Agriculture: Previewing the 2002 Farm Bill

CRS Report for Congress
Agriculture: Previewing the 2002 Farm Bill
Updated April 9, 2001
Geoffrey S. Becker, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Ralph M. Chite, Jean Y. Jones, Jean M. Rawson,
Jasper Womach, and Jeffrey A. Zinn
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Joe Richardson
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Agriculture: Previewing the 2002 Farm Bill
Federal farm support, food assistance, agricultural trade, marketing, and rural
development policies are governed by a variety of separate laws. However, many of
these laws periodically are evaluated, revised, and renewed through an omnibus,
multi-year farm bill. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act
of 1996 (P.L. 104-127) was the most recent omnibus farm bill, and many of itsth
provisions expire in 2002, so reauthorization will be an issue for the 107 Congress.
The heart of every omnibus farm bill is farm income and commodity price
support policy – namely the methods and levels of support that the federal
government provides to agricultural producers. However, farm bills typically include
titles on agricultural trade and foreign food aid, conservation and environment,
domestic food assistance (primarily food stamps), agricultural credit, rural
development, agricultural research and education, and marketing-related programs.
Often, such “miscellaneous” provisions as global warming, food safety, and animal
health and welfare are added. This omnibus nature of the farm bill creates a broad
coalition of support among conflicting interests for policies that, individually, might
not survive the legislative process.
The scope and direction of a new farm bill will be determined by a number of
contributing factors, including financial conditions in the agricultural economy, the
federal budget, and international trade developments, among others.
Among the thorniest issues will be future farm income and commodity price
support. The Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA), Title I of the 1996 farm
bill, was designed to provide gradually declining fixed payments to producers of
major crops (grains and cotton), while giving them more flexibility to plant in
response to market signals, among other provisions. However, unanticipated,
persistently low commodity prices and 3 years of multi-billion dollar ad hoc
emergency farm aid packages to supplement the assistance programmed through the
1996 law have raised questions about its effectiveness. Many have expressed
preference for a more reliable method of supporting farm income than ad hoc laws,
and are pushing for a variety of changes to accomplish that in a new bill. Questions
of equity (e.g, who should get aid and how much), program cost, impacts on trade
competitiveness and the environment are among the considerations in this debate.
The economic prosperity of the U.S. farm sector is heavily dependent upon
exports, so the provisions of a new bill reauthorizing farm export and foreign food
aid programs also will be of keen interest. These provisions also might become a
venue for providing guidance regarding farm sector goals and objectives to U.S.
officials negotiating a new multilateral round of agricultural trade reforms, as well
as several new bilateral and regional agreements. Moreover, the agricultural credit,
research, conservation, domestic nutrition assistance, and rural development titles
will bring an array of interests into the debate, and their issues and concerns could
prove no less contentious.

In troduction ......................................................1
What Is “The Farm Bill”?.......................................1
Congressional Action...........................................2
Related Policy Considerations........................................3
Economic Situation............................................3
The Federal Budget............................................4
International Trade.............................................6
Farm Income and Commodity Price Support.............................8
Developments Since 1996.......................................9
The Case for Federal Farm Support...............................10
Selected Issues and Options.....................................11
Foreign Trade and Food Aid........................................14
Conservation and Environment......................................17
Food Stamps and TEFAP...........................................19
Farm Credit and Finance...........................................22
Rural Development...............................................23
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education........................24
Appendix A. Commodity Credit Corporation Net Expenditures, By Commodity/Program,
FY1996-2002 ................................................26
Appendix B. Titles & Subtitles of the 1996 Farm Bill (Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127)................27

Agriculture: Previewing the 2002 Farm Bill
What Is “The Farm Bill”?
The 107th Congress will consider major farm and food legislation in an omnibus
multi-year authorizing bill, commonly called the “farm bill.”
Federal farm support, food assistance, agricultural trade, marketing, and rural
development policies are governed by a variety of separate laws. However, many of
these laws periodically are evaluated, revised, and renewed through an omnibus,
multi-year farm bill. Of course, these policies can, and sometimes are, modified or
overhauled as free-standing authorizing legislation, or as part of other laws.
However, periodic “farm bills” have provided Congress, the Administration, and
interest groups with an opportunity to reexamine agricultural and food issues more
carefully, and address them more comprehensively.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-127) was the most recent omnibus farm bill, and many of its provisions expire
in 2002. Without new legislation, notably in the area of farm income and commodity
price support programs, permanent statutes would take effect. Most of these statutes
were enacted decades ago and are no longer compatible with current national
economic objectives, global trading rules, and federal budgetary or regulatory
policies. (In fact, these largely outdated permanent laws have been kept on the books
in part to compel an increasingly urban and suburban Congress to pay attention to
national agricultural policy.)
The heart of every omnibus farm bill is farm income and commodity price
support policy – namely the methods and levels of support that the federal
government provides to agricultural producers. However, farm bills typically include
titles on agricultural trade and foreign food aid, conservation and environment,
domestic food assistance (primarily food stamps), agricultural credit, rural
development, agricultural research and education, and marketing-related programs.
Often, such “miscellaneous” provisions as global warming, food safety, and animal
health and welfare are added.
This omnibus nature of the farm bill creates a broad coalition of support among
conflicting interests for policies that, individually, might not survive the legislative
process. Among the groups lobbying Congress will be farm and commodity
organizations; input suppliers; commodity handlers, processors, retailers, and
exporters; foreign customers and competitors; universities and scientific
organizations; domestic consumers and food assistance advocates; environmentalists,
and rural communities. So, for example, farm state lawmakers look to urban

legislators’ support for commodity price supports in exchange for their votes on
domestic food aid – and vice versa.
The 1996 farm bill had 9 titles and some 300 pages – much shorter than the
1990 farm bill, which consisted of 25 titles and over 700 pages.1 Farm bills and the
programs they encompass are complex, tightly intertwined, and intensely interactive.
Changes to one program often have unintended consequences for others. For
example, a legislative change that raises corn prices must be examined for how it
might change the planting decisions of those who grow other crops such as soybeans,
and, in turn, the cost of the support program for soybeans. Likewise, a change in the
corn program can have major implications for producers who feed corn to dairy
cows, beef cattle, and other animals; for sugar producers and processors who can use
corn syrup in place of sugar for many products; for consumers, including those on
limited food budgets; and for exporters and foreign competitors. The level and type
of support provided also can affect farm equipment companies, agricultural investors
and rural financial institutions, fertilizer and pesticide suppliers, and farm-dependent
rural communities.
Congressional Action
The farm bill likely will not be the only legislation in the 107th Congress
affecting the farm sector. Lawmakers also are, or will be, considering welfare
legislation, tax reform, trade legislation, government-wide budget resolutions, and
various appropriations bills, all of them closely followed by farm interests.
In reality, federal farm policy is an ongoing issue for lawmakers. The 1996 law
was intended to guide agricultural support through 2002. But unanticipated
economic problems forced Congress to begin the next “farm bill debate” in 1998,
when it considered and passed the first of a series of ad hoc measures that have
pumped many billions of dollars in supplemental aid into the farm sector. (See “Farm
Income and Commodity Price Support,” on page 8.)
In 2000, the House Agriculture Committee held numerous hearings on the 2002
farm bill, most of them in various parts of the country. This year, in late January,
both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees formally resumed work by
holding separate hearings to receive the recommendations of the Commission on 21st
Century Production Agriculture, a blue-ribbon panel of experts established by the
1996 farm bill to advise Congress on future policy changes.2 Both committees are
holding additional hearings in early 2001. For example, the House committee has
focused heavily on proposed changes to commodity price and income support
programs, already taking testimony from approximately 20 separate general
agriculture and commodity organizations.
The House chairman has indicated a desire to pass at least the commodity
support titles of a farm bill this year. Efforts to do so were bolstered when the House,

1 See Appendix B for a table of contents of the 1996 farm law.
2 Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. Directions for Future Farm Policy:
The Role of Government in Support of Production Agriculture. January 2001.

on March 28, 2001, passed its budget resolution, which would allow for more future
spending to be devoted to agriculture if the House Agriculture Committee reports
legislation authorizing a new commodity and farm income support title by July 11,
2001 (see “The Federal Budget,” on page 4). However, several other Members of
Congress, including leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee, have indicated that
omnibus legislation, including the commodity section, may not pass Congress until


Related Policy Considerations
Economic Situation
For the last 3 years, lower demand for U.S. agricultural exports – due to the
global economic slowdown, the continuing high value of the U.S. dollar, and
abundant world supplies – have contributed to sharply lower prices for major farm
commodities. A slowly recovering world economy is expected to stimulate a rise in
the value of farm exports, to $53 billion in FY2001 – above the recent low of $49
billion in FY1999 but still short of the record high of nearly $60 billion in FY1996,
according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Farm export volumes for
many items are expected by USDA to continue to experience growth in the coming
years, but prices (and therefore overall value of exports) will recover more slowly
due to large production and stocks.
The trade outlook is important to farmers because exports account for 20% to

25% of the value of their production, and one-third of harvested acreage is exported.

