental benefits of conservation practices that increase sequestration. $10 million is authorized each year for FY2002 through FY2006. [Section 388K] a. Similar to House provision except authorization is through 2007. No new mandatory funding is provided. [Section 9009] CRS-194 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Extends authority for the program through FY2011; adds animal byproducts to the definition of “biomass”; and adds a livestock trade association representative to the Technical Advisory Board. Authorized appropriations will increase from zero to $49 million in each of FY2006 through FY2011. [Section 746] Amends the Act to provide for additional funding of $15 million each year for FY2002 through FY2006, to remain available until expended. Program authority is extended by one year, to September 30, 2006.[Section 903] (Note: Congress provided $15 million for this initiative in FY2002. Total funding would remain at $15 million per year, but would be mandatory.) Similar to Senate version except authority is through FY2007 and mandatory funding is set at $5 million for FY2002 and $14 million annually thereafter through FY2007. Additional $49 million annually in discretionary funding is also authorized for FY2002-2007. [Section 9008] Amends the Act to allow loan guarantees for the purchase of renewable energy systems by farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses. [Section 605] Amends the Act to establish a loan No provision and grant program for renewable energy projects at rural electric utilities and cooperatives. Grants may cover up to 75% of an economic feasibility study or for technical assistance on a project. Loans, at 4% interest, may be used to cover a percentage (to be determined by the Secretary) of the project cost. For FY2002 through FY2006, $9 million per year in mandatory spending is provided, to remain available until expended. [Section 904] 9. Biomass Research and Development Th e Bi om as s R e s e a r c h a n d Development Act of 2000 provides competitive funding for R&D projects on biofuels and other biobased chemicals and products, administered by the Secretaries of Agriculture and Energy. $49 million per year is authorized for FY2002 through FY2005. The authority for the program expires December 31, 2005. [P.L. 106-244, Title III] 10. Renewable Energy Projects The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 authorizes the Rural Utilities Service, which provides credit assistance to build and operate electric generating facilities, wholesale transmission equipment, and local distribution lines. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to provide loans and grants to improve electricity supply in rural areas. Currently, there are no provisions for renewable energy. [7 U.S.C. 901 et. seq.] CRS-195 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 11. Carbon Sequestration Demonstration Program The Agricultural Research, Extension, No provision. and Education Reform Act of 1998 establishes an account in the Treasury to be used by the Secretary of Agriculture for matching grants to address critical emerging agricultural issues.[P.L. 105-185] Amends the Act (adding Section 409) No provision to authorize $20 million each year for FY2002 through FY2006 to establish projects that can show demonstrable reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions or increases in carbon sequestration by soils and forests.[Section 905] 12. Mandatory Spending Increases for Energy Provisions Not relevant. None. $110 million/year; $550 million total $405 million total for FY2002(CBO estimate) 2007 (CBO estimate) Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to set up an Interagency Task Force on Agricultural Competition comprised of nine employees from USDA and the Department of Justice. The Task Force is directed to conduct heari ngs into competition issues in agriculture and submit a report on findings and recommendations for administrative and legislative action. [Section 937] No provision a. No Provision (NOTE: An earlier version of the Senate farm bill (S. 1628) contained a Competition title that was struck during committee markup.) I. Anti-trust and Competition 1. Competition Task Force and GIPSA Resources. a. Interagency Task Force on Agricultural Competition. No provision CRS-196 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 b. GIPSA Staffing. No provision HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 b. Authorizes appropriations to b. No provision enhance the capability of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to review competition in the meatpacking industry and hire litigation attorneys. [Section 938] 2. Meat Packer Concentration a. Section 202 of the Packers and a. No provision Stockyards Act of 1921] No provision b. GIPSA and Livestock Production No Provision Contract (Sections 202,203, 204, 205 of Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921) NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 b. No Provision a. Prohibits packers from owning, a. No Provision feeding, or controlling livestock (to the extent that the producer no longer is “materially