The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Congressional research reportFeb 12, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and
Side-by-Side
(name redacted), Coordinator
Section Research Manager
February 12, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R43076
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Summary
Congress periodically establishes agricultural and food policy in a multi-year, omnibus farm bill.
The 2008 farm bill governed policy for farm commodity support, horticulture, livestock,
conservation, nutrition assistance, trade and international food aid, agricultural research, farm
credit, rural development, bioenergy, and forestry. It originally expired in 2012, but the 112th
Congress did not complete action and instead extended the law for one year (P.L. 112-240),
leaving consideration of a new farm bill to the 113th Congress.
After nearly three years of deliberations, Congress completed action on a new omnibus farm bill
when conferees reported a conference agreement on January 27, 2014 (the Agricultural Act of
2014, H.R. 2642/H.Rept. 113-333); the full House and Senate approved the conference agreement
on January 29 and February 4, respectively. The President signed the measure into law (P.L. 11379) on February 7, 2014.
Within P.L. 113-79 are provisions that reshape the structure of farm commodity support, expand
crop insurance coverage, consolidate conservation programs, reauthorize and revise nutrition
assistance, and extend authority to appropriate funds for many U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) programs through FY2018, among many other provisions.
The new 2014 farm bill restructures farm support for traditional program crops by eliminating
direct payments, the counter-cyclical price (CCP) program, and the Average Crop Revenue
Election (ACRE) program. Much of the savings associated with the elimination of these farm
programs was used to offset the costs of revising the remaining programs, adding permanent
disaster assistance, and enhancing crop insurance.
P.L. 113-79 also reauthorizes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly
food stamps) through FY2018. The new measure restricts how a household’s receipt of LowIncome Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) benefits can affect SNAP benefits,
accounting for most of the nutrition budget savings. Not adopted were House provisions to
restrict categorical eligibility and change several time limit and work requirements.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that if the mandatory programs of the 2008
farm bill were to continue, they would cost $973 billion over the next 10 years (FY2014FY2023), which served as a baseline budget for deliberations on the 2014 farm bill. The enacted
2014 farm bill is projected to spend $956 billion over the next 10 years, of which $756 billion is
for nutrition assistance and $200 billion is for the agriculture portion. Compared to the baseline,
the 2014 farm bill reduces projected spending and the deficit by $16.6 billion (-1.7%) over 10
years. This projected 10-year savings is closer to the Senate-passed bill level of $17.8 billion
than the projected House-passed savings of $51.8 billion.
Not included in the final conference agreement were a number of controversial miscellaneous
provisions such as a House provision that would have prohibited states from imposing production
or manufacturing standards on agricultural products from other states, and a House provision that
would have repealed livestock and poultry marketing and competition rules proposed by USDA.
Congressional Research Service
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Contents
Introduction and Chronology ........................................................................................................... 1
Budgetary Impact............................................................................................................................. 4
Title-by-Title Summaries of the Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79).......................................... 6
Farm Bill Title I, Commodities.................................................................................................. 6
Farm Bill Title II, Conservation ................................................................................................ 8
Farm Bill Title III, Trade ........................................................................................................... 9
Farm Bill Title IV, Nutrition .................................................................................................... 10
Farm Bill Title V, Credit .......................................................................................................... 12
Farm Bill Title VI, Rural Development ................................................................................... 13
Farm Bill Title VII, Research .................................................................................................. 14
Farm Bill Title VIII, Forestry .................................................................................................. 15
Farm Bill Title IX, Energy ....................................................................................................... 15
Farm Bill Title X, Horticulture ................................................................................................ 16
Farm Bill Title XI, Crop Insurance.......................................................................................... 17
Farm Bill Title XII, Miscellaneous .......................................................................................... 18
A Side-by Side Comparison of the Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79) with the SenatePassed (S. 954) and House-Passed (H.R. 2642) Bills and Prior Law ......................................... 21
Figures
Figure 1. Budget Scores of the 2014 Farm Bill ............................................................................... 5
Tables
Title I. Commodities ..................................................................................................................... 21
Title II. Conservation ..................................................................................................................... 63
Title III. Trade ................................................................................................................................ 90
Title IV. Nutrition......................................................................................................................... 103
Title V. Credit............................................................................................................................... 124
Title VI. Rural Development ....................................................................................................... 131
Title VII. Research, Extension, and Related Matters ................................................................... 150
Title VIII. Forestry ....................................................................................................................... 170
Title IX. Energy ........................................................................................................................... 179
Title X. Horticulture..................................................................................................................... 190
Title XI. Crop Insurance .............................................................................................................. 199
Title XII. Miscellaneous .............................................................................................................. 211
Congressional Research Service
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Contacts
Author Contact Information......................................................................................................... 234
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... 234
Congressional Research Service
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Introduction and Chronology
Congress periodically establishes agricultural and food policy in an omnibus farm bill. Following
nearly three years of debate, Congress completed action in February 2014 on the most recent farm
bill (The Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-78), which succeeded the expired Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 farm bill, P.L. 110-246). The 2014 farm bill
establishes policy for the next five years in its 12 titles, covering farm commodity price and
income support, crop insurance, conservation, domestic food assistance, agricultural trade and
international food aid, credit, rural development, research, horticulture, forestry, and bioenergy,
among others. Periodic farm bills provide Congress, the Administration, and interest groups with
an opportunity to reexamine agriculture and food issues more carefully, and address them more
comprehensively.
Within the various titles of the enacted 2014 farm bill are provisions that reshape the structure of
farm commodity support, expand crop insurance coverage, consolidate conservation programs,
reauthorize and revise nutrition assistance, and extend authority to appropriate funds for many
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) discretionary programs through FY2018.
Many provisions of the previous farm bill (P.L. 110-246) expired in 2012, but were extended for
an additional year in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240, the fiscal cliff
bill). The 112th Congress began work on a new farm bill but did not complete action before the
conclusion of the Congress, requiring new bills to be introduced in the 113th Congress. The
House and Senate Agriculture Committees marked up their respective bills in May 2013 and floor
action was completed in the summer months. A conference agreement was reached in late
January 2014; it was approved by both chambers within eight days and was signed into law as the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79) on February 7, 2014.
Action on a 2013/2014 Farm Bill
Committee
Initial Floor Action
Conference Agreement
House
Senate
House
Senate
Report
House
Senate
5/15/2013
H.R. 1947
Vote of
36-10
H.Rept.
113-92a
5/14/2013
S. 954
Vote of
15-5
S.Rept.
113-88
6/20/2013
H.R. 1947 Failed:
Vote of 195-234
6/10/2013
S. 954
Vote of
66-27
1/27/14
H.Rept.113-333
1/29/14
Vote of
251-166
2/4/14
Vote of
68-32
7/11/2013
H.R. 2642
Vote of 216-208
Public
Law
2/7/14
P.L. 113-79
9/19/2013
H.R. 3102
Vote of 217-210
9/28/2013
H.Res. 361
combines H.R. 2642
and H.R. 3102
Source: CRS.
a. After H.R. 1947 was reported by the House Agriculture Committee on 5/15/2013, the bill was amended by
the House Judiciary Committee on 6/10/2013 with respect to rulemaking procedures. See H.Rept. 113-92,
Part 2 for its report.
Congressional Research Service
1
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
The Senate Agriculture Committee reported its version of the 2013 omnibus farm bill on May 14,
2013 (S. 954, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013), by a vote of 15-5. Floor action
began during the week of May 20, 2013, and concluded on June 10, 2013, when the full Senate
approved the measure by a vote of 66-27. While the bill was being debated in the Senate,
approximately nine amendments were adopted and six were rejected. Attempts to modify the
sugar program, further limit SNAP spending, eliminate crop insurance subsidies for tobacco, and
require the labeling of genetically engineered foods were all defeated. More than 200 other
amendments were offered to the Senate bill, but were not considered, when an agreement could
not be reached on consolidating the amendments and limiting floor debate.
On May 15, 2013, the House Agriculture Committee completed markup of its version of the bill
(H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013) and approved the
revised measure by a 36-10 vote. The bill was subsequently referred to the House Judiciary
Committee, which revised the bill to ensure that certain dairy programs were subject to standard
rulemaking procedures. Floor action on the House bill was conducted during the week of June 17,
2013, when numerous amendments were adopted to the committee bill. However, the amended
bill was defeated by a vote of 195-234 on June 20.
Three weeks later, the full House debated a variation of the defeated bill that dropped all of the
nutrition title but included all of the earlier adopted floor amendments to the other titles. This
revised bill (H.R. 2642) was approved by the House by a 216-208 vote on July 11. In order to
initiate conference committee negotiations with the House, the Senate on July 18 substituted the
text of H.R. 2642 with the text of S. 954. On September 19, the House passed a stand-alone
nutrition bill (H.R. 3102) by a vote of 217-210.1 The House adopted a resolution (H.Res. 361) on
September 28 that combined the texts of H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3102 into one bill (H.R. 2642) for
purposes of resolving differences with the Senate.
A conference agreement reconciling the differences between the two measures was reported as
the Agricultural Act of 2014 (H.Rept. 113-333) on January 27, 2014. Within eight days, both
chambers approved the conference agreement, the House on January 29 by a vote of 251-166 and
the Senate on February 4 by a vote of 68-32. The President signed it into law (P.L. 113-79) on
February 7, 2014.
This report begins with a brief overview of the estimated budgetary impact of the 2014 farm bill,
followed by a summary comparison of the major provisions of each title. A side-by-side section
comprehensively compares all of the provisions in P.L. 113-79 to Senate and House versions of
the farm bill—including S. 954 as passed by the Senate (also referred to as the Senate amendment
to H.R. 2642) and the House-passed version of H.R. 2642 (which includes the provisions of H.R.
3102 as a new Title IV to H.R. 2642)—as well as to relevant provisions in then-current law.
The “Prior Law/Policy” column of the side-by-side tables reflects the provisions of the 2008 farm
bill (P.L. 110-246) as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240),
which extended most of the 2008 farm bill provisions for an additional year, as well as other
relevant statutes that are revised by the 2014 farm bill.