Farm income also is affected by other factors, not the least of them government
subsidies. USDA forecast data show that 2000 net cash farm income, at $56.4
billion, has remained close to the annual average of the 1990s, due largely to record
high direct payments to farmers. This has helped to undergird the value of
agricultural land and other assets, keep farm debt at favorably low levels, and protect
farm operator incomes. Production expenses, until recently relatively low, have been
on the rise due to higher fertilizer, fuel, interest rate, and other input costs. USDA
predicts that, absent another round of “emergency” payments for farmers, (i.e., over
and above what they are programmed to receive under the 1996 farm law), U.S. farm
net cash income could drop below $51 billion in 2001.
Changes in farm income also have impacts on rural communities and businesses
that depend on the agricultural sector. Meanwhile, if the U.S. economy in general
continues to cool, unemployment could rise and non-farm household incomes
decline. That would bode higher costs for the food stamp program, where spending
is directly affected by employment and income changes. So, the food stamp as well
as the rural development titles of a new farm bill could become even more prominent
issues in the next year or two.

The Federal Budget
Like all areas of the federal budget, agriculture and other programs in the farm
bill face spending constraints imposed by Congress. These constraints begin to take
shape with the start of the annual congressional budget process, when the House and
Senate Budget Committees recommend maximum spending levels for broad
“functional” categories. Once these limits are approved by Congress via the annual
budget resolution, program spending cannot be increased that would breach these
limits, unless either: (1) they are offset by increased revenue or cuts in other
programs, or; (2) Congress and the President declare the extra spending to be
“em ergency. ” 3
Farm Bill Budget Categories. Most of the major programs that assist
production agriculture, including commodity price and income supports, crop
insurance, farm credit, marketing, and agricultural research, fall within so-called
function 350, the agriculture function of the federal budget. Other functional areas
of spending administered by USDA include: food stamps (under function 600,
income security); conservation programs (under function 300, the natural resources
category); foreign food aid (under function 150, the international affairs category);
and so forth. So, although most of these programs are addressed by the Agriculture
Committees in an omnibus farm bill, they are scattered throughout the federal budget

Figure 1. USDA Gross Outlays, FY2000
--- Billion $ ---
USDA Total=$80.783 billion
Farm & Foreign Agriculture
Admin & Misc
Rural Development
2.5%Marketing & Regulatory
$2.0 53 1.1%
Natural Resources
Food Safety
$0.6 45
Food & Nutrition2.5%
40.0% $1.983
Source USDA Budget Summary, FY2001.
3 The budget resolution is a congressional blueprint for all federal spending that does not
require a presidential signature, however.

for scorekeeping purposes (see figure 1).4 In fact, spending for USDA is not
synonymous with spending for farmers, nor with the farm or appropriations bills.
Adding further complexity, some programs within each functional category are
considered “mandatory” spending, while others are “discretionary.” Examples of
mandatory spending are the major farm commodity price support programs and the
food stamp program. Funding needs for mandatory programs are determined
indirectly in the House and Senate Agriculture Committees when they write, directly
into the authorizing laws, the eligibility standards and benefit levels for these
programs (as long as this funding does not exceed levels permitted in the separate
congressional budget resolution). The appropriations committees then generally are
expected to provide the necessary year-to-year funding in the annual USDA
Examples of discretionary spending are agricultural research and extension, and
farm marketing services. While discretionary programs also are designed and
authorized in the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, their annual funding
levels are not set until the House and Senate Appropriations Committees decide on
them as part of the annual USDA appropriations bill. (Of course, both mandatory
and discretionary program authorizations and spending still ultimately must be
approved by the full House and Senate after they are reported by the relevant
Before either the Agriculture Committees or Appropriations Committees make
these decisions by drafting the appropriate legislation – whether it is a new farm bill,
an annual USDA appropriation, or some other measure – the panels must know how
much “room” they have been allocated under the congressional budget resolution.
The “Baseline”. Thus, the opening stages of debate over a new farm and food
policy usually occur in the Budget Committees. Both the Administration and the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) independently estimate what the level of USDA
spending will be in coming years based on “current policy,” generally meaning the
continuation of existing law, and on additional assumptions about likely economic
and market conditions. The debate focuses on whether these estimates – the
“baseline” – are appropriate or whether more (and, possibly, less) spending should
be “built into” the baseline.
Usually, Congress uses the CBO baseline. For the major farm income and price
support programs, CBO in December 2000 estimated that annual spending will be
about $10.2 billion in FY2002 and $9.2 billion in FY2003.5 The CBO annual
baseline generally continues to decline, from just under $9.2 billion in FY2004, to

4 The food stamp program accounted for about $18.9 billion of the $33 billion food and
nutrition category. Farm and foreign agriculture outlays likely exceeded food assistance
program outlays for FY2000, due to the $30.5 billion cost of Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) farm spending.
5 These figures refer to farm spending by the CCC, the USDA entity created specifically to
finance operations of the Department’s farm price, income support, and related programs.

about $5.3 billion in FY2008, as well as in FY2009, which conceivably might be the
final years of a new omnibus farm bill.
However, CCC farm spending (including emergency aid) was about $30.5
billion in FY2000 and is projected at $17.3 billion for FY2001 (unless, as many
anticipate, Congress again provides additional emergency assistance this year).
Earlier, each congressional authorizing committee submitted to the budget
committees its recommendations for spending on programs under its jurisdiction.
Although the agriculture committees did not request specific dollar amounts for
additional farm assistance, they did ask the budget committees to provide them with
the flexibility they might need to provide ad hoc assistance this year, as well as to
make possible changes to authorized farm commodity support programs once they
expire in 2002.
The House Budget Committee completed markup of the FY2002 budget
resolution (H.Con.Res. 83) on March 21, 2001, which the full House approved by a
222-205 vote on March 28. Although the House-passed resolution does not
specifically increase allocations for farm commodity support spending, it does
support the Administration proposal for the use of a reserve fund to finance future
new farm spending needs. For the near term, Section 8 of H.Con.Res. 83, as passed
by the House, allows the chairman of the House Budget Committee to increase
allocations for farm spending in FY2001, if legislation is considered authorizing
financial assistance to crop growers. For longer term farm spending needs, Section
6 allows the Budget Committee chairman to increase agricultural spending in
FY2002 by July 25, 2001, if the House Agriculture Committee reports legislation
authorizing a new farm bill commodity title by July 11, 2001.
The full Senate completed its version of H.Con.Res. 83 on April 6, where
Senators earlier approved a floor amendment to add, to the baseline, about $63.5
billion more for mandatory agriculture spending over the next 10 years. More of the
funds would be available in the earlier, than later, years of that period. It is expected
that a House-Senate conference, after the spring recess, will resolve differences in the
two measures. (A coalition of major farm and commodity organizations have been
urging Congress to provide at least $12 billion more annually.) The final level
obtained will be a key determinant in the type of programs lawmakers design for a
new farm bill.
International Trade
U.S. international trade obligations, most notably under the multilateral Uruguay
Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA), pose another constraint on farm program
design and spending. Generally, that agreement places countries’ domestic farm
support programs into one of several broad categories, based on their relative
likelihood to distort trade. Major agricultural trading countries are required to
“discipline” (limit) total spending (i.e., their aggregate measure of support, or AMS)
for their most trade-distorting (so-called “amber box”) policies. Countries report to
the World Trade Organization (WTO) on their domestic farm spending for each year.
The United States, like virtually all other countries, has been reporting that its
AMS has been below its allowable annual levels (the last year it reported was for