participating in the production of livestock) for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. Exempts cooperatives or entities owned by a cooperatives and small (less than 2% of livestock slaughtered) producer packers owned by producers from this prohibition. Requires packers who own, feed or control livestock on the date of enactment to be in compliance within 18 months for hog packers and 180 days for all other livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep horses, mules and goats) intended for slaughter. [Section 1043] Note: adopted during Senate floor debate. b. Extends GIPSA authority to b. Senate provisions amended to include livestock production include only swine production contracts. [Section 1044] contracts. [Section 10502] CRS-197 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 - currently GIPSA protects broiler farmers growing under contract and livestock producers selling directly to packers; no authority over livestock producers growing under contract. c. Arbitration Clauses.( Packers and No provision Stockyards Act of 1921) No provision c. Adds a new section 413A to c. No Provision Packers and Stockyards Act that removes mandatory arbitration clauses from livestock contracts and allows for dispute settlement through other legal means in addition to arbitration. [Section 1046] (Note: Offered as a floor amendment by Senators Feingold, Grassley, and Harkin and adopted) d. Confidentiality Clauses (Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921) No provision d. Amends PSA to add new section 417 that allows contract producers to discuss contracts with advisors and enforcement agencies even if the contract contains a confidentiality agreement. [Section 1044] No Provision d. Senate provision amended to apply provision to contracts entered into, amended, renewed, or extended after enactment of this Act. [Section 10503] ANIMAL WELFARE (Subtitle D) J. Animal Transport, Inspection and Health 1. Definitions under the Animal Health Protection Act Current animal health-related statutes No Provisions define ‘animal’, ‘interstate’, Secretary, and ‘United States’ [Animal Health Adds new definitions for: animal, Senate Provisions article, disease, enter, export, facility, 10403] import, Indian Tribe, interstate [Section CRS-198 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Protection Act (21 USC§134)]. commerce, livestock, means of conveyance, move, pest, and State. [Sec. 1023]. [Note: Similar definitions are found in 7USC§7702 from the Plant Protection Act, P.L. 106-224, §403 , 114 STAT 438-440.] 2. Mailing Poultry and Other No provision Animals Section 651 of the FY2002 Agricultural Appropriations law (P.L. 107-67) authorized the Postal Service to (1) require airlines to accept certain animals (including day-old chicks) as mail, and (2) assess a surcharge to shippers to cover additional costs of shipping animals. The surcharge authority expires June 30, 2002. Removes expiration date on surcharge Senate provision amended to authority. [Section 1060] include honeybees. [Section 10501] 3. Other Animal Movement a. Importation. Authorizes the No Provisions. President to suspend animal importations to protect U.S. animals from infectious contagious animal diseases (Section 101 of Title 21). Gives the Secretary a variety of authorities to prevent the dissemination of a disease into the United States ((21 USC §102, §103, and (§§105 and a. Consolidates current authorities on a. Senate provisions [Section animal importation. Among other 10404] things, authorizes the Secretary to prohibit or regulate the importation of any animal, transport vehicles or facilities if this is needed to prevent entry or dissemination of a pest or disease into the United States. Applies similar restrictions to animals CRS-199 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 134a.). that have strayed into the United States, and permits the Secretary to order the destruction, disinfection or removal of animals and other property to prevent disease [Section 1024]. [Note: Similar authorities are found 7USC §7714 for Plant Protection Authorities.] b. Exportation. Authorizes the b. No provisions. Secretary to adopt measures and issue regulations to prevent the exportation of diseased livestock and poultry (21 USC §§113,120,134b and §§612-614.) b. Gives Secretary new authority to b. Senate Provisions [Section recover costs from owners for failures 10405] to comply and to regulate exportation. Consolidates and keeps current authorities. [Section 1025]. c Interstate Movement. Broadly c. No Provisions. authorizes the Secretary to regulate and to adopt measures to prevent the transport or movement of diseased or quarantined livestock and poultry within the United States. (21 USC§§120, 125-128, 134a) c. Consolidates current authorities. [Section 1026]. d. Animal Enterprise Terrorism No provision d. New provision making it unlawful d. No provision for a person to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or use or cause to be used the mail or any facility for the purpose of causing physical disruption of the functioning on an d. No provision c. Senate Provisions [Section 10406] CRS-200 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 animal enterprise, or to intentionally damage or cause loss of property used by an animal enterprise. Establishes penalties for such violations. [Section 1058] 4. Seizure, Quarantine, and Disposal. a Several sections of Title 21 give the No Provisions. Secretary broad authorities to prevent the spread of contagious infectious diseases within the United States. (see 21USC§§ 111, 113, 123, 134(a) and 134a(b)]. b. No provisions. b. No Provisions. c. Inspection, Seizures, and Warrants. No provisions. Authorizes the Secretary to inspect, a. Adds new authorities allowing the a. Senate Proposal [Section Secretary to ‘hold’, ‘treat’ or 10407] ‘destroy’ animals, articles and means of conveyance (from imports or in interstate commerce), if these are affected by or have been exposed to a pest or a disease and in connections to an extraordinary emergency. Current emergency authorities to seize, quarantine, and dispose of animals or regulated items are consolidated and kept. [Section 1027]. b. Makes final compensation payment b. Senate provisions [Section not subject to judicial review (Section 10407(d)(2)(C)] 1027). [Note: similar language is found in 7USC§7715 for Plant Protection Authorities.] c. Gives new authorities to the Secretary to stop and inspect, on c. Senate Provisions [Section probable cause, persons or means of 10408] CRS-201 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 without a warrant all persons or means of conveyance entering the United States for prevention of introduction or dissemination of any communicable animal disease (7USC§134d ). The Secretary has similar authorities in interstate commerce when, on probable cause, there is a need to determine whether persons or means of conveyance are carrying infected or exposed animals, products, or regulated articles. The statute also authorizes the inspection of premises, and seizures (on probable cause and with a court warrant) to prevent the introduction or dissemination of an animal disease. Needed warrants may be executed by USDA officials. conveyance coming from quarantined areas in intrastate commerce. Retains current authorities for warrantless inspections of persons or means of conveyance in international and interstate commerce and authorities to inspect premises with a warrant, but adds allowance for said warrant to be executed by a U.S. marshal. [Section 1028]. (Note: Similar authorities are found in 7USC§7731 for Plant Protection.) d. Detection, Control, and Eradication d. No Provisions. of Diseases and Pests. No similar authorities d. Authorizes the Secretary to carry d. Senate Provisions [Section out activities to detect, control, or 10409] eradicate any pest and disease of livestock (including the drawing of blood and diagnostic testing of animals), including animals at a slaughterhouse, stockyards, or any other point of concentration. The measure also authorizes the payment of claims arising from the destruction of animals, articles or means of conveyance. [Section 1029]. CRS-202 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 5. Veterinary Accreditation Program. No similar authorities exist. Current veterinary accreditation program is voluntary. HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 No Provisions. 6. Cooperation. (a) Several sections of Title 21 give the No Provisions. Secretary broad authorities to cooperate with other agencies, States, foreign governments, and organizations to carry out provisions related to animal health statutes, provided that the cooperating entity is authorized. (See 21USC§114, 114b, 114d-1, and 7USC§429). SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Authorizes the Secretary to establish Senate a veterinary accreditation program, 10410] which would include the establishment of standards of conduct for veterinary practitioners. [Section 1030]. Provision [Section Senate 10411] Provision [Section a. Keeps and consolidates present authorities.[Section 1031] (b) Current law authorizes USDA to b. No Provision produce and sell sterile screwworms to foreign countries or international organizations, with the proceeds going into the U.S. Treasury, and credited to the appropriation from which the operating expenses of the facility producing the screwworms had been paid. (21USC§114d). b. Retains the screwworms program b. Senate Provision [Section as currently authorized, except that its 10411(c).] proceeds are to be deposited directly to the account from which the operating expenses have been paid and not to the program’s yearly appropriation. [Section 1031]. 7. Consultations with Heads of No Provisions. Federal Agencies. No similar authorities exist related to Directs the Secretary to consult with Senate Provisions the heads of a Federal agencies with 104119(d)] respect to any activity that is under [Section CRS-203 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 animal health laws. NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 their jurisdiction. The new provision also appoints USDA as lead agency with respect issues related to pests and diseases of livestock. [Section 1031]. 