1
In most ways, H.R. 3102 resembles the nutrition title of H.R. 1947, as amended on the floor, but it differs in five
major ways that are explained in the Title IV summary of this report.
Congressional Research Service
2
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
2013 Farm Bill: Key CRS Policy Staff
Legislative Issues
Name/Title
Phone
Farm Bill Budget
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Farm Safety Net (Commodity
Support, Crop Insurance, and
Disaster Assistance)
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Dairy Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Sugar Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Conservation and Environment
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation
and Natural Resources Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Agricultural Trade Programs
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
International Food Aid
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Domestic Food and
Nutrition Assistance
(name redacted)
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Agricultural Credit
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Rural Development
(name redacted)
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Development
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Agricultural Research
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Forestry
(name redacted)
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Agriculture-Based
Biofuels/Bioenergy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture
(name redacted)
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Livestock/Animal Agriculture
(name redacted)
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
EPA-Related Issues
(name redacted)
Specialist in Resources and Environmental
Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Rulemaking Process
(name redacted)
Analyst in Government Organization and
Management
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Farm Labor
(name redacted)
Analyst in Labor Policy
7-....
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
3
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Budgetary Impact2
The budgetary impact of the 2014 farm bill is measured relative to what the prior farm bill would
have spent had it been continued. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the
mandatory programs of the 2008 farm bill would have cost $973 billion if continued for the next
10 years (FY2014-FY2023).3 This “baseline” already had been reduced by $6.4 billion to reflect
the effects of sequestration over the 10-year baseline.4
Compared to this post-sequestration baseline, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reduces projected
spending and the deficit by $16.6 billion (-1.7%) over 10 years.5 (The five-year reduction through
FY2018 is $5.4 billion from a five-year baseline of $494 billion.)
P.L. 113-79 saves less than either the House-passed or Senate-passed proposals. The Housepassed combination of H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3102 together would have reduced spending by $51.9
billion (-5.3%) over 10 years.6 The Senate-passed farm bill proposal (S. 954) would have reduced
spending by $17.9 billion (-1.8%) over 10 years.7
If the baseline had not already been reduced by sequestration, the enacted 2014 farm bill could
have been credited for reducing spending by $23 billion over 10 years. Similarly, the savings
from each of the House and Senate proposals could have been $6.4 billion greater. But
sequestration had already been factored into the baseline, so the official score of P.L. 113-79
remains as savings of $16.6 billion over 10 years.
The net reduction is composed of some titles receiving more funding than in the past, while other
titles provide offsets, some of which contributes to deficit reduction. The titles for farm
commodity subsidies, nutrition, and conservation provide budgetary savings. The titles for crop
insurance, research, bioenergy, horticulture, rural development, trade, forestry, and miscellaneous
items receive additional funding.
The final 2014 farm bill is projected to spend $956 billion over the next 10 years, of which $756
billion is for nutrition assistance and $200 billion is for the agriculture portion. (The five-year
total is $489 billion, with $391 billion for nutrition and $98 billion for the agriculture portion).
Within the agriculture portion, crop insurance outlays are projected to be $90 billion over the next
10 years, $58 billion for conservation, and $44 billion for farm commodity programs (Title I).
The trade title is projected to spend $3.6 billion over the next 10 years, horticulture $1.7 billion,
research $1.3 billion, and bioenergy $1.1 billion. Figure 1 illustrates the budgetary impacts of
changes to each title in each bill. The Table contains the data in tabular form and includes an
estimate of the projected outlays. More details on the farm bill budget are available in CRS
Report R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
2
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Policy.
The May 14, 2013, CBO baseline for the Commodity Credit Corporation is available at http://cbo.gov/publication/
44202, and for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at http://cbo.gov/publication/44211.
4
The effect of sequestration on the baseline and scores is explained in the initial CBO estimates of the farm bill drafts;
see p. 2 and Table 4 of the CBO score of the Senate bill at http://cbo.gov/publication/44175, May 13, 2013.
5
CBO cost estimate of the conference agreement on H.R. 2642 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45049, Jan. 28, 2014).
6
CBO cost estimates of H.R. 2642 as introduced (http://cbo.gov/publication/44414, July 11, 2013), and H.R. 3102 as
introduced (http://cbo.gov/publication/44583, Sept. 16, 2013).
7
CBO cost estimate of S. 954 as reported (http://cbo.gov/publication/44248, May 17, 2013).
3
Congressional Research Service
4
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Figure 1. Budget Scores of the 2014 Farm Bill
(change in outlays relative to 10-year baseline FY2014-FY2023, by farm bill title)
Source: CRS, using CBO cost estimates available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45049.
Budget for the 2014 Farm Bill: Baseline, Scores, and Projected Outlays, by Title
(outlays in millions of dollars, 10-year total FY2014-FY2023)
CBO Score (change to baseline)
Projected Outlays (Baseline + Score)
CBO
baseline
(May 2013)
House bill
H.R. 2642
Commodities
58,765
-18,701
-17,442
-14,307
40,064
41,323
44,458
Conservation
61,567
-4,827
-3,511
-3,967
56,740
58,056
57,600
Trade
3,435
+150
+150
+139
3,585
3,585
3,574
Nutrition
764,432
-38,999
-3,944
-8,000
725,433
760,488
756,432
Credit
-2,240
+0
+0
+0
-2,240
-2,240
-2,240
Rural Development
13
+96
+228
+228
109
241
241
Research
111
+760
+781
+1,145
871
892
1,256
Forestry
3
+5
+10
+10
8
13
13
Energy
243
+0
+880
+879
243
1,123
1,122
Horticulture
1,061
+619
+304
+694
1,680
1,365
1,755
Crop Insurance
84,105
+8,914
+4,999
+5,722
93,019
89,104
89,827
Miscellaneous (incl. NAP)
1,410
+161
-294
+953
1,571
1,116
2,363
Total, Direct Spending
972,905
-51,822
-17,840
-16,504
921,083
955,066
956,401
+64
+54
+104
-51,886
-17,894
-16,608
2014 Farm Bill Titles
Change in Revenue
Net Impact on the Deficit
Senate bill Conference
S. 954
agreement
House bill
H.R. 2642
Senate bill Conference
S. 954
agreement
Source: CRS, using the CBO baseline and cost estimates (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45049).
Congressional Research Service
5
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Title-by-Title Summaries of the Enacted 2014 Farm
Bill (P.L. 113-79)
Farm Bill Title I, Commodities8
Under the enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), farm support for traditional program crops is
restructured by eliminating direct payments,9 the counter-cyclical price (CCP) program, and the
Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program. Since 1996, direct payments have been made
to producers and landowners based on historical production of corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice,
peanuts, and other “covered” crops. Direct payments lost political support in recent years because
recipients did not need to suffer a loss in order to receive a payment.
Approximately three-fourths of the 10-year, $47 billion in savings associated with the elimination
of current farm programs was used to offset the costs of revising farm programs in Title I, adding
permanent disaster assistance in Title I, and enhancing crop insurance in Title XI. P.L. 113-79
provides farm programs (described below) for covered crops, but not cotton, which has a new
crop insurance policy (see “Farm Bill Title XI, Crop Insurance”). Under P.L. 113-79, authority is
continued for marketing assistance loans, which provide additional low-price protection at “loan
rates” specified in previous law (with an adjustment made to the cotton loan rate). As in previous
farm bills as well as in the 2013 Senate farm bill, the enacted 2014 farm bill suspends permanent
price support authority under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1949 until program authority expires in 2018. In contrast, the House bill would
have repealed permanent law and made permanent the commodity support programs authorized
in H.R. 2642.
P.L. 113-79 borrows conceptually from 2008 farm bill programs while enhancing price or revenue
protection for producers. Producers may choose between the following two programs linked to a
decline in either price or revenue (price times yield).
•
It retains a counter-cyclical price program, called Price Loss Coverage or PLC,
which makes a farm payment when the farm price for a covered crop declines
below its “reference price” set in statute (and the House bill). To better protect
producers in a market downturn, the reference prices are higher than the
parameters in the expired 2008 farm bill (called “target prices”). The Senate farm
bill would have provided slightly lower levels of fixed reference prices for rice
and peanuts, and significantly lower levels for other crops by using a marketbased reference price calculated as 55% of a rolling five-year average (excluding
the high and low years).10
8
The Commodities summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted) (farm commodity support and
disaster programs), (name redacted) (dairy), (name redacted) (sugar), and (name redacted) (payment limits), all Specialists in
Agricultural Policy.
9
Cotton producers will receive direct payment assistance in crop years 2014 and 2015 as they transition to the STAX
insurance product (see Title XI, Crop Insurance).
10
The 2012 Senate-passed farm bill (S. 3240) did not provide for a counter-cyclical price program, and an amendment
to eliminate it for crops other than rice and peanuts failed during committee markup of S. 954.
Congressional Research Service
6
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
After significant congressional debate, P.L. 113-79 continues current policy by
making payments on 85% of historical plantings (or “base acres”), a provision
designed to minimize the program’s effect on planting decisions. Base acres can
be updated with plantings from 2009-2012. In contrast, the House bill would
have made payments based on 85% of planted acreage to better align payments
with producer risk, but critics contended that such a provision could lead to
production distortions and trade disputes.
•
It retains a revenue-based program, called Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC),
which is designed to cover a portion of a farmer’s out-of-pocket loss (referred to
as “shallow loss”) when crop revenues decline. Farmers may select ARC as an
alternative to PLC. Like the PLC program, ARC payments are made on 85% of
base acres. (This is in contrast to both the House and Senate bills, which would
have made revenue program payments on planted acreage.) Payments are
triggered when actual crop revenue drops below 86% of historical or
“benchmark” revenue (compared with 88% in the Senate bill and 85% in the
House bill). Farmers can select coverage at either the county or individual farm
level.11
These farm programs are separate from a producer’s decision to purchase crop insurance.
However, farmers selecting the Price Loss Coverage (but not ARC) are also eligible to
purchase an additional subsidized crop insurance policy to protect against “shallow
losses” called the Supplemental Coverage Option (see Title XI, Crop Insurance below).