1997). From 2000 on, the United States cannot exceed $19.1 billion in AMS
spending. U.S. amber box programs that generally might be counted toward AMS
include dairy, peanut, and sugar price supports, crop marketing loans, loan deficiency
payments, and other direct payments linked to per-unit levels of production; storage
payments; and crop insurance and loan interest subsidies, among others.6 The least
trade-distorting programs, so-called “green box,” are exempt from AMS limits.
Green box programs include income supports not coupled to current production or
prices, such as the payments going to producers who signed 7-year production
flexibility contracts under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA) in the
1996 farm bill; conservation and environmental activities, such as the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP); farm disaster relief payments; and domestic food aid like
food stamps.
The URAA does provide latitude to U.S. policymakers in developing domestic
support measures that can both provide significant aid to producers but at the same
time comply with WTO obligations. Some analysts argue, for example, that the
United States will be able to claim that the emergency “market loss” payments
Congress has provided to AMTA contract holders for 3 consecutive years (1998,
1999, and 2000) are exempt from AMS commitments because either (1) they are not
tied to current production and prices, or (2) they are not commodity-specific, and
therefore the subsidies could be measured against total U.S. production value for all
commodities – keeping the level below the 5% de minimis exclusion.7 On the other
hand, some member nations of the WTO could argue that the payments were made
specifically in response to immediate price and supply conditions and were so large
as to affect world trading patterns, thereby undermining the objectives of the
agreement. The question could become a point of contention in the WTO
negotiations to further reform agricultural trade, which are now under way.
As Congress begins to consider a new farm bill, other countries will be
evaluating whether, in their view, future programs comply with the URAA.
Moreover, the United States is pressing the EU for further cutbacks in its own
domestic supports, and continued additions to the U.S. programs by Congress might
undermine that U.S. negotiating position, some have argued.
Meanwhile, Congress will likely be seeking support methods that it can justify
as URAA-compliant. Thus, farm policy proposals tied to conservation, rural
development, and/or resource retirement, or those providing subsidies to producers
irrespective of what they plant or of current prices, might be viewed more favorably
than others. Congress and the Administration also may seek to influence future

6 Countries, including the United States, do not have to count amber box subsidies toward
their total AMS if the total support provided by all of them is less than 5% of the value of
production – the so-called de minimis exclusion. If the subsidies apply to a specific
commodity (e.g., wheat, sugar, milk, etc.), then the 5% rule applies to the production value
of that commodity only. If the subsidies are non-commodity specific, then the 5% rule
applies to the value of the country’s total agricultural production.
7 See above footnote. However, as of early April 2001, the United States had not yet
submitted its AMS notification to the WTO for any of these 3 years, so how the payments
will be counted was still not known.

multilateral roles in ways that are consistent with U.S. domestic support policy aims
and measures. (See CRS Report RL30612, Farm Support Programs and World
Trade Commitments, and CRS Report RS20840, Farm Program Spending: What’s
Permitted Under the Uruguay Round Agreements.)
Farm Income and Commodity Price Support
The 1996 farm law significantly revised federal farm support policy. Title I, the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (AMTA), eliminated variable deficiency
payments (which were the difference between legislated target prices and current,
usually lower, market prices) for wheat, feed grains, cotton, and rice. Producers of
these commodities instead are receiving “production flexibility contract” (PFC)
payments, which are lump sum benefits that decline each year. These are provided
irrespective of current market prices or planting choices. Supply controls in the form
of specific annual acreage bases and cropland set-asides were ended by the 1996 law
because, it was argued, they distorted production decisions and ceded export markets
to foreign competitors – who increased output whenever U.S. farmers had to cut
acreage in order to receive subsidies.
With federal payments “decoupled” from production under the 1996 law,
farmers were encouraged to plant for “market returns” rather than “federal program
benefits,” and were given broad planting flexibility. The 1996 farm law was enacted
at a time when farm prices were at high levels and foreign markets were expanding
greatly. The major crop producers (or owners of the land where these crops had
USDA-assigned bases prior to 1996) were set to receive a total of about $36 billion
in contract payments over the 7-year life of the law.
In addition, the 1996 law maintained some price protection by providing
countercyclical marketing loan assistance for AMTA commodities and for soybeans
and minor oilseeds. Under this program, farmers who take out USDA crop loans are
permitted to repay them upon maturity at market prices if these prices are less than
the original per-unit (bushel, pound) loan rate; the difference is in effect a revenue
subsidy. Moreover, those eligible for but not taking the crop loan also receive an
equivalent subsidy called a loan deficiency payment (LDP). CCC net outlays for
loan-related activities, including LDPs, were $1.6 billion in FY1998, $4.8 billion in
FY1999, $9.8 billion in FY2000, and are projected at $6.6 billion in FY2001,
according to USDA.
The 1996 law also had paved the way for elimination of the longstanding dairy
price support program, whereby the government steps in to buy surplus cheese,
butter, and nonfat dry milk whenever farm milk prices decline below a statutorily
determined level. Sugar price support, which operates primarily through CCC loans,
was continued, although without domestic marketing controls. The peanut program,
whereby domestic prices are protected through production quotas and higher price
support for quota peanuts, also was continued.

Developments Since 1996
At the time of passage, objections to the 1996 law were heard from some who
worried about inadequate “counter-cyclical” income support in the law if prices fell.
In fact, this began to happen late in 1997. This followed several years of unusually
good growing conditions in many parts of the world, a financial crisis in key growth
markets for U.S. farm goods (Asia and Latin America), and a rise in the value of the
U.S. dollar against other currencies. Falling commodity prices substantially reduced
farm income, and the Congress stepped in with several emergency measures to
increase government payments to farmers. After 3 years of such emergency
measures, this aid (along with the rising cost of the loan programs) increased farm
subsidies well above the levels anticipated under the 1996 policy.
From 1998 to 2000, these emergency measures provided a total of
approximately $25 billion in farm and related assistance, over and above amounts
already authorized by the 1996 law. Although a substantial portion was for disaster
assistance (e.g., drought, flooding, etc.), about $17 billion of it was in response to
falling commodity prices. Nearly $14 billion of the $17 billion went to those with
AMTA production flexibility contracts. Much of the rest of the economic (non-
disaster) aid was for special subsidies for producers of soybeans and other oilseeds,
peanuts, tobacco, milk, honey, wool, and mohair. In effect, Congress revived
programs for the latter three commodities which earlier it had eliminated. In
addition, the dairy price support program has been extended twice, and (though it is
now scheduled to expire at the end of calendar 2001) will likely be extended again.

Figure 2. Direct Government Payments to Farmers, 1980-2001(f)
22. 1
20. 6
16. 7
14. 5 14. 115 . 0
13. 4
11. 8 12. 2
10. 9
9. 2 8. 4 9.3 9. 210 . 0
7. 7 8. 2 7. 9 7. 3 7. 3 7. 5
3. 5
1. 3 1. 9
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 F 02 F

In 2000, direct government payments to farmers reached $22 billion – a figure
representing over one-half of net farm income and some 40% of net cash income for
the calendar year (figure 2, from USDA data). Of this total, $9.5 billion came from
the “emergency” farm aid; the rest was primarily from higher marketing loan
subsidies already programmed under the 1996 law. In recent years, government farm
subsidies actually have reached record-high levels, but they have helped the overall
farm economy remain in relatively strong financial condition, at least through early

2001, according to USDA.