8. Reimbursable Agreements. The Secretary is currently authorized to No Provisions. enter into reimbursable fee agreements with persons at locations outside of the United States to run animal and plant health importation preclearance programs. (7USC§2260a). Statute also authorizes the Secretary to pay USDA employees for: (1) performing inspection or quarantine services relating to imports and exports; (2) paying for all overtime, night, or holiday work performed; and (3) requiring reimbursements from the person for whom the services are performed. (7USC §2260). 9. Administration and Claims. No similar authorities exist related to animal health laws. SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 No provisions. Keeps current authorities, but adds a Senate Provisions new subsection for late payment 10412] penalties, including the payment of interest as currently required under 31USC§3717 on Interest and Penalties on Claims [Section1032]. [Section Adds new authorities for the Senate Provisions Secretary to acquire and maintain real 10413] or personal property, employ a person, and make grants, contracts, or agreements to carry out this Act. In addition, the Secretary acquires new authority to pay tort claims outside of the United States, as authorized by applicable statutes. [Section 1033] [Section CRS-204 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 10. Penalties. a. Current law establishes criminal No Provisions. penalties of fines and/or up to one year of imprisonment, and also civil penalties of up to $1000 for violations animal importation regulations (21USC§104). Section 21USC§117 establishes penalties for knowingly transporting diseased livestock or poultry in violation of law with:(1) criminal penalties that make it a misdemeanor punishable by up to $5,000 fines or imprisonment, or both to; and (2) civil penalties of fines up to $1,000 after a notice and the opportunity for a hearing on record. Orders for penalties shall be treated as a final, and are reviewable under 28USC§158. (Similar civil and criminal penalties are established by in Title 21 sections 122, 127, and 134b). 11. Regulations and Orders. Currently several statutes authorize the No Provisions. Secretary to issue regulations necessary to carry out animal health law provisions for export, transport, certification, inspection, disinfection of livestock and poultry. (21USC§§ 111, 120, 125 and 134f). SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Streamlines criminal and civil Senate Provisions penalties for violations of animal 10414] health statutes. Provides for new civil penalties, and fines. Provides new authority for the Secretary to suspend or revoke accreditation to any veterinarian that violates the Act. The Secretary may also summarily suspend an accreditation if there is reason to believe that the statutes have been violated. A prompt postsuspension hearing is mandated in such cases [Section 1034]. (Note: Identical authorities are found in 7USC§7734 for Plant Protection Authorities.) Consolidates the Secretary’s broad Senate authority to promulgate regulations, 10416] and issue orders, as necessary to carry out animal health statutes. [Section 1036]. provisions. [Section Section CRS-205 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 K. Plant Protection New Penalties for Violations of the No Provisions. Plant Protection Act Amends §424 of the Plant Protection Senate Act (7USC§7734): (1) by replacing 10810] criminal penalties provisions with a new subsection which describes criminal penalties for major violations (e.g., multiple violations or for violations with the intent to harm agriculture in the United States), and for other violations; and (2) by adding a subsection to allow for forfeiture in criminal and civil cases and for the establishment of appropriate procedures. [Section 1068]. provision [Section L. Pseudorabies Eradication Section 2506(d) of the Food, No Provisions Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 authorized the pseudorabies eradication program until 1995. Later, section 916 of Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 amended the statute (21USC §114i) to extend the program through 2002. Extends the pseudorabies eradication House provision with extension program authority until FY2006. of authority through FY2007. [Section 1059]. [Section 10505] M. Preclearance Quarantine Inspections for Hawaii No Provisions No Provisions Orders the Secretary to conduct preclearance inspections for Senate Provision with $3 million of FY2003 appropriations CRS-206 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 departures out of Hawaii and destined [Section 10811] to the continental United States or its territories, provided that no less than $3 million in FY2002 appropriations be made available for an act different that P.L. 107-76 (Agriculture appropriations for FY2002). [Section 1063]. N. Non-Ambulatory Farm Animals No similar provision for unlawful practices (Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) of 1921) Adds a new section to Title III of Same as House [Section 1045]. PSA that introduces new