Five disaster programs were established in the 2008 farm bill for weather-induced losses in
FY2008-FY2011. P.L. 113-79 retroactively reauthorizes and funds four programs covering
livestock and tree assistance, beginning FY2012 and continuing without an expiration date, as
provided in the House bill (the Senate bill had authorized the programs for only FY2012FY2018). The crop disaster program from the 2008 farm bill (i.e., Supplemental Revenue
Assistance, or SURE) was not reauthorized, but elements of it are folded into the new ARC by
allowing producers to protect against farm-level revenue losses. In the Miscellaneous Title (XII),
P.L. 113-79 adopted the Senate bill provision to provide disaster benefits to tree fruit producers
who suffered crop losses in 2012, and additional coverage levels are authorized under the
Noninsured Crop Assistance Program (NAP).
Farm commodity programs have certain limits that cap payments (in the 2008 farm bill, $40,000
per person for direct payments, plus $65,000 for counter-cyclical and ACRE payments; limits
may be doubled with a spouse). There is also an eligibility requirement based on adjusted gross
income (AGI, in the 2008 farm bill a maximum of $500,000 per person for nonfarm income and
$750,000 for farm income). The enacted 2014 farm bill sets a $125,000 per person cap on the
total of PLC, ARC, marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments. This approach differs
from the House and Senate bills, which had separate $50,000 and $75,000 limits for the new
counter-cyclical and marketing loan programs, respectively. Although the total limit in P.L. 11379 is the same as in the two bills, some argue that this may allow larger payments from an
individual program when payments from another program are small. P.L. 113-79 applies the
$125,000 limit to the total from all covered commodities except peanuts, with a separate
$125,000 limit for peanuts—similar to 2008 farm bill law and the Senate proposal. Also
11
Under ARC, the revenue guarantee is set at 86% of historical revenue (i.e., the producer absorbs the first 14% of the
shortfall) at either the county or farm level (to cover more localized losses). The government then pays for the next
10% of the loss. Any remaining losses are backstopped by crop insurance if purchased by the producer.
Congressional Research Service
7
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
regarding eligibility, P.L. 113-79 instructs USDA to write regulations that define “significant
contribution of active personal management” to more clearly and objectively implement existing
law. This differs from both the Senate and House bills, which would have deleted “actively
personal management” and effectively required personal labor in the farming operation. For AGI
limits, the enacted 2014 farm bill changes the AGI limit to a single, total AGI limit of $900,000.
The AGI limit was $750,000 in the Senate bill and $950,000 in the House bill. P.L. 113-79 does
not cap total farm program spending, unlike the House bill’s cap of $16.96 billion for FY2014FY2020 for combined payments under Price Loss Coverage and Revenue Loss Coverage.
For dairy policy, P.L. 113-79 makes significant changes, including as in both bills the elimination
of the dairy product price support program, the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program, and
export subsidies. These are replaced by a new program, which makes payments to participating
dairy producers when the national margin (average farm price of milk minus an average feed cost
ration) falls below a producer-selected margin ranging from $4.00 per hundredweight (cwt.) to
$8.00/cwt. No premium is charged for the minimum $4.00/cwt. margin protection; however,
premiums are charged for coverage at higher margins—the premium schedule differentiates for
annual milk production of 4 million or fewer pounds and for production greater than 4 million
pounds. The final law removes a provision in S. 954 that would have subjected participating
producers to a separate program to reduce incentives to produce milk when margins are low—the
House bill had specifically excluded this provision. In addition, the final bill adopts a provision
from the House bill that requires USDA to adhere to standard rulemaking procedures and to
determine the market impacts of the new program during the rulemaking process. Separately,
federal milk marketing orders have permanent statutory authority and continue intact. However,
the Senate bill only included two additional provisions: one that would have required USDA to
use a specified pre-hearing procedure to consider alternative formulas for Class III milk product
pricing, and a second that would have required USDA to analyze and report on the potential
effects of replacing end-product pricing with alternative pricing procedures. P.L. 113-79 is silent
on this matter.
The objective and structure of the sugar program are left unchanged from prior law in P.L. 11379.
Farm Bill Title II, Conservation12
Prior to enactment of the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), the agricultural conservation portfolio
included over 20 conservation programs. The Conservation title of P.L. 113-79 reduces and
consolidates the number of conservation programs, while also reducing mandatory funding over
the 10-year baseline by close to $4 billion.
Many of the larger existing conservation programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Conservation Stewardship
Program (CSP), are reauthorized, while smaller and similar conservation programs are “rolled”
into them. In response to reduced demand and as a budget saving measure, the largest
conservation program, CRP, is reauthorized with a reduced acreage enrollment cap using a stepdown approach from the current 32 million acres to 24 million by FY2018. CRP also is amended
to include the enrollment of grassland acres similar to the Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP),
12
This section was written by (name re dacted), Specialist in Agricultural Conser
vation and Natural Resources Policy.
Congressional Research Service
8
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
which is repealed. EQIP, a program that assists producers applying conservation measures on land
in production, is reauthorized in the 2014 farm bill with a 5% funding carve-out for wildlife
habitat practices (similar to the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, WHIP, which is repealed).
Funding for EQIP is reduced by a total of almost $500 million over 10 years, halfway between
the Senate’s proposed reduction of $1 billion and the House bill’s proposal of none. CSP, another
working lands program, is reauthorized at a reduced enrollment level of 10 million acres annually,
down from 12.769 million acres annually under current law.
As in the House- and Senate-passed bills, P.L. 113-79 creates two new conservation programs—
the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program (RCPP)—out of several of the existing programs. Conservation easement
programs, including the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Farmland Protection Program (FPP),
and GRP, are repealed and consolidated to create ACEP. ACEP retains most of the program
provisions in the current easement programs by establishing two types of easements: wetland
reserve easements (similar to WRP) that protect and restore wetlands, and agricultural land
easements (similar to FPP and GRP) that prevent non-agricultural uses on productive farm or
grasslands. The Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay Watershed
program, Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), and Great Lakes Basin
program are repealed (as in both the House and Senate bills) and consolidated into the new RCPP.
RCPP will use partnership agreements with state and local governments, Indian tribes, farmer
cooperatives, and other conservation organizations to leverage federal funding and further
conservation on a regional or watershed scale.
The most contentious provision in Title II was the Senate-passed bill’s inclusion of the federally
funded portion of crop insurance premiums to the list of program benefits that could be lost if a
producer is found to produce an agricultural commodity on highly erodible land without
implementing an approved conservation plan or qualifying exemption, or converts a wetland to
crop production. This prerequisite, referred to as conservation compliance, has existed since the
1985 farm bill and previously affected most USDA farm program benefits, but has excluded crop
insurance since 1996. The House-passed bill offered no comparable provision; however, P.L. 11379 includes the majority of the Senate-passed provision, with some changes.
Farm Bill Title III, Trade13
Title III of the enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) deals with statutes concerning U.S.
international food aid and agricultural export programs. P.L. 113-79 reauthorizes all of the
international food aid programs, including the largest, Food for Peace Title II (emergency and
nonemergency food aid). In addition, P.L. 113-79 amends current food aid law both to increase
the portion of Title II funds allocated to eligible organizations under Section 202(e)—up from a
range of “not less than 7.5% nor more than 13%” to “not less than 7.5% nor more than 20%”—
and to allow for greater flexibility in the use of Section 202(e) funds, including for cash-based
assistance (i.e., cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional commodity purchases). In
addition, it places greater emphasis on improving the quality of food aid products (i.e., enhancing
their nutritional quality) and ensuring that sales of agricultural commodity donations do not
disrupt local markets. In this regard, an annual report to Congress is required to address how
13
The Trade summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted) (international food aid) and (name redacted)
(agricultural export programs), both CRS Specialists in Agricultural Policy, and was originally written by (name redac
ted), Senior Specialist in Agricultural Policy (retired).
Congressional Research Service
9
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
funds are allocated to and used by eligible organizations as well as the rate of return on aid
funds—defined as the sum of the proceeds from monetization of food aid commodities relative to
the total cost of procuring and shipping the commodities to the recipient country’s local market.
Special attention is to be given when the rate of return is below 70%.
The enacted 2014 farm bill repeals the specified, annual dollar amounts for nonemergency food
aid (i.e., the “safe box”) required in current law. Instead, it provides that not less than 20%, nor
more than 30% of funds be made available to carry out nonemergency food aid programs, subject
to the requirement that a minimum of $350 million be provided for nonemergency food aid each
fiscal year. P.L. 113-79 creates a new local and regional purchase program in place of the expired
local and regional procurement (LRP) pilot program of the 2008 farm bill and raises the
authorized appropriations for LRP to $80 million annually for FY2014 through FY2018.
P.L. 113-79 reauthorizes funding for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Export Credit
Guarantee program. The value of U.S. agricultural exports that can benefit from export credit
guarantees remains at $5.5 billion annually. To address differences that have arisen over how the
United States might comply with the WTO cotton case won by Brazil, the final law grants
flexibility to the Secretary of Agriculture to make changes to the credit guarantee program to
meet the terms agreed upon by both countries. This program is also amended in three ways to
address in part Brazil’s criticism of how it is administered. P.L. 113-79 also reauthorizes through
FY2018 CCC funding of $200 million annually for the Market Access Program (MAP), which
finances promotional activities for both generic and branded U.S. agricultural products. It also
provides CCC funding of $34.5 million annually through FY2018 for the Foreign Market
Development Program (FMDP), a generic commodity promotion program, and CCC funding of
up to $10 million a year through FY2018 for the Emerging Markets Program (EMP), to carry out
technical assistance activities that facilitate U.S. farm exports and to address technical barriers to
trade in emerging markets.
The enacted 2014 farm bill also requires the Secretary, in consultation with the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees and House and Senate Appropriations Committees, to propose a plan to
reorganize the international trade functions of USDA, to report to the congressional committees
on the plan 180 days after the farm bill’s enactment, and to implement the reorganization plan not
later than one year after the report is submitted. It directs the Secretary to include in the plan the
establishment of the position of an Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign
Agricultural Affairs within USDA, who will be responsible for serving as a multi-agency
coordinator of sanitary and phytosanitary matters and addressing agricultural non-tariff trade
barriers.