Who Farms Today?The Case for Federal
The 1997 Census of Agriculture countedFarm Support
approximately 1.9 million farms. These can be
divided into at least three distinct groups, most ofApparent inequities in the
which remain family-run operations. However, adistribution of program
more detailed breakdown of these Census statisticsbenefits, the economic well-
shows that the sector is much more diverse inbeing of today’s farm
production, income, and economic well-being thanhouseholds, and the
indicated below.comparatively small role of
farming in the employment and
Large commercial operations: About 157,000income base of many rural
commercial farms, with annual agricultural sales ofcommunities have challenged
$250,000 or more (about $900,000 on average),the original justifications for the
account for 8% of all farms but 72% of all U.S.
production value. Such farms depend primarily onprice support programs. When
agriculture for their income, the bulk of whichthe programs were created in
comes from market sales, not government paymentsthe 1930s, farms were, by
(although a sizeable portion of such payments do gotoday’s standards, smaller and
to such farms).poorer, played a larger role in
their local economies, and
Mid-sized farms: About 189,000 farms withshared relatively equally in the
annual sales between $100,000 and $250,000production of the nation’s
(about $160,000 on average) account for about 10%supplies of food and fiber.
of all farms and 15% of U.S. production value.
Operators of these farms obtain 57% of theirToday, by contrast,
household income from non-farm sources. Some
are sound and others are severely stressedaverage farm operator
economically.household income exceeds the
national average for all U.S.
Small farms: These are the nearly 1.6 millionhouseholds, rural economies
remaining farms with average sales of less thanare, except in a few areas, far
$100,000 annually (and $16,000 on average). Theymore diverse, and farming is
receive virtually all of their household income frommuch more segmented and
non-farm sources and are considered farmsspecialized. Farm payments
primarily because of their location, character, and(including the emergency aid of
the fact that Census defines a farm as any place that1998-2000) by design still are
sold as little as $1,000 in agricultural products.
However, some of these smallest farms are operatedeffectively based on output
by so-called limited-resource farmers who haverather than being targeted to
little or no other income. farmers who are the most
economically distressed. For
these and other reasons, critics
question why non-farm

taxpayers should transfer an average of $11.4 billion annually over the past 10 years
in support to farmers, and primarily those farmers growing selected commodities.
Defenders of the current system argue that federal farm programs are intended
to maintain the productive and competitive capacity of U.S. agriculture, not serve as
welfare for individually needy farms. A healthy agricultural sector is vital to the
national economy, where the net value of agricultural goods and services accounted
for $90 billion annually during the last 5 years.8 The overall food and fiber sector
accounts for more than 15% of Gross Domestic Product, and 18% of U.S. civilian
employment (however, the majority of those percentages are contributed by off-farm
industries such as inputs, processing, marketing, etc.). Agriculture deserves special
consideration because it is a highly volatile industry subject to highly price-inelastic
demand, the vagaries of biologically-based production, variable weather patterns, and
volatile world market forces, it has been argued. Government support helps to assure
an abundant supply of safe, reasonably-priced food produced in an environmentally
sound manner.9
Selected Issues and Options
Many policy makers and farm groups are pushing for policy changes that would
provide a more reliable method for supporting farm income than ad hoc laws – and
pushing for more assurance that the money will be available when needed in future
years. Meanwhile, though, the complexities and political considerations inherent in
a major reauthorization of farm policy make it likely that another supplemental ad
hoc funding package will be considered this year.
Debate over both short-term relief and long-term policy changes involve such
issues as: (1) competition for additional money with those pursuing other policy
interests, such as tax relief, deficit reduction, or Social Security and Medicare
reforms; (2) the extent to which policy changes might weaken the underlying market
orientation goal of changes made by the 1996 farm law; (3) which commodity groups
should benefit from policy changes and by how much, and (4) conformance with
trade agreement caps on domestic support for agriculture and with the U.S.
negotiating position that the European Union (EU) and other parties should reduce
trade-distorting farm support.
Agricultural interest groups have offered a variety of options for modifying
current farm policies. Except as noted, the options discussed below mainly apply to
policies for wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, rice, and oilseeds.
PFC Payments. Most (although not all) organizations that have testified to
date have called for continuation of lump sum production flexibility contract (PFC)
payments. Some have recommended increased annual funding (which will total
about $4 billion in the final year of the current program), perhaps as a more
“permanent” alternative to the annual ad hoc supplements that have been

8 Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture.
9 These arguments are made in greater detail in the Commission’s report.

appropriated for PFC recipients since 1998. Some want increased PFC payments so
that eligibility can be expanded to include soybean and other oilseeds acreage. One
question is whether additional commodity groups should share in any expanded
AMTA funding – such as the tobacco, peanut, milk, wool, mohair, apple, and
cranberry producers who recently received direct payments under the emergency
funding laws. Another issue is whether the basis for awarding PFC payments ought
to be revised (e.g., by using more recent planting histories, allowing entry of farmers
who did not produce contract crops when AMTA was adopted in 1996, etc.).
Counter-cyclical Assistance. There is growing interest in the concept of
counter-cyclical assistance, where supplemental payments would be made when farm
income declines below a predetermined level, and halted when income is above thatst
level. The Commission on 21 Century Production Agriculture recommended such
a “Supplemental Income Support” (SIS), which would pay producers when national
aggregate program crop gross income (i.e., that for all wheat, feed grains, cotton, and
rice) falls below some percentage of the income level for those crops in an earlier
base period. Others have called for more targeted counter-cyclical aid. The
American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), for example, has recommended that such
payments be made when any state’s (as opposed to national) gross cash receipts for
a particular commodity (wheat, oilseeds, cotton, rice, feed grains, or oilseeds) fall
below a predetermined level. This level could be a recent 4-year average (i.e., 1996-

1999) of receipts for the crop, AFBF has stated.

Counter-cyclical programs – versions had been proposed in 2000 by
Representative Stenholm and by the Clinton Administration – effectively might
provide compensation for lost revenue regardless of whether they were due to poor
yields or low prices. Proponents assert that because payments would not be tied
directly to current prices or production, they could be exempt from disciplines under
the URAA. Others disagree, noting that revenues are, in fact, a product of price
times production. Therefore, designing the details of any such program will pose
challenges for policymakers as they consider both trade and budgetary impacts.
Marketing Loan Assistance. So far, there appears to be widespread support
among agricultural interests for continuation of marketing loans and loan deficiency
payments. However, past proposals to alter their operation are again on the table.
Options include: revising or removing the cap on loan rates so that loan deficiency
payments rise or fall with prices or income; extending loan terms; fixing loan rates
at higher legislatively-specified levels; and/or removing the Secretary’s discretion to
lower rates. The National Farmers Union (NFU), for example, has proposed that
rates be set annually at not less than 80% of the “3-year moving average of the full
economic cost of production per unit per planted acre as calculated by the Economic
Research Service utilizing the most recently available data.”
Several groups have called for a “re-balancing” of current loan rates so that one
crop is not favored over others. Some contend, for example, that the current $5.26
per bushel rate for soybeans creates an incentive for more soybean plantings over
other loan-supported crops (although the American Soybean Association asserts that
other factors have led to higher soybean production). Farm groups who want “re-
balancing” generally would increase loan rates for other crops rather than lower the
soybean rate. Another question has been whether marketing loans should be

extended to other commodities that either are ineligible (e.g., fruits, vegetables) or
that became temporary beneficiaries under the recent ad hoc packages (mohair and
Supply Management. Proposals to restore various supply management tools
are again being offered, although most major agricultural groups oppose them. (As
noted, the 1996 farm law ended acreage set-asides as a condition of eligibility for
other benefits.) One group, the NFU, strongly supports reinstatement of voluntary
acreage set-asides for crops, with higher loan rates offered to participating producers.
The NFU also supports what it terms “limited government owned, farm-stored
commodity reserve programs,” which could include storage payments to producers
estimated at about 30 cents per bushel annually. NFU also has recommended that
another farmer-owned reserve (FOR) program be implemented, with similar storage
payment rates.
Payment Limitations. The 1996 law limits PFC payments to $40,000 per
person annually, and marketing loan gains to an additional $75,000 per year.
However, because a person also can receive half-payments on up to two additional
farms, the effective combined annual cap is actually $230,000 per person. Single
farm operations with multiple owner-operators might receive much more than the
above amounts each year.
The special market loss payments provided under the emergency farm laws of
recent years were not subject to any payment limitations. Moreover, two of these
laws doubled, to $150,000, the basic limit on marketing loan gains for 1999 and 2000
crops (to discourage farmers from forfeiting commodities used as loan collateral to
USDA in lieu of repayment). Numerous agricultural and commodity groups oppose
any payment limits – even higher ones – and are proposing they be abolished. Some
critics counter that payment limitations should be maintained or tightened, because
taxpayers should not be providing generous subsidies to large farm businesses.
Price-Supported Commodities. Other commodities traditionally have been
supported by methods that attempt to maintain farm prices above what the market
might otherwise dictate. Nonrecourse loans and marketing quotas apply to virtually
all U.S. tobacco and to all peanuts grown for domestic edible use. Sugar utilizes
nonrecourse loans and a system of tariff rate quotas to limit less expensive imports.
Milk price support is provided through direct USDA purchases of surplus dairy
products at minimum prices, milk marketing orders (which pool and set prices for
most fluid grade milk), and, in New England, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
At issue for Congress is whether to maintain these types of programs, which critics
contend are the most market distorting because they encourage excess production.
Periodic efforts in the past to significantly alter or phase out these programs generally
have not succeeded. Supporters contend that they are necessary to keep farms, many
of them relatively smaller, family-run operations, economically viable. Some
consideration is being given to direct payments as an alternative to price support.
Green Payments. Some contend that farm income can be enhanced through
so-called green payments, which provide financial incentives based not on the
commodities they produce, but rather in exchange for practices that protect land,