definitions, unlawful practices, and exceptions, as follows: ‘Humanely euthanized’ is defined to mean to kill an animal by mechanical, chemical, or other means that immediately render the animal unconscious, with this state remaining until the animal’s death,” “Non-ambulatory Livestock” means any livestock that is unable to stand and walk unassisted. Makes it unlawful under Section 312 of the PSA (1) for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer, market, hold, or drag any non-ambulatory livestock unless the non-ambulatory livestock has been Dropped House and Senate provisions instead adopting a requirement that the Secretary investigate and issue a report to Congress on practices involving non-ambulatory livestock, and authorizing the issuance of regulations based on the findings of the report, if the Secretary determines this is necessary. [Section 10815] CRS-207 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 humanely euthanized. Non-GIPSA farms, or cases in which nonambulatory livestock receive veterinary care intended to render the livestock ambulatory animals are excepted. Requires the issuance of new regulations. [Section 945]. O. Animal Welfare Act (nonfarm animals) 1. Care and Treatment standards for dogs. No Provisions No provisions Amends the Animal Welfare Act No Provision ordering the Secretary to include minimum standard requirements: (1) for the socialization of dogs intended for sale as pets; and (2) for addressing the initiation and frequency of breeding of female dogs, in the Secretary’s promulgation of standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors. [Section 1049]. 2. Birds, Rats, and Mice a. Definition for ‘animal’ in the Animal No Provisions. Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act sets minimum standards of animal care for experimental laboratories, animal dealers, and others. In 1970, the AWA was amended to protect “warm- a. Excepts birds, rats and mice used a. Senate Provisions [Section for research from protection under the 10304] Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by amending the definition of “animal” in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act [7USC§2156 2(g)]. The CRS-208 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 blooded animals” used in research but gave the Secretary the authority to determine AWA’s applicability to animals not specifically mentioned in the Act. Current regulations specifically exclude birds, rats and mice for research use from protection under this Act (see 9CFR§1.1). On September 28, 2000 USDA reached an out of court settlement with the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation to begin a rulemaking process on the regulation of birds, rats and mice under AWA. However, Agriculture Appropriations Acts for FY 2001 and for FY2002 have prohibited the use of appropriated funds to carry out the rulemaking process (see P.L. 106-387 §772, and P.L. 107-76 §732). b. Report SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 provision codifies current regulations, which specifically exclude birds, rats and mice for research use from protection under this Act (see 9CFR§1.1). [Section 1051]. No provisions. b. Requires from the Secretary of b. Senate Provisions [section Agriculture a report, completed by the 10304] Comptroller General within one year, on the implications of including birds, rats, and mice within Animal Welfare Act the definition of an animal. The report must contain descriptions and estimates of costs, regulatory appraisals, and current enforcement funding. [Section 1083]. CRS-209 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 3. Animal Fighting Ventures and Cockfighting Imposes fines of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both, for each violation (Section 26 (e) of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended by Section 17 of the Animal Welfare Amendments Act of 1976) Defines ‘Interstate or Foreign Commence’ as: (A) any movement between any place in a State to any place in another State or between places in the same State through another State; or (B) any movement from a foreign country into any State. (Section 26(g)(2)) HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Amends Section 26(e) of AWA by Same as House [Section1052]. increasing fines to not more that $15,000 and imprisonment to no more than 2 years, or both, for each violation. [Section 940(a)(1)]. Adds phrase “or from any State into a foreign country” to the statute’s ‘interstate or foreign commerce’ definition. [Section 940(a)(2)]. House version with “special rule” for states where fighting is legal. [Section 10302 Amends Section 26(d) of the Same as House [Section 1053]. Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the interstate movement of animals for fighting. Section 26(d) would read as follows: “(d) Activities Not Subject to Prohibition- This section does not apply to the selling, buying, transporting, or delivery of an animal in interstate or foreign House provision [Section 10301] 4. Interstate Movement of Animals for Animal Fighting: Currently, interstate movement of animals for fighting is legal to states where fighting is allowed. Section 26(d) of the Animal Welfare Act, as amended, reads as follows: “(d) Not withstanding the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, the activities prohibited by such subsection shall be unlawful with CRS-210 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof.” (7USC§ 2156(d)). commerce for any purpose, so long as the purpose does not include participation of the animal in an animal fighting venture.” [Section 941(a)]. 5. Humane Methods for Animal Slaughter Humane Methods Slaughter Act of 1958. Free standing provision expresses sense of Congress that USDA should fully enforce the Humane Methods Slaughter Act of 1958 (7USC§§1901 et seq.) [Section 939]. SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Similar to House bill, except that also Adopts both House and Senate calls for resuming the tracking and provisions. [Section 10305] reporting of Act violations to Congress. [Section 1067]. P. Genetically Engineered Products Report on Genetically Engineered Food Authorizes $0.5 million for a (GEF) and Genetically Engineered Pest National Academy of Sciences Protected Plants report on GEF regulations, safety and monitoring. [Section 933]. Public Education of GEF Sense of the Senate Resolution for the Secretary to submit a report on genetically engineered pest-protected plants. Authorizes appropriations of $10 million from FY2002 and sums as necessary for other fiscal years. [Section 1083] Authorizes a USDA program to No provision educate the public about GEF. [Section 935]. Sense of the Congress that the Secretary review National Research Council recommendations and submit a report on this to the Congress. [Section 7410] No provision. CRS-211 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 Q. Pesticides and School Pesticide Management Plans 1. Fee collection No provision [Section 4, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA]2. Small Business Eligibility for reduced fees. Permits lower maintenance fees for businesses with 150 or fewer employees. [Section 4, FIFRA)] 3. Pest Management in Schools No provision No provision Amends FIFRA to reauthorize fee No provision. collection (to support reregistration of pesticides), increase maintenance fees, prohibit collection of registration fees for five years, and allow expedited registration processing for inert gradients. It also would strictly limit increases in tolerance processing fees charged to registrants of pesticides used on food. Expands the number of businesses eligible for reduced fees from those with 150 or fewer employees to those with 500 or fewer employees. [Section 1041] Amends FIFRA to create a new No Provision section 33, “School Environment Protection Act of 2002” that requires Pest Management in Schools. Requires states to develop pest management plans as part of state cooperative enforcement agreements with the EPA. Set requirements for what should be included in plans and requires the EPA to distribute guidelines to states no later than one year after enactment, after which State educational agencies would be CRS-212 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 required to develop plans and submit them to the Administrator for approval. Local education agencies would be required to implement their state plan within one year of receiving it. [Section 1042] R. Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (See also Title V, Farm Credit) 1. Compilation of program participation data No provision in current law [Section 2507 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990] 2. Elections for country areas or local committees. No provision in current law [Section 8 (b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act] No Provision Amends Section 2507 of the FACT S e n a t e p r o v i s i o n w i t h Act to require the Secretary to amendments. [Section 10708] compute annually for each county and state. the participation rate of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers as a percentage of total USDA program participants. [Section 1057] No provision Adds requirements for the composition of county, area or local committees that will make them fairly representative. Requires the Secretary to establish procedures for nominations and elections committees and to solicit and accept nominations from organizations representing interests of socially disadvantaged farmers. Requires public notice and observation of opening and counting of ballots by any person, and filing of an election report on the outcome of the election with the Secretary and the Senate provisio n s , with amendments to require the Secretary to report participation rates of socially-disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by race, ethnicity, and gender and in those instances when sociallydisadvantaged farmers or ranchers are not adequately represented on a local or area committee, permits the Secretary to appoint one additional voting member to the committee. [Section 10708] CRS-213 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 State office of the Farm Service agency within 20 days of an election, and a national report no later than 90 days after the first election after enactment. Sets the term of office for membership on a county, local or area committee at not more than 3 years. Requires the Secretary to publish in the Federal register proposed uniform guidelines to ensure fair representation of socially disadvantaged for conducting elections if necessary after analyzing the data contained in the election report. [Section 1057] 3. Definition of Socially disadvantaged group. For the purpose No Provision of Outreach and assistance, defines a socially disadvantaged group as a group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual identities.