Farm Bill Title IV, Nutrition14
The Nutrition title in the enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reconciles the House-passed bill
(H.R. 2642, as combined with H.R. 3102, Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act) and the
Senate-passed bill (S. 954). The final law reauthorizes SNAP and related programs for five years;
CBO estimates that the Nutrition title in P.L. 113-79 will reduce spending by $8.0 billion over 10
years (FY2014-FY2023). The SNAP provisions alone are estimated to reduce spending by
14
The Nutrition summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted), Analyst in Nutrition Assistance
Policy.
Congressional Research Service
10
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
slightly more than $8.6 billion over 10 years. Certain other Nutrition provisions are estimated to
increase spending, which together result in the total estimated reduction of $8.0 billion.
Farm bill conferees were faced with significant differences in the SNAP provisions in the Senateand House-passed bills. Over the 10-year budget window (FY2014-FY2023), CBO estimated that
the Senate’s Nutrition title would have reduced spending by approximately $4 billion and the
House’s Nutrition title would have reduced spending by approximately $39 billion. The House
bill would have reauthorized SNAP and related programs for three years, while the Senate would
have reauthorized the programs for five years.15
Although the Nutrition title of the enacted 2014 farm bill contains a number of provisions that
change aspects of SNAP and related nutrition programs, it largely retains the provisions in the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and other nutrition program authorizing statutes. For example,
most eligibility and benefit calculation rules in SNAP do not change under P.L. 113-79. While
various changes in the Nutrition title are estimated to reduce or increase spending on the nutrition
programs, most provisions are estimated to have little or no budgetary impact.
The budgetary impact of the Nutrition title in P.L. 113-79 (as compared to the Senate and House
bills) is largely the result of changes to SNAP eligibility and benefit calculation rules. In
particular, it is the result of the final law excluding two House SNAP provisions that were
estimated to make the bill’s greatest reductions in SNAP spending (ending broad-based
categorical eligibility and ending the availability of labor-market based waivers from the time
limit for certain able-bodied adults). Major issues that have potential to impact households’
eligibility and benefit amounts include the following.
•
P.L. 113-79 amends how Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP) payments are treated in the calculation of SNAP benefits. Both the
Senate and House had included such changes, with the House version of this
change estimated to affect a greater share of participants. The final agreement, for
the most part, includes the House version. According to information from June
2012, this change to benefit calculation is expected to reduce household benefit
amounts in approximately 17 states.16
•
The House and Senate had both proposed to disqualify certain ex-offenders from
receiving SNAP benefits. P.L. 113-79 modifies that policy by requiring the
disqualification of only such offenders who are not complying with the terms of
their sentence.
•
P.L. 113-79 includes policies related to the SNAP Employment and Training
(E&T) program, including a pilot project authority and related funding ($200
15
Throughout the farm bill formulation, some policymakers expressed interest in separating the nutrition programs
from the omnibus farm bill. The House-passed bill’s provision to make the authorization of nutrition programs out of
sync with the rest of the farm bill programs were a step in that direction.
16
While virtually all SNAP states consider LIHEAP in their benefit calculation, according to a June 2012 survey by
USDA-FNS, approximately 16 states have leveraged nominal (as little as 10 cents) LIHEAP payments into an increase
in households’ SNAP benefits that is larger than the initial LIHEAP payment. This practice is sometimes referred to as
“Heat and Eat.” The 16 so-called “heat and eat” states are California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Washington, and Wisconsin. A 17th state, New Hampshire, does not distribute nominal LIHEAP payments but does
allow an application for LIHEAP to qualify the household for the Standard Utility Allowance (which can result in a
higher SNAP benefit).
Congressional Research Service
11
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
million over FY2014 and FY2015) for states to implement and USDA to evaluate
a variety of work programs for SNAP participants. The agreement includes the
House bill’s provisions that would expand reporting measures for all E&T
programs. P.L. 113-79 does not include the House’s expansion of the time limit
for able-bodied adults without dependents or the House’s work-related policies
that may incentivize states to reduce their caseloads.
•
P.L. 113-79 does not include any changes to broad-based categorical eligibility.
The House bill would have eliminated broad-based categorical eligibility, which
would have impacted the eligibility of SNAP participants in 43 states.
•
P.L. 113-79 does not include the House provision to give states the option to
administer drug testing as part of their eligibility determination processes.
Since SNAP provides benefits redeemable for SNAP-eligible foods at SNAP-eligible retailers,
much of SNAP law pertains to retailer authorization and benefit issuance and redemption. P.L.
113-79 includes the retailer and redemption provisions that had been included in both the House
and Senate bills. This includes requiring stores to stock more fresh foods, requiring retailers to
pay for their electronic benefit transfer (EBT) machines, and providing additional funding for
combatting trafficking (the sale of SNAP benefits). P.L. 113-79 also includes $100 million in
mandatory funding (over 10 years) for Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive grants, a program
similar to that in the Senate bill, which will support organizations that offer bonus incentives for
SNAP purchases of fruits and vegetables.
The enacted 2014 farm bill increases funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP), the program that provides USDA foods and federal support to emergency feeding
organizations (e.g., food banks and food pantries). Taking into account CBO’s estimates of
inflation, it is estimated to provide an additional $205 million over 10 years, $125 million of
which is provided in the first 5 years. (The Senate bill would have increased funding by $54
million over 10 years, and the House would have increased funding by $333 million over 10
years.)
P.L. 113-79 includes many other changes to SNAP and related program policy. These changes
include amendments to the nutrition programs operated by tribes and territories, the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and the distribution of USDA foods to schools. The 2010
child nutrition reauthorization (Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, P.L. 111-296) has already
reauthorized WIC and the child nutrition programs through FY2015, but P.L. 113-79 includes
related policies, such as farm-to-school efforts.
Farm Bill Title V, Credit17
The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (also known as the ConAct) is the permanent
statute that authorizes USDA agricultural credit and rural development programs. USDA serves
as a lender of last resort by providing direct and guaranteed loans to farmers and ranchers who are
denied direct credit by commercial lenders but have the wherewithal to repay the loan.
The enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) makes relatively small policy changes to USDA’s credit
programs. It gives USDA discretion to recognize alternative legal entities to qualify for farm
17
The Credit summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Policy.
Congressional Research Service
12
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
loans and allow alternatives to meet a three-year farming experience requirement. It increases the
maximum size of down-payment loans, and eliminates term limits on guaranteed operating loans
(by removing a maximum number of years that an individual can remain eligible). It increases
the percentage of a conservation loan that can be guaranteed, adds another lending priority for
beginning farmers, and facilitates loans for the purchase of highly fractionated land in Indian
reservations, among other changes.
The Senate bill would have updated and modernized the ConAct’s statutory language and
reorganized the various programs into separate subtitles (Subtitle A for farm loans; Subtitle B for
rural development; Subtitle C for general provisions). The House bill, like the final law, did not
reorganize the ConAct.
For the Farm Credit Act, which governs the Farm Credit System, P.L. 113-79 adopts a Senate
provision that instructs the system’s regulator (the Farm Credit Administration) to improve the
disclosure of compensation packages for senior officers in the Farm Credit System.
Farm Bill Title VI, Rural Development18
Like the Credit title discussed above, the Rural Development title in the Senate-passed 2013 farm
bill (S. 954) proposed a restructuring of the ConAct, which provides permanent authority for
USDA to carry out many of the rural loan and grant programs in its portfolio. The Senate
provision would have consolidated various programs, established criteria for which rural
communities receive priority in making loan and grant awards, and modified the definitions of
“rural” and “rural area.” This proposed reorganization of the ConAct is not included in the
enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79), although one aspect of the proposed restructuring is
retained: the consolidation of two rural business programs into a single business development
platform, which is authorized with annual appropriations of $65 million through FY2018. P.L.
113-79 increases the mandatory spending authorization of the Value-Added Agricultural Product
Grants to $63 million and retains the program’s $40 million in annual discretionary
appropriations. P.L. 113-79 also adopts the Senate provision providing $150 million in
mandatory spending for pending rural development loans and grants and the Senate provision to
fund the Microentrepreneur Assistance Program at $3 million annually in mandatory spending
and $40 million subject to appropriations.
P.L. 113-79 adopts the House provision to amend the water and waste water direct and guaranteed
loan program to encourage financing by private or cooperative lenders to the maximum extent
possible. The final law also adopts the House provision that provides up to 5% of the Community
Facilities appropriation for technical assistance to help smaller communities develop their
applications to the program, and to use loan guarantees to the maximum extent possible. P.L. 11379 also adopts the House provisions directing the Secretary of Agriculture to begin collecting data
on the economic effects of the projects that USDA Rural Development funds, and directs the
Secretary to develop simplified applications for funding.
The enacted 2014 farm bill also retains the definition of “rural” and “rural area” under current law
for purposes of program eligibility. The Senate bill had proposed modifications to the 2008 farm
bill permitting communities that might otherwise be ineligible for USDA Rural Development
18
The Rural Development summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted), Analyst in Natural Resources
and Rural Development.
Congressional Research Service
13
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
funding to petition USDA to designate their communities as “rural in character,” thereby making
them eligible for program support. While the provision under current law is retained, the
modifications to the provision were not adopted by the conferees. P.L. 113-79 does amend the
definition of rural area in the 1949 Housing Act so that areas deemed rural between 2000 and
2010 will retain that designation until USDA receives data from the 2020 decennial census. That
provision also raises the population threshold for eligibility from 25,000 to 35,000.
P.L. 113-79 adopts the Senate provision authorizing USDA to prioritize otherwise eligible
applications that support multijurisdictional strategic economic and community development. The
provision reserves 20% of a fiscal year’s appropriation for community facilities, water and waste
water projects, and rural business development for such strategic development projects. Also
adopted is the Senate provision authorizing a new Rural Energy Savings Program, which provides
0% interest rate loans to eligible borrowers to implement energy efficiency measures.