water, air quality, and/or wildlife; or possibly offer scenic, recreational, or open space
amenities. (See “Conservation and Environment,” hereafter.)
(For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10043, Farm Economic Relief:
Issues and Options for Congress; CRS Report 98-744, Agricultural Marketing
Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments; CRS Report RL30739, Federal
Crop Insurance and the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (P.L.106-224);
CRS Report RS20269, Emergency Funding for Agriculture: A Brief History of
Congressional Action, FY1989-FY2001; CRS Issue Brief IB97011, Dairy Policy
Issues, and CRS Report RS20848, Farm Commodity Programs: A Short Primer.)
Foreign Trade and Food Aid
The United States is the world’s largest exporter of agricultural products, with
the European Union (EU) a close second. Production from one-third of harvested
U.S. acreage is exported; agricultural exports account for 20% to 25% of the value
of agricultural production. Thus, the economic prosperity of the U.S. farm sector is
heavily dependent upon trade, and declining farm prices and incomes, which
characterize the current U.S. farm economy, make agricultural trade an important
congressional issue.
Although the Agriculture Committees are important arenas for addressing
agricultural trade problems, and omnibus farm bills typically include a title on trade
policy, export assistance, and foreign food aid programs, other venues are equally,
or more, important. For example, negotiations have been under way since March

2000 in the WTO to strengthen the existing multilateral rules and disciplines for

Figure 3. U.S. Agricultural Trade, FY1983-2001(f)
Expo rts
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ' 00 ' 01 ' 02

agricultural trade, for example, by making further reforms in rules for market access,
export subsidies, and domestic farm support. U.S. agricultural groups generally have
been supportive of these negotiations because of the potential to open new markets
for their products and reduce what they view as the much more trade-distorting
domestic farm and export subsidy programs of some foreign competitors, particularly
the EU.
Regional and bilateral trade negotiations also will affect conditions of
competition for U.S. agricultural products. A bilateral agreement with Chile, and a
broader Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), are both high on the
Administration’s trade agenda. Meanwhile, geopolitical developments, international
monetary factors such as the value of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies, and
many other factors – often beyond the control of producers and their advocates in
Congress – also are key determinants of U.S. farm export potential.
Provisions of the 1996 Law. A trade and food aid title likely will be
viewed as an integral component of an omnibus farm bill. Title II of the 1996 law
extended and amended the major U.S. foreign food aid and agricultural export
programs. It reauthorized through FY2002 Titles I, II, and III of P.L. 480, the Food
for Peace program, which, provide, respectively, concessional financing of U.S.
agricultural exports, commodity donations for humanitarian and development
activities, and bilateral development grants of food. Changes in the law reinforced
both the market development and humanitarian components of the programs. The
1996 law also reauthorized the Food for Progress program, and established a Food
Security Commodity Reserve, in effect expanding the Food Security Wheat Reserve
to include other grains.
Agricultural Export and Food Aid Program Levels,FY1995-2000
(millions of dollars)
P r ograms 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Export Enhancement Program$339$5$0$2$1$2
Dairy Export Incentive Program 1402012111014577
Market Access Program1109090909090
CCC Export Credit Guarantees2,9213,2303,8764,0373,0453,100
P.L. 480 Food Aid1,2861,2071,0541,1541,7961,076
Section 416(b)4 84 227887644
Food for Progress1468491111101121
Foreign Agricultural Servicea159167191209206200
T otal $5,105 $4,887 4,425 5,790 6,271 5,310
a Includes funding of $28 million annually for the Foreign Market Development Program(FMDP).
Source: USDA, Annual Budget Summaries and Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Exports, various
issue s .

The 1996 law extended to FY2002, at previously authorized funding levels,
export credit guarantees for agricultural sales (the so-called GSM programs). It also
extended the Export Enhancement Program (EEP, an export subsidy program) and
the Market Access Program (MAP, which assists agricultural trade and other groups
promote U.S. farm products in overseas markets), but at reduced authorization levels.
In addition, Title II called for the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a strategy for
implementing federal agricultural export programs, set forth U.S. agricultural trade
negotiating objectives, and prescribed new policies for monitoring other countries’
commitments under the URAA.
Selected Issues. In renewing the food aid and export assistance programs,
the 107th Congress will again be confronted with questions of program direction and
funding. Levels of spending and volumes of product subsidized under EEP and the
Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), the other major U.S. export subsidy, are
subject to limitations under the URAA. In practice, EEP has been used very little in
recent years (DEIP has been used to the limits of the URAA). Market promotion
programs like MAP, the food aid programs, and export credits (GSM) are not
considered to be trade distorting under the current URAA, and therefore are not
subject to spending disciplines. However, foreign trading partners argue that the
United States has utilized food aid and export credits in ways that are trade distorting,
and will be seeking concessions on their use in the next round of reforms. So, during
the reauthorization deliberations, spending and program design will hinge not only
on domestic questions such as budget impact but also trade negotiation
Some Members of Congress also have questioned the effectiveness of these
programs. In particular, do export subsidy and market promotion activities actually
increase overseas sales or simply displace those that would have occurred anyway?
Moreover, even if sales increase, do they translate into substantially higher farm
prices and incomes – or might direct farm subsidies be a more cost-effective
approach? Some critics claim that these programs benefit primarily large food and
export companies (who can afford to pay for such activities themselves) or foreign
buyers more than U.S. producers. Defenders cite studies claiming positive outcomes
from such spending, although both sides agree that more critical analysis is needed.
With regard to food aid, there are complaints that it is primarily a convenient
outlet for U.S. farm surpluses, and a source of aid that tends to diminish when these
surpluses decline. Such critics could be seeking some reassurance of more stability
in U.S. food aid levels (even though, they agree, the United States has been the
leading provider of food aid worldwide). Questions regarding food aid’s effects on
commercial sales and on developing countries’ farm economies also arise. Research
into these questions so far has produced mixed results, suggesting among other things
the possible need to examine food aid impacts more closely, on a case-by-case basis.
One issue that could receive closer attention is the performance of a $300
million, pilot Global Food for Education Initiative. The outgoing Clinton
Administration used CCC funds to launch this initiative, to help establish school and
pre-school food programs in 38 developing countries. Also known as “global school
lunch,” the effort is being operated mostly through the World Food Program and
private voluntary organizations. USDA claims that the projects will provide 630,000