[Section 2501(e) of the FACT Act of 1990]. Note: Section 355(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1999 adds “gender” to the definition of a socially disadvantaged group for the purposes of loan eligibility. Amends 1990 FACT Act to add Senate “gender” to the definition of a 10708] socially disadvantaged group eligible for outreach and assistance. [Section 1057] Provision [Section CRS-214 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 No Provision Establishes a new program to encourage geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in owning and operating farms and ranches and participating equitably in the full range of agriculture programs offered by the USDA. Authorizes $20 million annually for FY2002-2006 to carry out this program, and defines a geographically disadvantaged farmer or rancher as one in an insular area or a state other than one of the 48 contiguous states. [Section 1079B] Drops Senate provisions creating and funding a new program. Maintains Senate provision defining geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. Adds a provision requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a report to t h e H ouse and S e n a t e Agriculture Committees not later than one year after enactment that describes: barriers to efficient and competitive transportation of inputs and products by geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers; and ways of encouraging and assisting such farmers and ranchers in owning and operating farms and ranches and participating in the full range. of USDA programs. [Section 10906] T. Assistant Secretary of Agriculture No Provision for Civil Rights Amends Section 218 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the position of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil rights to be appointed by the President by and Senate provisions amended to endure that this new Secretary is under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture [Section 10704] S. Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers No Provision [Section 218 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of CRS-215 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 1994] No provision SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 with the advice and consent of the Senate, with listed duties and responsibilities [Section 1056] U. Farm Marketing Programs 1. State Marketing Programs. 1. No provision Federal support for: the promotion of agricultural products through research to improve the marketing, handling, storage, distribution and transportation of agricultural products; cooperation between federal, state and local agencies, producers, industry organizations and others in research and application of effective marketing program; and integrated administration of all laws enacted by the Congress to aid the distribution of agricultural products through research , market aids and services and regulatory activities.[Title II Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. ] Establishes a State Marketing Program funded with CCC funds (mandated at $7 million FY2003, $8 million for FY2004 and $10 million for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006). Fund are to be allotted to state departments of agriculture and other appropriate State agencies for cooperative projects in marketing services and research. From the CCC funds allotted under this program , the Secretary is to give priority to initiatives designed to support direct and others marketing efforts of small farms and limited resource farmers. [Section 1050] Deletes new program authorization, funding and priorities; instead requires the Secretary to work with states to develop programs to train managers of farmers markets, develop opportunities for information sharing, and establish a program to train cooperative extension services employees in the development of direct marketing techniques. [Section 10605(b)] 2. Farmers Market Promotion Program. Federal aid to promote the development and expansion, of direct marketing of agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers farmers’ market and other means (i.e., farmers markets) [The Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976] Among other things, authorizes $10 million annually for fiscal years 2002-2006 to make grants under a new ‘Farmers’ Market Promotion Program’ to establish, expand and promote farmers markets. Maximum grant amounts set at $500,000 in any fiscal year. Includes types of entities Authorizes such funds as are necessary, subject to appropriations, for the creation of a new Farmers Market Promotion Program. Maintains Senate provisions regarding eligible entities, but gives the Secretary the authority to set No provision. CRS-216 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 eligible for such funds, and the criteria and guidelines instead of criteria and guidelines for grant setting these in the aw. [Section submission, evaluation and funding. 