Included in P.L. 113-79 (as in both bills) is reauthorization of funding for programs under the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936, including the Access to Broadband Telecommunications
Services in Rural Areas Program and the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program. It largely
adopts the Senate provisions authorizing access to broadband telecommunications service to rural
areas, including authorized appropriations of $10 million annually (FY2014-FY2018) for a new
Rural Gigabit Network Pilot program for “ultra-high speed” broadband connectivity. Conferees
did not adopt the Senate provision that would have authorized a new grant program for rural
broadband in addition to the existing loan program.
P.L. 113-79 adopts the Senate provision reauthorizing the Northern Great Plains Regional
Authority at its current authorized appropriation of $30 million annually, rather than the House
measure that would have authorized $2 million in appropriations. As in both bills, P.L. 113-79
also reauthorizes the three regional authorities established in the 2008 farm bill.
Farm Bill Title VII, Research19
USDA is authorized under various laws to conduct agricultural research at the federal level, and
to provide support for cooperative research, extension, and post-secondary agricultural education
programs in the states. The enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) reauthorizes funding for these
activities through FY2018, subject to annual appropriations, and amends authority so that only
competitive grants can be awarded under certain programs.
Mandatory spending for the research title is increased by $1.145 billion over 10 years compared
with projected baseline spending. Funding is increased for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative
($745 million over 10 years) and the Organic Agricultural Research and Extension Initiative
($100 million). Also, mandatory funding is continued for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Program ($100 million).
As in the Senate-passed version of the bill, P.L. 113-79 provides mandatory funding of $200
million to establish the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, a nonprofit corporation
designed to supplement USDA’s basic and applied research activities. It will solicit and accept
19
The Research summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Policy.
Congressional Research Service
14
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
private donations to award grants for collaborative public/private partnerships with scientists at
USDA and in academia, nonprofits, and the private sector.
Farm Bill Title VIII, Forestry20
General forestry legislation is within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committees, and past
farm bills have included provisions addressing forestry assistance, especially on private lands.
The enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) generally repeals, reauthorizes, and modifies existing
programs and provisions under two main authorities: the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
(CFAA), as amended, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA), as amended.
Many federal forestry assistance programs are permanently authorized, and thus do not require
reauthorization in the farm bill. However, P.L. 113-79 does reauthorize several other forestry
assistance programs through FY2018. It also repeals programs that have expired or have never
received appropriations. Both the House- and Senate-passed bills included similar
reauthorizations and repeals.
P.L. 113-79 also includes provisions that address the management of the National Forest System.
For example, it permanently reauthorizes stewardship contracting and extends the good neighbor
authority nationwide. Both the House and the Senate bills included similar provisions, although
the House bill would have reauthorized stewardship contracting only through FY2018. P.L. 11379 also adopts a Senate provision authorizing the designation of treatment areas within the
National Forest System that are of deteriorating forest health due to insect or disease infestation,
and allowing for expedited project planning within those designated areas. However, it does not
include House provisions requiring the designation of critical areas within the National Forest
System and authorizing expedited project planning for projects up to 10,000 acres. P.L. 113-79
does include provisions from the House bill to modify the existing public notice, comment, and
appeals process for land and resource management plans.
Farm Bill Title IX, Energy21
USDA renewable energy programs have been used to incentivize research, development, and
adoption of renewable energy projects, including solar, wind, and anaerobic digesters. However,
the primary focus of USDA renewable energy programs has been to promote U.S. biofuels
production and use. Cornstarch-based ethanol dominates the U.S. biofuels industry. The 2008
farm bill attempted to refocus U.S. biofuels policy initiatives in favor of non-corn feedstocks,
especially the development of the cellulosic biofuels industry. The most critical programs to this
end are the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, which pays producers for production of
eligible advanced biofuels; the Biorefinery Assistance Program, which assists in the development
of new and emerging technologies for advanced biofuels; the Biomass Crop Assistance Program
(BCAP), which assists farmers in developing nontraditional crops for use as feedstocks for the
eventual production of cellulosic biofuels; and the Renewable Energy for America Program
(REAP), which has funded a variety of biofuels-related projects, including the installation of
blender pumps to help circumvent the emerging “blend wall” that could potentially circumscribe
domestic ethanol consumption near current levels of about 13 billion gallons.
20
21
The Forestry summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted), Analyst in Natural Resources Policy.
The Energy summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Policy.
Congressional Research Service
15
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
All of the major farm bill energy programs expired at the end of FY2013 and lacked baseline
funding going forward. The enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) extends most of the renewable
energy provisions of the 2008 farm bill, with the exception of the Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency
Initiative, the Forest Biomass for Energy Program, the Biofuels Infrastructure Study, and the
Renewable Fertilizer Study, which are either omitted or explicitly repealed. In addition, P.L. 11379 adds a new reporting requirement on energy use and efficiency at USDA facilities.
Over the five-year reauthorization period (FY2014-FY2018), P.L. 113-79 contains a total of $694
million in new mandatory funding and authorizes $765 million to be appropriated for the various
farm bill renewable energy programs. This contrasts with the House- and Senate-passed farm
bills. The Senate bill (S. 954) contained a total of $880 million in new mandatory funding and
authorized $1.140 billion to be appropriated for the various farm bill renewable energy programs.
The House bill (H.R. 2642) contained no mandatory funding for these programs and authorized
$1.405 billion over the five years, subject to annual appropriations. In addition, the House bill
would have eliminated all support for the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation (CHST)
component of BCAP, which would have severely limitied its potential effectiveness as an
incentive to produce cellulosic feedstocks. BCAP funding for CHST is retained in P.L. 113-79.
Farm Bill Title X, Horticulture22
The enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) adopts many of the horticulture provisions in the
Senate- (S. 954) and House-passed (H.R. 2642) farm bills. The final bill reauthorizes many of the
existing farm bill provisions supporting farming operations in the specialty crop and certified
organic sectors. Many Title X provisions fall into the categories of marketing and promotion;
organic certification; data and information collection; pest and disease control; food safety and
quality standards; and local foods. CBO estimates a total increase in mandatory spending of $338
million (FY2014-FY2018) for Title X in P.L. 113-79. However, provisions affecting the specialty
crop and certified organic sectors are not limited to the Horticulture title, but are contained within
several other titles of the new law. These include programs in the research, nutrition, and trade
titles, among others. CBO’s cost estimate for specialty crop provisions in Title X does not include
cost estimates for provisions in other titles. CBO estimates research programs benefitting
specialty crop and organic producers, for example, will require a $418 million increase in
mandatory spending (FY2014-FY2018).
P.L. 113-79 adopts nearly all the programs reauthorized in both the House and Senate bills, and in
some cases provides for increased funding for several key programs benefitting specialty crop
producers. These include the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, plant pest and disease
programs, USDA’s Market News for specialty crops, the Specialty Crop Research Initiative
(SCRI), and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (Snack Program) and Section 32 purchases
for fruits and vegetables under the Nutrition title. The final law also reauthorized most programs
benefitting certified organic agriculture producers, including continued support for USDA’s
National Organic Program (NOP) and development of crop insurance mechanisms for organic
producers, Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI), and research programs such as
the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and the Organic Transitions
Program (ORG) under the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program. Both bills would give USDA authority to consider an application for a research and
22
The Horticulture summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Policy.
Congressional Research Service
16
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
promotion order (or “checkoff” program) for the organic sector. Reauthorization of each of these
provisions was in both the House and Senate bills. One exception is that the House bill would
have repealed the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (NOCCSP), which was not
part of the Senate bill, but was included in the final law.
Programs in other farm bill titles benefitting specialty crop and certified organic producers
include the Value-Added Producer Grant Program, Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
(TASC), the Market Access Program (MAP), and most conservation programs (including
assistance specifically for organic producers), among other programs, within the crop insurance,
credit, and miscellaneous titles. Horticulture and other titles in P.L. 113-79, which were for the
most part included in both the House-and Senate-passed bills, also include provisions that expand
opportunities for local food systems and also beginning farmers and ranchers. Other provisions
supporting local food producers are within the research, nutrition, and rural development titles,
among others.
The House-passed bill included other provisions that were not in the Senate bill. These provisions
would have provided exemptions from certain regulatory requirements under some laws, such as
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered
Species Act. P.L. 113-79 included aspects of some of these provisions, albeit in modified form,
but did not adopt the provisions as proposed by the House bill.
Farm Bill Title XI, Crop Insurance23
The crop insurance title enhances the existing federal crop insurance program, which is
permanently authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act. Crop insurance is designed generally
to cover losses from natural disasters, while Title I programs (“farm programs”) make payments
to farmers of program crops when prices fall below statutory minimums or when crop revenue is
low relative to recent levels.
The federal crop insurance program makes available subsidized crop insurance to producers who
purchase a policy to protect against losses in yield, crop revenue, or whole farm revenue. More
than 100 crops are insurable. The enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) increases funding for crop
insurance relative to baseline levels by an additional $5.7 billion over 10 years.
Most of the funding increase stems from two new insurance products, one for cotton and one for
other crops. With cotton not covered by the counter-cyclical price or revenue programs
established in Title I, a new crop insurance policy called Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX)
is made available for cotton producers. The STAX policy indemnifies losses in county revenue of
greater than 10% of expected revenue but not more than the deductible level (e.g., 25%) selected
by the producer for the underlying individual policy (or not more than 30% if used as stand-alone
policy). Similarly, for other crops, P.L. 113-79 (as in both the House- and Senate-passed bills)
makes available an additional policy (i.e., not stand-alone) called Supplemental Coverage Option
(SCO), based on expected county yields or revenue, to cover part of the deductible under the
producer’s underlying policy (referred to as a farmer’s out-of-pocket loss or “shallow loss”). The
farmer subsidy as a share of the policy premium is set at 80% for STAX and 65% for SCO.
23
The Crop Insurance summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Policy.