metric tons of food to an estimated 9 million children. Members’ perception of its
value could help them decide whether or not to explicitly authorize a more permanent
program with stable funding.
With a variety of multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade negotiations ongoing
or planned, the farm bill could become a vehicle for further congressional guidance
on negotiating objectives and strategy. At the same time, some segments of
agriculture could view these negotiations with trepidation, particularly where the
prospect of increased imports might pose a competitive threat to their own domestic
sales. Examples might include dairy, peanuts, sugar, and horticultural products. So,
on the one hand, agricultural interests may be pushing for language in the farm bill
promoting further market reforms, while on the other, some groups might seek
protection for their own products.
(For more information, see CRS Report 98-254, Agricultural Negotiations in
the World Trade Organization; CRS Report RL30612, Farm Support Programs and
World Trade Commitments; CRS Report RS20840, Farm Program Spending:
What’s Permitted Under the Uruguay Round Agreements; CRS Issue Brief IB10077,
Agricultural Trade Issues in the 107th Congress; CRS Issue Brief IB98006,
Agricultural Export and Food Aid Programs; and CRS Report RL30753,
Agricultural Support Mechanisms in the European Union: A Comparison with the
United States.)
Conservation and Environment
A conservation title in the next farm bill is likely to both amend existing
programs and add new options to protect or restore resources on agricultural lands.
The existing portfolio of conservation includes mostly small programs, many of
which were enacted in recent farm bills. Conservation is provided through a
combination of technical assistance and cost-sharing, supported by education and
research programs. Participation is voluntary. Starting in 1985, farm bills have
greatly broadened the range of topics considered to be conservation. (See CRS
Report RL30331, Conservation Spending in Agriculture; Trends and Implications
for a tabulation of programs and review of spending, by broad categories, over the
past 20 years.)
Selected Issues. Land retirement is the main focus of conservation
programs, as measured by spending. Land retirement programs can provide
significant environmental benefits while helping to raise market prices for
commodities by reducing the acreage in production. The Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) is the largest conservation program, using about half the conservation
budget in FY2001. It pays land owners to retire environmentally sensitive and highly
erodible cropland under multi-year contracts. About 8% of all cropland,
approximately 33 million acres, is currently enrolled. Other programs, such as the
Wetland Reserve and two more targeted programs within the CRP (the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program, and continuous signup), also retire land.
Reauthorizing these programs and making adjustments to respond to changing needs
are likely to be high priorities. Adjustments likely to be considered include: raising

the overall enrollment ceiling from 36.4 million acres; giving more emphasis to lands
that provide large environmental benefits on small acreages or parts of fields, such
as stream buffers; enrolling land under shorter term contracts; and allowing economic
uses of enrolled lands under some circumstances.
USDA Funding for Conservation Activities, FY1990-2000
(millions of dollars)
FiscalTechnicalCostPublicRental &Data &TOTAL
Year Assistance, Shari ng Works, Eas e m e nt Re search
Ext e ns i o n, b/ including P ayments
Admin. a/emergenciesc/
1990 $653.4 $353.2 $196.8 $1,406.0 $350.7 $2,960.0
1991 733.8 279.0 121.1 1,603.2 380.9 3,117.8
1992 813.4 262.8 187.5 1,629.6 400.1 3,299.0
1993 859.7 318.2 200.8 1,531.5 274.0 3,310.0
1994 882.7 293.9 267.6 1,823.0 399.7 3,680.9
1995 841.8 171.9 293.1 1,797.4 410.7 3,508.9
1996 868.8 243.4 99.1 1,783.1 392.9 3,387.3
1997901.0305.8 226.71,734.6409.83,577.8
1998 941.4 322.3 132.5 1,823.9 423.3 3,643.4
1999 947.5 363.8 129.8 1,437.8 453.3 3,332.1
2000 939.0 265.5 111.8 1,641.0 456.7 3,413.9
a/ Activities of the 4 USDA agencies engaged in supporting conservation: the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), Forest Service, and
Extension Service.
b/ Funds passed through the NRCS to the FSA to producers to help them install
conservation practices.
c/ 90% of these payments go to farmers through the Conservation Reserve Program..
Source: USDA, Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
Most other conservation programs to improve and sustain resource conditions
on lands that continue to be farmed, often called the working landscape, have not
grown rapidly. The USDA manpower to support these programs, primarily the staff
of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, has shrunk in recent years. One of
these programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides cost
sharing assistance to producers to install conservation practices. Spending is
concentrated in priority areas that have been identified in each state. Issues that may
be addressed include: raising the program authorization level; the use of priority
areas; comparing conservation accomplishments under this program with the
programs it replaced in the 1996 farm bill; and distribution of funding between
livestock and crop producers. Another topic that will likely receive attention is that
some of the oldest small watershed projects built under the Watershed Operations

Program are reaching the end of their design life. Providing additional funding for
rehabilitation and determining whether to consider, as part of the rehabilitation
process, more recent environmental requirements affecting watershed projects, are
issues that might be raised.
One approach to conservation on working lands that received widespread
attention in the 106th Congress is embodied in the Conservation Security Act
proposal, introduced by Senator Harkin (S. 3260) and Representative Minge (H.R.
5511). The proposals would provide incentives to farmers to practice conservation
at three different levels under 3 to 5 year contracts; the payments would increase as
higher levels of conservation are applied. Widespread involvement in the drafting
of these proposals make it one likely legislative model as the farm bill progresses in
the 107th Congress.
Green Payments. The Conservation Security Act proposals have been
characterized as a form of “green payments.” This refers to providing financial
incentives to producers based on the scope of their conservation activities rather than
on the volume of commodities they produce. The green payment concept is seen by
some as attractive because it could provide a new mechanism to support farm
income, forge a stronger link between conservation and farm income objectives, and
still comply with World Trade Organization obligations. (Current WTO rules may
exempt these types of programs from discipline because they are not considered to
be trade-distorting.) The Conservation Security Act proposal is one model for
translating the concept of green payments into programs; other variations and
alternatives are reportedly being discussed. Reaching agreement on whether this is
a desirable approach and what form it should take present major challenges.
Other Options. Members also will be interested in extending or modifying
many existing programs. Among these may be legislative proposals: increasing
overall funding for technical assistance; changing funding levels for existing
programs, or using mandatory sources to fund a different portion of the conservation
effort; expanding the farmland protection program to either make more entities or
more areas eligible to participate; and revising EQIP to make more producers eligible
or to increase the effort to address water quality problems originating with
agricultural activities. Other possible changes, such as in the overall conservation
mission, whether current federal staff levels are adequate, or how to better monitor
conservation accomplishments may also be under review. (For more information on
conservation topics, see CRS Issue Brief IB96030, Soil and Water Conservation
Food Stamps and TEFAP
At the end of FY2002, several provisions of the Food Stamp Act and the
Emergency Food Assistance Act expire. They relate to the Food Stamp program,
Puerto Rico’s nutrition assistance block grant program (operating in lieu of food
stamps in Puerto Rico), and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).
Renewal of these authorities – and potential changes to policies in the underlying
laws – are scheduled to be included as part of the next farm bill. All but one of them,

however, were last renewed in the 1996 omnibus welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193),
although food stamp and TEFAP reauthorizations have more typically been part of
the farm bill cycle.10 Moreover, the last comprehensive food stamp policy changes
were part of the 1996 welfare act. The major components of the 1996 welfare reform
law expire with FY2002, and, as a result, food stamp amendments also may be
incorporated in welfare reauthorization legislation.
The expiring provisions include:
!authorization for food stamp appropriations (“such sums as are necessary”);
!Puerto Rico’s annual nutrition assistance block grant (an annually indexed
figure set at just under $1.3 billion for FY2001);
!a set-aside of specific dollar amounts from the annual food stamp
appropriation to be used for employment/training programs for food stamp
recipients (e.g., $165 million in FY2002);
!a requirement to reduce federal payments otherwise due states for food stamp
administration (a 50% match) by about $200 million a year;
!a set-aside of $100 million a year from the annual food stamp appropriation
to be used for purchasing food commodities specifically for TEFAP; and,
!authorization of appropriations for grants to states for TEFAP administration
and food distribution costs ($50 million a year).
Farm Bill or Welfare Reauthorization? Food stamp-linked reauthorization
and policy changes could be included in the upcoming farm bill or the scheduled
reauthorization of welfare programs covered under the 1996 welfare reform law, or
both. Incorporating them in reauthorization of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) and other welfare laws recognizes the significant role food stamps
play in the family welfare system, particularly for those leaving TANF for work, as
well as the overlap between food stamp and TANF rolls and administrative
structures. Placing them in the farm bill reflects the historical link between food
stamp reauthorization and the farm bill, committee jurisdictions, a desire to “de-
couple” food stamps from welfare and emphasize its role as a nutrition support
program, and concerns derived from the large cuts made in food stamps to help
finance welfare reform when program reauthorization was included in the 1996
reform law.
Differing Policies. States have a great deal of control over TANF assistance
and work rules for families. Depending on the rule/state, TANF policies can be
markedly more liberal or restrictive than food stamps. Federally established food
stamp standards, on the other hand, envision a relatively uniform national “safety
net” program for virtually all those in need. While states have a number of important
food stamp options, they are circumscribed by federal law and regulations.
Conflicts between TANF and food stamp policies, coupled with a partially
shared caseload and administrative structure, have created a strained relationship