10605(a)] [Section 1050] V.Organic Certification 1. Cost-Share Program - No Provision No Provision 2. Exemptions from assessments for No Provision organic farmers. No Provision W. Food Safety Commission No Provision No Provision Directs the Secretary to use $3.5 million of CCC funds for each of fiscal years 2002-2004 and $3 million for FY2005 to establish a national organic certification cost-share program to assist producers and handlers of agricultural products in obtaining certification under the National Organic Production Program. Sets maximum federal share at 75%, and maximum individual payment to a producer or handler at $500. [Section 1065] Adopts Senate provision, revised to require the Secretary to use $5 million of CCC funds, beginning in FY2002, to establish a national organic certification cost-share program. [Section 10606] No Provision Exempts from assessments under a commodity promotion law a person that produces and markets 100% organic products and requires Secretary to promulgate relevant regulations within 1 year of enactment [Section 10607] E s t a b l i s h e s a F o o d S a f e t y Adopts Senate provision with Commission composed of 15 revisions to, among other things, CRS-217 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 members from consumer groups, food processors, producers and retailers; public health professionals; food inspectors and regulators, academics and other interested individuals. Requires the Commission to make specific recommendations that build on the recommendations of the NAS report on ensuring safe food, that provide a basis for legislative language to improve the food safety system, public health and harmonize the food safety system. [Section 1066] provide for Presidential appointment of membership, change eligibility standards for appointees, and describe how each of the Commission’s recommendations would improve food safety [Section 10807]. Requires the Secretary to issue a report or study on: Pouched and canned salmon; genetically modified pest protected plants; the feasibility of producer indemnification from government caused disasters; creation of Litter bank by the University of Arkansas; the sale and use of pesticides for agricultural uses; rats, mice and birds. Of these only the study of GM pest-protected plants authorizes funding — $10 million for FY2002 and such sums as are necessary thereafter. [Sections 1081, 0183, 1084, 1085, 1086 and 1087].] Requires reports or studies on specialty crop purchases [section 10901]; the effect on producers of updated yield bases [section 10903]; the effect of farm program payments [section 10904]; Chiloquin Dam fish passage feasibility [section 10905] ; geographically disadvantaged farmers and ranchers [section 10906]; agricultural research and technology [section 10907]; the sale and use of pesticides for agricultural purposes [section X. Miscellaneous Studies, Reports and Task Forces 1. Requires Studies and/or Reports - No Provisions Salmon, Genetically modified plants, U. of Arkansas Litter Bank, Pesticide sales and use, Producer Indemnification, Rats, mice and birds No Provisions CRS-218 MISCELLANEOUS OLD LAW/POLICY COVERS 1996-2002 HOUSE BILL H.R. 2646 COVERS 2002-2011 SENATE BILL S. 1731, amended COVERS 2002-2006 NEW LAW P.L. 107-171 COVERS 2002-2007 10909]; review of the operation of agricultural and natural resource programs on tribal trust land [section 10910] 2. Master Settlement Agreement No provision 3. Task Force on National Institutes of No Provision Plant and Agricultural Sciences Requires the Comptroller General to submit annually to the Congress, Senate provision [section 10908] beginning December 31, 2002, a report describing all programs and activities carried out by states using funds receive und the master Settlement Agreement of 1997. [Section 1082] Requires the Secretary to establish a No provision task force to evaluate the merits of establishing one or more National Institutes of Plant and Agricultural Sciences. Lays out membership and general criteria for membership, appointed by the Secretary, and the duties of the Task Force. No funds authorized. [Section 1088] EveryCRSReport.com The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on issues that may come before Congress. EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to the public. Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com. 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 permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 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' institutional role. EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim copyright on any CRS report we have republished.