Congressional Research Service
17
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Additional crop insurance changes in both bills, and adopted by the conferees, are designed to
expand or improve crop insurance for other commodities, including specialty crops. Provisions
revise the value of crop insurance for organic crops to reflect prices of organic (not conventional)
crops. USDA is required to conduct more research on whole farm revenue insurance with higher
coverage levels than currently available. Studies or policies are also required on insuring
(1) specialty crop producers for food safety and contamination-related losses, (2) swine producers
for a catastrophic disease event, (3) producers of catfish against reduction in the margin between
the market prices and production costs, (4) commercial poultry production against business
disruptions caused by integrator bankruptcy, (5) poultry producers for a catastrophic event,
(6) producers of biomass sorghum or sweet sorghum grown as feedstock for renewable energy,
and (7) alfalfa producers. A peanut revenue insurance product and rice margin insurance also are
mandated. Another provision provides funding for private-sector index weather insurance, which
insures against specific weather events and not actual loss.
For conservation purposes, a provision in Title XI reduces crop insurance subsidies and
noninsured crop disaster assistance for the first four years of planting on native sod acreage in
Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. In Title II, crop
insurance premium subsidies are available only if producers are in compliance with wetland
conservation requirements and conservation requirements for highly erodible land, as originally
adopted by the Senate.
A controversial item not included in P.L. 113-79 was the reduction of premium subsidies for high
income farmers, a provision that was included in the Senate bill but not the House bill. In the
2012 farm bill passed by the Senate in the 112th Congress, an amendment was adopted during
floor debate to reduce crop insurance premium subsidies by 15 percentage points for producers
with average adjusted gross income greater than $750,000. In 2013, the Senate Agriculture
Committee-reported version of S. 954 did not include the provision, but an amendment to S. 954
requiring the subsidy reduction was adopted on the Senate floor in June 2013 by a vote of 59-33.
Farm Bill Title XII, Miscellaneous24
The Miscellaneous title of the enacted 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) contains four sections:
livestock; socially disadvantaged and limited-resource producers; other miscellaneous, and a
fourth section added by the conferees on oilheat efficiency, research, and jobs training.
Animal health-related provisions in the livestock section of P.L. 113-79 include provisions that
renew the trichinae certification and aquatic animal health programs that were established in the
2008 farm bill; establish an animal health laboratory network; and require USDA to continue to
administer the avian influenza surveillance program through the National Poultry Improvement
24
The Miscellaneous summary and side-by-side were written by (name redacted), Analyst in Agricultural Policy (animal
agriculture). Other contributors to the Title XII side-by-side are (name redacted), Analyst in Natural Resources and
Rural Development (socially disadvantaged farmers); (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Policy (USDA data
collection); (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Policy (Noninsured Assistance Program); Renee Johnson,
Specialist in Agricultural Policy (FSMA); (name redacted), Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy (EPA);
(name redacted), Analyst in Natural Resources Policy (ocean and fisheries policy); (name redacted), Specialist in
Environmental Policy (spill prevention); (name redacted), Specialist in Natural Resources Policy (water resources);
(name redacted), Specialist in Natural Resources Policy (Payment in Lieu of Taxes); and (name redacted), Specialist in
Energy Policy (oilheat).
Congressional Research Service
18
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
Plan. The section also includes a Sense of Congress statement on the priority of feral swine
eradication.
P.L. 113-79 establishes a competitive production and marketing grant program for the sheep
industry through the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center. Another provision confirms
the transfer of catfish inspection authority to USDA from FDA (originally in the 2008 farm bill)
and directs USDA to finalize the rules on catfish inspection, and for USDA and FDA to execute a
memorandum of understanding to improve interagency cooperation on inspection. Lastly, USDA
is to conduct an economic analysis of its country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rule (78 Federal
Register 31367, May 24, 2013) within 6 months of the enactment of the farm bill. Some livestock
industry groups pushed for a provision to repeal or modify the COOL law, but such a provision
was not included in the final law.
P.L. 113-79 extends authority for outreach and technical assistance programs for socially
disadvantaged farmer and ranchers, and adds military veteran farmers and ranchers as a
qualifying group. The final law creates a research center to develop policy recommendations for
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, reauthorizes funding for the USDA Office of
Advocacy and Outreach for socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers, and
includes a provision to increase transparency by automatically providing receipts for service or
denial of service.
Provisions in the other miscellaneous section of Title XII preserve farm bill benefits for
participants in the High Plains Water Study, make available higher coverage levels under the
Noninsured Crop Assistance Programs, prohibit attendance at animal-fighting events and exempt
small dealers and exhibiters from license requirements under the Animal Welfare act. P.L. 113-79
also includes grants to promote the U.S. maple syrup industry, and grants for technological
training for farm workers. It also creates a military veterans agricultural liaison within USDA to
advocate for and to provide information to veterans, and establishes an Office of Tribal Relations
to coordinate USDA activities with Native American tribes.
The final Miscellaneous title contains two provisions related to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The first establishes a standing agriculture-related subcommittee under the EPA’s
Science Advisory Board to provide advice on matters of significant impact on agricultural
entities. The second provides National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
exemptions for certain silviculture activities. A provision amending the EPA’s spill prevention,
control, and countermeasure rule was excluded; as well as a provision prohibiting EPA from
disclosing producer information
The section also includes provisions to establish a Pima Cotton Trust Fund and an Agriculture
Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund for users of pima cotton and wool, and funding for wool
research and promotion. The Citrus Disease Research and Development Trust Fund provision
from the Senate bill was moved to the research title.
P.L. 113-79 adds a provision not found in either the House or Senate bills to provide mandatory
funding in 2014 for Payments in Lieu of Taxes, which provides payments to local governments
based on the presence of non-taxable federal lands. Also, the fourth section of the miscellaneous
title includes new provisions on oilheat efficiency, renewable fuels research, and jobs training.
Sixteen provisions that were in either the House or Senate bill are not included in P.L. 113-79.
One particularly controversial issue that was deleted in conference was the interstate commerce
Congressional Research Service
19
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side
provision originally in the House bill that would have prohibited states from imposing production
or manufacturing standards on agricultural products from other states. Of interest to the livestock
and poultry industry, provisions repealing marketing and competition rules proposed by USDA
(the GIPSA rule) were excluded. Some of the other provisions not included were flood protection
for the Missouri River basin and the Wallkill River and Black Dirt region; prohibitions on closing
Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices with high workloads; a prohibition on FSA employees
keeping GSA-leased cars overnight; and provisions on the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay also
were excluded from the final law.
Congressional Research Service
20
A Side-by Side Comparison of the Enacted 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79) with
the Senate-Passed (S. 954) and House-Passed (H.R. 2642) Bills and Prior Law
Title I. Commodities
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Covered commodities: wheat,
corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats,
upland cotton, long grain rice,
medium grain rice, pulse crops (dry
peas, lentils, small chickpeas, and
large chickpeas), soybeans, and other
oilseeds (sunflower seed, rapeseed,
canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard
seed, crambe, sesame seed). [7
U.S.C. 7901(4,9) Peanuts were not
defined as a “covered commodity”
but treated as such under farm
programs.
Peanuts are included as a covered
commodity but not cotton, which is
eligible for the Stacked Income
Protection Plan (STAX) (see Title XI).
USDA is required to consider popcorn as
a covered commodity. [Sec. 1104(8)]
Same as Senate bill except popcorn
provision is not included. [Sec. 1104(4)]
Peanuts are included as a covered
commodity but not cotton, which is
eligible for the Stacked Income Protection
Plan (STAX) (see Title XI). Also, acreage
of wheat, oats, and barley used for haying
and grazing is considered as base. [Sec.
1111(6)]
Base acres: For purposes of
calculating farm program payments,
the number of base acres of a
covered commodity on a farm as
established under the 2002 farm bill
[7 U.S.C. 7911], subject to
adjustments for pulse crops, other
oilseeds, and conservation reserve
contracts. [7 U.S.C. 8711] Same for
peanuts. [7 U.S.C. 7952, 7 U.S.C.
8752]
The number of base acres of a covered
commodity established under the 2008
farm bill, as in effect the date of
enactment of this act, subject to
adjustment. The Secretary shall maintain
a record of farms with upland cotton
base acres in effect on the day before the
date of enactment of this act. Base acres
for peanuts may be updated using 20092012 plantings. [Sec. 1105]
The number of farm base acres is the sum
of base acreage for all covered
commodities and cotton in effect as of
September 30, 2013. [Sec. 1104(7)]
Individual crop-specific base acreages
(except cotton) are retained, as in effect
on September 30, 2013, subject to any
adjustments in Sec. 1112, including
conservation reserve contracts and
inclusion of additional oilseeds designated
by the Secretary. [Sec. 1111(4)]
Commodity Program Terms
CRS-21
Farm owners have a 1-time opportunity
to reallocate base acres among covered
crops according to the average planted
acreage shares (by covered crop) for the
2009-2012 period. The reallocation of
base acres cannot result in the total
number of base acres (including generic
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
base described below) for a farm
exceeding the number of base acres in
effect on the farm as of Sept. 30, 2013.
Total base (including generic base) cannot
exceed total cropland on the farm. [Sec.
1112].
Establishes “generic base acres” equal to
the amount of cotton base acres in effect
under the 2008 farm bill as of September
30, 2013. [Sec. 1111(9)] Generic base is
eligible for payments if a covered crop is
planted on the farm. Specifically, for each
crop year, generic base acres are
attributed (i.e. temporarily designated as)
base acres to a particular covered
commodity base in proportion to that
crop’s share of total plantings of all
covered commodities in that year. The
amount of generic base attributed for a
particular year cannot exceed the acreage
planted to covered crops in that year (use
of double-cropping for payment
calculations is not allowed unless the
practice is approved by the Secretary).
[Sec. 1112].