10 For example, the 1996 farm bill included only a one-year extension of the authorization
for food stamp appropriations – which were then reauthorized through FY2002 by the 1996
welfare reform law.

between the two at the state level. This is exacerbated by states’ desire to apply their
TANF policies to food stamps, penalties assessed them for erroneous
benefit/eligibility decisions under the food stamp “quality control” (QC) system,
what they see as overly complex food stamp rules, and limits on waivers from federal
policies. Many state human services administrators hold that food stamps and TANF
are “on a collision course” and have called for simplification of food stamp rules and
consolidating TANF and food stamp work/training efforts. They also want much
greater control over food stamp policies (to reinforce TANF goals), revision of the
QC system, and a more open waiver policy – or, for some, conversion of food stamps
to state block grants. But advocates resist vesting much more decision-making power
in states, particularly where funding is almost totally federal. Additionally, they
contend that TANF-based policies are not necessarily transferrable to the rest of the
food stamp rolls (e.g., elderly/disabled persons, low-income working adults) and fear
that needy people may be discouraged from or denied participation in food stamps.
In their view, the food stamp safety net should not be tampered with.
Noncitizens. The 1996 welfare reform law ended food stamp eligibility for
most noncitizens. Amendments in the 1998 Agricultural Research law (P.L. 105-
185) restored eligibility to some (primarily to children and the elderly/disabled
resident in the U.S. prior to welfare reform). Proposals to remove the remaining barsth
against legally resident noncitizens were seriously considered in the 106 Congress
and are likely to be taken up again; estimates indicate this could affect over 400,000
persons at a 5-year cost of more than $900 million.
Administrative Payments. Normal federal payments to states for food
stamp administrative costs (a 50% share) are reduced by about $200 million a year.
This (expiring) reduction was enacted to correct a “windfall” states could receive in
the interaction of TANF and food stamp funding rules. The Congressional Budget
Office will “score” a cost to food stamps if the reduction is not renewed.
Access. Food stamp enrollment has fallen continuously and dramatically from
its spring 1994 peak of 28 million people; November 2000 rolls show 17.1 million
persons. This has been accompanied by a large drop in the rate at which those
eligible participate: the participation rate went down from 71% in 1994 to 59% in
1998 (most recent estimate). Only a portion of the decline in recipients can be
closely associated with better economic conditions and reformed food stamp
eligibility rules. While the estimated number of eligible individuals fell by 17%, the
number participating dropped by almost double (31%). Other cited reasons include
administrative practices, the difficulty of applying for and keeping benefits, and a
lack of understanding that losing benefits from (or being discouraged from applying
for) TANF does not apply to food stamp eligibility or benefits.
Advocates and state administrators are worried that access to food stamp aid is
being undermined and that those leaving TANF are not getting necessary help from
food stamps. The Clinton Administration made several efforts to change food stamp
administrative practices and regulations to support increased participation,
culminating with controversial November 21, 2000, regulations. Food stamp
amendments in the FY2001 Agriculture Department appropriations law encouraged
participation with increased benefits for those with high shelter costs and eased
eligibility for low-income households with cars. Advocates and state administrators

are expected to follow up with their own additional initiatives for better food stamp
access and benefits.
Funding for TEFAP. In the view of state and local emergency food assistance
providers, TEFAP has served as a cushion for those losing welfare or food stamp
benefits under the 1996 welfare reforms. Many also contend that federal support for
TEFAP has not kept pace with growing demand and is well below what would be
required if there is an economic downturn. Renewal of the appropriations
authorization for TEFAP administrative/distribution costs and the set-aside of food
stamp money for TEFAP food purchases will bring the adequacy of current support
levels into the farm bill debate. There also may be calls for increasing the $100
million food stamp funding set-aside to buy more commodities for the program.
Farm Credit and Finance
Omnibus farm bills commonly contain a credit title that makes policy changes
to USDA agricultural credit programs and addresses issues that relate to commercial
lenders such as the Farm Credit System (FCS) and commercial banks. Credit is an
important production input for many farmers, with all lenders holding approximately
$180 billion in outstanding farm loans. Farmers depend on long-term credit to
finance their purchases of real estate, and shorter-term loans to finance production
expenses such as for machinery and equipment, livestock, seed, feed and fertilizer.
USDA Farm Credit. USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) serves as a lender
of last resort to eligible family-sized farmers whose financial condition is too weak
to permit them to obtain commercial credit. FSA provides direct loans to farmers
and also guarantees the timely repayment of principal and interest on certain eligible
loans made by commercial lenders. (As of January 1, 2001, the FSA farm loan
portfolio contained $7 billion in direct loans outstanding, plus another $7 billion in
commercial loans outstanding that carried an FSA repayment guarantee.) FSA makes
and guarantees real estate and operating loans and also makes direct emergency
disaster loans. These loan programs have permanent authority under the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, and unlike the farm commodity
programs, do not require periodic reauthorization. However, Congress frequently
uses omnibus farm bills to make changes to the terms, conditions and eligibility
requirements for federal farm credit programs.
Among other provisions, the credit title (Title VI) of the omnibus 1996 farm bill
tightened qualifications for FSA loans, by limiting the number of years a borrower
could remain a customer of FSA before being required to “graduate” to a commercial
lender. The 1996 farm bill also continued a policy begun in the 1980s of shifting
FSA’s financial resources from direct lending to guaranteed loans in an effort to
wean farmers from federal credit programs and to reduce federal credit costs.
Congress does not have to wait for the next farm bill to make policy changes to FSA
farm loan programs, and commonly does make adjustments to the programs in
intervening years. For example, as the farm economy began its downturn in the late
1990s, Congress loosened some qualifications for loans, including a suspension of
the graduation requirement until the end of 2002.

Although commodity prices have been weak in recent years, a repeat of the
severe credit crisis of the mid-1980s (with widespread borrower loan defaults and/or
bankruptcies) so far has been avoided for two reasons: supplemental government
payments have provided adequate income to help most farmers meet their debt
servicing requirements, plus farmers now are not as highly debt leveraged as they
were in the 1980s. Nonetheless, the direction of the farm economy over the next year
or two could be a major determining factor on what credit issues might be considered
in the 2002 farm bill. If commodity prices remain low and farm cash receipts weak,
Congress might consider an extension of the postponement of borrower graduation
requirements beyond 2002, as well as other forms of forbearance for FSA loan
Farm Credit System Issues. Separately, issues relating to the Farm Credit
System also could be an issue in the farm bill debate. The FCS is a confederation of
cooperatively owned banks and associations. It has a federal charter and is classified
as a “government sponsored enterprise,” but is privately owned and operated by the
member-borrowers. The Farm Credit Administration, the federal regulator of the
System, has sought to modify the lending authorities of the System through
regulatory changes. However, commercial banks, which are the primary competitors
with the System, are strongly opposed to these changes and contend that any major
modifications should be addressed legislatively rather than through regulations.
Rural Development
A variety of federal laws and programs deal with rural policy. They have been
crafted by numerous congressional committees, and the programs are administered
by several federal agencies, including USDA (designated as the lead federal agency
for coordinating rural development by the 1980 Rural Policy Act). USDA
administers rural development programs that, for the most part, are authorized under
omnibus farm laws. Title VII of the 1996 farm law (FAIR) is the rural development
title. Its provisions, along with those of most other titles of the FAIR Act, expire in


Changes to farm commodity
For FY2001, the Congress appropriated $2.5 billionprograms (Title I of the current
for rural development programs operated by thelaw) will be closely examined in
USDA in support of $8.8 billion in direct andterms of their impact on rural
guaranteed loan authority. This assistance funded:
communities. While federal farm
!The Rural Community Advancementpayments and policies have
Program ($962.5 million); directly helped many farmers and
!Rural Housing programs ($1.45 billion infinancial institutions in many rural
loan and grant assistance, supporting $5.1
billion in loan authority; $1.1 billion in directareas, most experts agree that rural
loans;communities across the nation
! $674 million in rental assistance, and $13.8cannot depend on agriculture alone
million for empowerment zones);for their economic well-being.
!Rural Business Cooperative Program ($33.5First, the number of farm-
million); anddependent counties has declined
!Rural Utilities Service ($107.7 million).
dramatically (down from over

2000 in 1950 to 556 in 1990). Moreover, changes in farm structure (larger farms,

greater concentration in manufacturing) and global competition have lessened the
role of production agriculture in farm-dependent rural economies. At the same time,
economic, environmental, and demographic changes in rural farm communities have
lessened their role as facilitators of agricultural production.
The rural development title of past farm bills generally has supported the
infrastructure of rural areas, with traditional support for housing, electricity,
community development, and so on. More recently, policymakers have pushed for
programs that support innovative and alternative industry development, and
mechanisms to finance it. Pressure for such alternative approaches is expected to
continue as policymakers recognize the changing structure of agriculture and the
diversity of rural communities, with some growing and prospering, and others falling
further behind as their primary industries (including agriculture) either decline or
adapt to a global marketplace and economy that often means fewer employment
opportunities and lost population.
Proposals are being circulated that promote technologies to help farmers with
planting decisions and local investments in industries that will add value to their
products, among others. Research is increasingly focused on improvements in
agricultural waste management and environmental protections. Traditional strategies,
notably value-added agriculture – e.g., regional food processing plants, cooperatives,
organic farming – are being promoted by many in the farm sector. While holding
promise for agriculture and surrounding communities, there are limits on how many
yogurt plants, small dairy processors, or value-added food processors can be
supported by these local economies, especially with increasingly global competition
in these sectors.
Thus, rural entrepreneurship of the past (e.g. in the value-added enterprises such
as dairy processing facilities, and processing of timber and mining resources) may
give way to future forms of rural entrepreneurship that build around new, or
previously ignored resources. Among the options are investment innovation in
agriculture from the perspective of environmental entrepreneurship or environmental
capital, for example, public-private development of carbon emission markets and
sustainable land management innovations tied to national (clean water) and
international agreements (carbon emissions), and environmentally sensitive land use
for non-agricultural purposes (e.g. recreation). What roles, if any, the federal
government might play in encouraging these or other types of activities are among
the issues that Congress may address in considering a new rural development title.
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
The 1996 farm bill included a title authorizing USDA’s agricultural research,
extension, and education programs and reforming public agricultural research policy.
Specifically, Title VIII of the 1996 law established: (1) a new advisory board to
advise the Secretary on research- and extension-related matters, replacing two boards
that had been in existence since 1977; (2) a competitive grants program to improve

agricultural education programs at Hispanic-serving institutions; and (3) a task force
charged with developing a 10-year strategic plan for research facility construction,
modernization, consolidation and closure. In addition, the rural development title of
the 1996 act gave the authority for a competitive grants program (the Fund for Rural
America) to support rural development projects and rural-focus research projects.
The Fund marked a significant change in funding authority for agricultural research
in that federal money for the Fund ($100 million annually for 3 years, of which
roughly one-third was for research grants) was to be transferred directly to USDA
from the U.S. Treasury.
1998 Research Legislation. In 1998 Congress passed separate legislation
superseding Title VIII of the 1996 farm bill, making several significant reforms and
reauthorizing USDA’s research, extension, and education programs through 2002.
The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-
185) extended the new provisions contained in the 1996 farm bill (including the Fund
for Rural America) and adopted additional policy changes to: (1) require greater
accountability for program relevance and merit on the part of institutions receiving
federal funds; (2) increase the funding authority for multi-state research projects; (3)
phase in a matching funds requirement for the 1890 (historically black) institutions;
and, (4) authorize several new research programs. Of the latter, the most significant
is a 5-year, $600 million Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, a
competitive grants program intended to promote cutting-edge research in the areas
of genomics, biotechnology, food safety, new uses for agricultural products, natural
resource management, and farm profitability. Congress authorized funding for the
program – $120 million annually – to come directly from savings in mandatory
spending stemming from reforms made in the food stamp program in 1997.
Selected Issues. Despite the innovative funding mechanisms authorized for
the Fund for Rural America and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
Systems, neither program has been consistently funded since its inception.
Provisions in annual agricultural appropriations acts have blocked USDA from
implementing the Fund for Rural America for 4 of the 6 years that the program has
been authorized; funding for the Initiative was blocked in 1999, but permitted in

2000 and 2001 after intense negotiations between the Department and lawmakers.

Garnering additional resources to support public agricultural research,
extension, and education programs is likely to be the primary issue in this policy area
in the upcoming farm bill debate. Past research titles have focused on increasing
funding authority for competitive grants programs, but the record shows that
appropriations levels have not risen commensurately. The Fund for Rural America
and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems represented efforts to find
additional resources from non-discretionary sources, but these also have proven
problematic. Issues related to international agricultural research, food safety
research, biosafety, and resource conservation also are likely to be included in the
farm bill research title debate.

Appendix A. Commodity Credit Corporation Net
Expenditures, By Commodity/Program,
Co mmodity/P rogram FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01Est FY02Est
(Million $)
Grain Sorghum261284296502983329282
Corn and Oat Products0000501
Feed Grains2,4042,9883,3546,16911,6514,7063,367
Wheat and Products1,4911,3322,1873,4355,3652,1281,120
Rice 499 459 491 911 1,894 923 856
Upland Cotton6855611,1321,8824,015969713
AMTA Crops Support5,0795,3407,16412,39722,9258,7266,056
T obacco (496) (156) 376 113 634 148 (97)
Dairy (98) 67 291 480 684 1,209 157
So yb eans (65) 5 139 1,289 2,864 3,001 2,859
Peanuts 100 6 (11) 21 35 62 0
Sugar (63) (34) (30) (51) 465 (36) (28)
Ho ney (14) (2) 0 2 7 26 (10)
Wool & Mohair550010(2)35(13)
All Commodities Support4,4985,2267,92914,26127,61213,1718,924
Export Programs-422125212165216588593
Disaster/Tree/Livestock Assistance9513032,2411,4522,5760
Conservation Reserve Program21,6711,6931,4621,5111,6931,788
Other Conservation Programs7105197292263367281
All Conservation Programs91,7761,8901,7541,7742,0602,069
Operating Expense66546055
Interest Expenditure140-11176210736366592
Other Expenses320104285884151,675884
Total CCC4,6467,25610,14319,22332,26520,44113,067
Data are from the USDA, Farm Service Agency, January 16, 2001.

Appendix B. Titles & Subtitles of the 1996 Farm Bill (Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127)
I.Agricultural Market Transition Act
A.Short Title, Purpose, and Definitions
B.Production Flexibility Contracts
C.Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments
D.Other Commodities
E. Administration
F.Permanent Price Support Authorityst
G.Commission on 21 Century Production Agriculture
H.Miscellaneous Commodity Provisions
II.Agricultural Trade
A.Amendments to Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and
Related Statutes
B.Amendments to Agricultural Trade Act of 1978
C.Miscellaneous Agricultural Trade Provisions
III. Conservation
B.Highly Erodible Land Conservation
C.Wetland Conservation
D.Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program
E.Conservation Funding and Administration
F.National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation
H.Miscellaneous conservation Provisions
IV.Nutrition Assistance
V.Agricultural Promotion
A.Commodity Promotion and Evaluation
B.Issuance of Orders for Promotion, Research, and Information Activities Regarding
Agricultural Commodities
C.Canola and Rapeseed
A.Farm Ownership Loans
B.Operating Loans
C.Emergency Loans
D.Administrative Provisions
E.General Provisions
VII.Rural Development
A.Amendments to the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and trade Act of 1990
B.Amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
C.Amendments to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936
D.Miscellaneous Rural Development Provisions
VIII.Research, Extension, and Education
A.Modification and Extension of Activities Under 1977 Act
B.Modification and Extension of Activities Under 1990 Act
C.Repeal of Certain Activities and Authorities
D.Miscellaneous Research Provisions
E.Research Authority After Fiscal Year 1997
IX . Miscellaneous
A.Commercial Transportation of Equine for Slaughter
B.General Provisions