Direct Payments
Direct payments (DPs) are
available to producers on farms with
base acres (historical plantings) of
covered commodities (wheat, corn,
grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland
cotton, rice, soybeans, and other
oilseeds). [7 U.S.C. 8713] Covers
2008-2013 crop years. Direct
payment rates are fixed in statute [7
U.S.C. 7913(b)] and do not vary
CRS-22
Repeals direct payments. [Sec. 1101]
Identical to the Senate bill, except
payments for upland cotton continue for
crop years 2014 and 2015 with payment
acres equal to 70% of base acres in 2014
and 60% in 2015. [Sec. 1101]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1101]
Transition payments are made available
for upland cotton for the 2014 crop year
(and for 2015 if STAX is not yet available
– see Title XI). Payment equals program
yield (divided by the national yield of 597
pounds per acre) times transition
assistance rate times payment acres.
Transition rate is based on cotton price
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
based on market price. Payment
amount = direct payment rate, times
85% of base acres [7 U.S.C. 7911],
times direct payment yield [7 U.S.C.
7912]. (Exception: payment acreage
is 83.3% of base acres for crop years
2009-2011.) Direct payments for
peanuts authorized separately. [7
U.S.C. 8753]
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
decline between June 2013 and December
2013. Payment acres in 2014 equal 60% of
2013 cotton base acres and 36.5% in 2015.
[Sec. 1119]
Planting flexibility: Any crop could
be planted on base acres to receive
program benefits, except fruits,
vegetables (other than mung beans
and pulse crops), and wild rice.
Exceptions provided for farms and
producers with a history of doublecropping or history of growing fruits
and vegetables; in this case, direct
and counter-cyclical payments are
reduced acre-for-acre for the year.
[7 U.S.C. 8717, 7 U.S.C. 8756] A
pilot program beginning in 2009 in
seven Midwestern states allowed
planting of fruits and vegetables for
processing on base acres. Base acres
were temporarily reduced for the
year, but restored for the next crop
year and “considered planted” for
any future base calculations. [7
U.S.C. 8717(d)]
No crop planting limitations on base
acres for new farm programs.
Same as Senate bill.
Any crop may be planted without effect
on base acres. However, payment acres
on a farm are reduced in any crop year in
which fruits, vegetables (other than mung
beans and pulse crops), or wild rice have
been planted on base acres. The reduction
to payment acres is equal to the base
acres planted to these crops in excess of
15% of base acres for either the Price
Loss Coverage or county coverage under
the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)
program, and in excess of 35% of base
acres for ARC individual coverage. [Sec.
1114(e)]
Farms with limited base acres: A
producer on a farm may not receive
direct payments, counter-cyclical
payments, or average crop revenue
election payments (see below) if the
sum of the base acres of the farm is
10 acres or less (provision was
Same provision for adverse market
payments (see below). [Sec. 1105(d)]
Same provision for Price Loss Payment
and Revenue Loss Coverage (see below).
[Sec. 1107(a)(2)]
A producer on a farm may not receive
Price Loss Coverage payments or
Agriculture Risk Coverage payments (see
below) if the sum of the base acres on the
farm is 10 acres or less, except for socially
disadvantaged farmers/ranchers or limited
resource farmers/ranchers, [Sec.
CRS-23
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
suspended for the 2008 crop year).
[7 U.S.C. 8711(d)]
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
1114(d)]
Price-Based Payments
Counter-cyclical payments
(CCPs) are available for same
commodities as for direct payments
plus pulse crops. [7 U.S.C. 8714]
Covers 2008-2013 crop years.
Payment rate is difference between
target price in statute (see below)
and national average market price (or
loan rate, if higher), minus the direct
payment rate. Counter-cyclical
payments for peanuts authorized
separately. [7 U.S.C. 8754(a)(1)(3)]
Repeals counter-cyclical payments. [Sec.
1102]
Repeals counter-cyclical payments. [Sec.
1102]
Repeals counter-cyclical payments, as in
both bills. [Sec. 1102]
Establishes program for adverse
market payments (AMP) for crop
years 2014-2018 for the same crops as
those covered by CCPs (except upland
cotton). Payment rate is the difference
between the reference price and the 12month national average market price (or
loan rate, if higher), [Sections 11041107]
Establishes Price Loss Coverage (PLC)
for producers of commodities covered by
CCPs except upland cotton. Covers 2014
crop year and each succeeding crop year.
Payment rate is difference between
reference price and national midseason
market price (or loan rate, if higher).
USDA shall submit to Congress an annual
report that evaluates the impact of PLC
(and RLC below) on plantings, production,
prices, and program costs. [Sec. 11041107]
Establishes Price Loss Coverage (PLC)
as in House bill, with the exception that
PLC covers crop years 2014-18, payments
are made on base acres, a national 12month price is used instead of a
midseason price, and no annual report is
required. [Sec. 1116]
Target prices for 2013:
Reference prices:
Reference prices:
Wheat, bu., $4.17
Long grain rice, cwt., $13.30
Wheat, bu., $5.50
Identical to the House bill except as noted
below. [Sec. 1111]
Corn, bu., $2.63
Medium grain rice, cwt., $13.30
Corn, bu., $3.70
Grain sorghum, bu., $2.63
Peanuts, ton, $523.77
Grain sorghum, bu., $3.95
Barley, bu., $2.63
All other covered commodities: 55%
times the average national marketing year
average price for the most recent 5 crop
years, excluding each of the crop years
with the highest and lowest prices.
Barley, bu., $4.95
Oats, bu., $1.79
Upland cotton, lb., $0.7125
Long grain rice, cwt., $10.50
Medium grain rice, cwt., $10.50
Soybeans, bu., $6.00
Other oilseeds, cwt., $12.68
CRS-24
Oats, bu., $2.40
Upland cotton, none (covered by STAX
program Title XI)
Long grain rice, cwt., $14.00
Medium grain rice, cwt., $14.00
—(for temperate japonica rice, price is
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Dry peas, cwt., $8.32
increased 15%)
Lentils, cwt., $12.81
Soybeans, bu., $8.40
Small chickpeas, cwt., $10.36
Other oilseeds, cwt., $20.15
Large chickpeas, cwt., $12.81
Dry peas, cwt., $11.00
Peanuts, ton, $495
Lentils, cwt., $19.97
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Small chickpeas, cwt., $19.04
Large chickpeas, cwt., $21.54
Peanuts, ton, $535
Payment amount = Payment rate
times 85% of base acres times
counter-cyclical program yield for the
farm (generally based on 1998-2001
data). [7 U.S.C. 7912]
Payment amount = Payment rate
times 85% of base acres planted to crop
times existing counter-cyclical program
yield (for rice and peanuts, yields may be
updated with 2009-2012 data).
Payment amount = Payment rate times
85% of total acres planted to crop (and
30% of acres of “prevented plantings”)
times existing counter-cyclical program
yield (or updated yields equal to 90% of
2008-2012 average yield per planted acre).
Payment acres cannot exceed farm base
acres.
Payment amount = Payment rate times
85% of base acres for each covered
commodity (including attributed generic
base) times existing counter-cyclical
program yield (or updated yields equal to
90% of 2008-2012 average yield per
planted acre). [Sections 1112-1116]
Repeals Average Crop Revenue Election
(ACRE) program. [Sec. 1103]
Repeals Average Crop Revenue Election
(ACRE) program. [Sec. 1103]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1103]
Establishes Agriculture Risk Coverage
(ARC) program for crop years 2014-18
for the same crops as covered by AMP,
and payment is made in addition to AMP.
For ARC, producers select either farm or
county option. The election is a one-time,
irrevocable decision applicable to all acres
under the operational control of the
producers. [Sections 1104, 1105, 1108,
1110]
Establishes Revenue Loss Coverage
(RLC) as an alternative to PLC for 2014
crop year and each succeeding crop year
for the same crops as those under PLC.
Farmers make a one-time, irrevocable
election on a commodity-by-commodity
and farm-by-farm basis to receive RLC
payment instead of PLC. The program is
similar to ARC but provides for only a
county revenue guarantee (i.e., no farm-
Same as Senate bill except as noted below.
ARC may be selected as an alternative to
PLC (i.e., not in combination with) on a
commodity-by-commodity basis for each
farm (except when producers select farmlevel ARC, then PLC is not an option for
any commodity). [Sections 1115 and
1117]
Revenue-Based Payments
For covered commodities and
peanuts, Average Crop Revenue
Election (ACRE) payments are
available to producers as an
alternative to CCPs. Revenue
payment based on a two-part trigger:
(1) if actual state revenue is less than
a guaranteed state level for the
commodity, and (2) if actual farm
revenue is less than a farm ACRE
benchmark for the commodity.
Payment amount equals the product
of (1) the lesser of (a) the ACRE
CRS-25
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
program guarantee minus actual state
revenue or (b) 25% of the ACRE
program guarantee, times (2) 83.3%
(for crop years 2009-2011) or 85%
(2012-2013) of the acreage planted of
the covered commodity (not to
exceed base acres of the
commodity), times (3) the 5-year
Olympic average farm yield divided
by the 5-year Olympic average state
yield (Olympic average drops lowest
and highest year). For producers who
participate in ACRE, loan rates under
the marketing assistance loan
program are reduced 30% and direct
payments are reduced by 20%. [7
U.S.C. 8715]
CRS-26
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
level option). [Sections 1104--1107]
Revenue loss trigger (guarantee) is based
on 85% of historical revenue (compared
with 88% in S. 954). Actual county
revenue is actual county yield times the
higher of the midseason price or the loan
rate.
Guarantee is 86% of the benchmark
revenue.
—(1) Farm level: 5-year farm yield times
5-year average national price (averages
exclude highest and lowest years).
Payment equals difference between the
per-acre guarantee and actual per-acre
revenue times 65% of eligible planted
acres (and 45% of prevented-planted
acreage), or
No farm option available,
Payment is made on 65% of base acres
(not planted acreage). Individual (farm
level) ARC guarantee and payment
calculation are based on total revenue for
all crops.
—(2) County level: 5-year county yield
times 5-year average national price
(averages exclude highest and lowest
years). Payment equals the difference
between the per-acre guarantee and
actual per-acre revenue times 80% of
eligible planted acres (and 45% of
prevented plantings).
Payment is made on 85% of planted acres
and 30% of prevented planted acres.
Payment is made on 85% of base acres
(not planted acreage).
Payments made when actual crop
revenue (actual yield times higher of
national farm price or reference price)
drops below 88% of the benchmark
revenue (see below). Per-acre payment
rate equals the difference between peracre guarantee (88% times benchmark
revenue) and actual revenue. Maximum
payment rate is 10% of benchmark
revenue per acre.
For benchmark revenue, farmer can elect
either a farm option or county option:
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
No comparable provision.
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
No comparable provision.
For all crops, reference prices (see PLC)
are used as minimum prices in the
revenue guarantee.
Same as the House bill.
Separate guarantees are to be calculated
for irrigated and nonirrigated crops and
differentiated by class of sunflower seeds,
barley (using malting prices), and wheat.
Separate guarantees are to be calculated
for irrigated and nonirrigated crops.
Same as the House bill.
Eligible program acres cannot exceed
average total acres planted (or prevented
from being planted) to covered
commodities and upland cotton on the
farm during 2009-2012.
Payment acres capped at total farm base
acres.
The reallocation of base acres cannot
result in the total number of base acres
(including generic base) for a farm
exceeding the number of base acres in
effect on the farm as of Sept. 30, 2013.
Payment is made on or after October 1
following the completion of the
marketing year.
Same as Senate bill.
Same as the House and Senate bills.
In combination with AMP/ARC,
producers may purchase an additional
insurance policy called Supplemental
Coverage Option (SCO) under Title XI
(crop insurance).
Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is
not available in combination with RLC but
may be purchased with PLC.
Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is
not available in combination with ARC or
STAX for upland cotton, but may be
purchased with PLC.
No comparable provision.
The total amount of PLC and RLC
payments during FY2014-2020 shall not
exceed $16,956.5 million. If necessary,
individual producer payments will be
reduced to avoid exceeding program cap.
[Sec. 1107(e)]
No comparable provision.
Identical to the Senate bill except applies
to 2014 crop and each succeeding annual
crop. [Sec. 1201]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1201]
Nonrecourse Marketing Loans and Other Recourse Loans
Nonrecourse marketing loans
are available for any amount of a loan
commodity (see list below) produced
in crop years 2008-2013. [7 U.S.C.
8731] Nonrecourse marketing loans
for peanuts are authorized
CRS-27
Generally continues prior law to cover
2014-2018 crop years for all loan
commodities (including peanuts). [Sec.
1201]
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
separately. [7 U.S.C. 8757]
For peanuts, nonrecourse marketing
loans available in crop years 20082013. May be obtained through
marketing cooperative or association
approved by USDA. Storage to be
provided on a non-discriminatory
basis and under any additional
requirements. Payment of peanut
storage costs authorized for 20082013 crops. [7 U.S.C. 8757(a)(4)(7)]
Loan commodities and loan
rates:
Wheat, per bushel (bu.), $2.94 ($2.75
in 2008, 2009)
Corn, bu., $1.95
Grain sorghum, bu., $1.95
Barley, bu., $1.85
Oats, bu., $1.33
Upland cotton, lb., $0.52
Extra-long staple (ELS) cotton, lb.,
$0.7977
Long grain rice, hundredweight
(cwt.), $6.50
Medium grain rice, cwt., $6.50
Soybeans, bu., $5.00
Other oilseeds, cwt., $10.09 ($9.30
in 2008, 2009)
Dry peas, cwt., $5.40 ($6.22 in 2008)
Lentils, cwt., $11.28 ($11.72 in 2008)
Small chickpeas, cwt., $7.43
Large chickpeas, cwt., $11.28 (not
applicable in 2008)
Graded wool, lb., $1.15 ($1.00 in
2008, 2009)
Nongraded wool, lb., $0.40
CRS-28
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
Loan commodities same as current law.
[Sec. 1201]
For 2014-2018 crop years, loan rates
same as prior law except for upland
cotton. The loan rate for upland cotton is
changed from $0.52 per lb. to the simple
average of the adjusted prevailing world
price for the two immediately preceding
marketing years, but not less than $0.45
per pound or more than $0.52 per
pound. [Sec. 1202]
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1201]
For 2014 and each succeeding crop year,
same as the Senate bill except the lower
bound for the upland cotton loan rate is
$0.47 per pound. [Sec. 1202]
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sections
1201 and 1202]
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Mohair, lb., $4.20
Honey, lb., $0.69 ($0.60 in 2008,
2009)
[7 U.S.C. 8732 (a)(b)(c)]
Peanuts, ton, $355 [7 U.S.C.
8757(b)]
Establishes a single loan rate in each
county for each kind of “other
oilseeds” [7 U.S.C. 8732(d)]
Term of loans: 9 months after the
day the loan is made; no extensions.
[7 U.S.C. 8733] Same term for
peanuts. [7 U.S.C. 8757(c)]
Same as prior law. [Sec. 1203]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1203]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1203]
Loan repayment: Loans may be
repaid at the lesser of (1) the loan
rate plus interest, (2) a rate based on
average market prices during the
preceding 30-day period, or (3) a rate
determined by USDA that will
minimize forfeitures, accumulation of
stocks, storage costs, market
impediments, and discrepancies in
benefits across states and counties.
Excludes upland cotton, rice, ELS
cotton, confectionery and each other
kind of sunflower seed (other than
oil sunflower seed). [7 U.S.C.
8734(a)] Provides USDA authority
to temporarily, and on a short-term
basis only, adjust the repayment rates
in the event of a severe disruption to
marketing, transportation or related
infrastructure. [7 U.S.C. 8734(h)]
Similar provisions for peanuts. [7
U.S.C. 8757(d)]
Same as prior law. [Sec. 1204]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1204]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1204]
CRS-29
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
For 2008-2011 crop years, USDA
provides cotton storage payments at
the same rates as provided for the
2006 crop, but reduced by 10%.
Beginning with 2012 crop year, the
rates are reduced by 20%. [7 U.S.C.
8734(g)]
Payments reauthorized for 2014-2018
crop years with 20% rate reduction. [Sec.
1204]
Payments reauthorized for 2014 crop year
and each succeeding crop year; rate
reduction is 10%. [Sec. 1204]
Same as the Senate bill except rate
reduction is 10%. [Sec. 1204]
Loan deficiency payments (LDP)
are available to producers who agree
to forego marketing loans. LDP
computed by multiplying the payment
rate (the amount that the loan rate
exceeds the rate at which a
marketing loan may be repaid) for
the commodity times the quantity of
the commodity produced. Loan
deficiency payments available for
unshorn pelts or hay and silage, even
For 2014-2018 crop years, same as prior
law. [Sec. 1205]
For 2014 and each succeeding crop year,
same as the Senate bill. [Sec. 1205]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1205]
For upland cotton, long grain rice,
and medium grain rice, repayment
may be at the lesser of the loan rate
plus interest, or the prevailing world
price for the commodity adjusted to
U.S. quality and location. [7 U.S.C.
8734(b)]
For ELS cotton, repayment must be
at the loan rate plus interest. [7
U.S.C. 8734(c)]
For confectionery and other kinds of
sunflower seeds (other than oil
sunflower seed), loans must be
repaid at the lesser of (1) the loan
rate plus interest, or (2) the
repayment rate for oil sunflower
seed. [7 U.S.C. 8734(f)]
CRS-30
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Payments in lieu of LDP for grazed
acreage of wheat, barley, oats, or
triticale. [7 U.S.C. 8736]
For 2014-2018 crop years, same as prior
law, except payment is based on yield
used for Agriculture Risk Coverage. [Sec.
1206]
For 2014 and each succeeding crop year,
same as the Senate bill, except payment is
based on yield used for Price Loss
Coverage. [Sec. 1206]
Identical to the Senate bill except yield can
be based on PLC if applicable or as
determined by the Secretary. [Sec. 1206]
Special marketing loan
provisions for upland cotton
impose a special import quota on
upland cotton through July 31, 2013,
when price of U.S. cotton, delivered
to a definable and significant
international market, exceeds the
prevailing world market price for 4
weeks. [7 U.S.C. 8737(a)] Limited
global import quota is imposed on
upland cotton when U.S. prices
average 130% of the previous 3-year
average of U.S. prices [7 U.S.C.
8737(b)]
Provisions not extended.
Provisions extended without an expiration
date beginning August 1, 2014. [Sec.
1207]
Identical to the House bill. [Sec. 1207]
Economic adjustment assistance
to users of upland cotton
provides assistance to domestic users
of upland cotton for uses of all
cotton regardless of origin to
acquire, construct, install, modernize,
develop, convert, or expand land,
plant, buildings, equipment, facilities,
or machinery. Rate was 4¢/lb.
Same as prior law. [Sec. 1207]
Same as Senate bill except assistance
begins August 1, 2013. [Sec. 1207]
Identical to the House bill. [Sec. 1207]
though they are not eligible for
marketing loans. ELS cotton is not
eligible. Payment rates determined
using the rate in effect as of the date
that producers request payment
(producers do not need to lose
beneficial interest). [7 U.S.C. 8735]
Same provision for peanuts. [7
U.S.C. 8757(e)]
CRS-31
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
between August 1, 2008, and July 31,
2012, and declined to 3¢/lb. effective
beginning August 1, 2012. [7 U.S.C.
8737(c)]
Special competitiveness
program for ELS cotton provides
payments to domestic users and
exporters whenever the world
market price for the lowest priced
ELS cotton is below the prevailing
U.S. price for a competing growth of
ELS cotton for a 4-week period; and
the lowest priced competing growth
of ELS cotton is less than 134% of the
loan rate for ELS cotton. Effective
through July 31, 2013. [7 U.S.C.
8738]
Same as prior law during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act through July 31, 2019. [Sec.
1208]
Same as the Senate bill except program
continues without an expiration date.
[Sec. 1208]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1208]
Recourse loans for high
moisture feed grains and seed
cotton are available for farms that
normally harvest corn or sorghum in
a high moisture condition at rates set
by the USDA. For recourse loans for
seed cotton, repayment is at loan
rate plus interest. [7 U.S.C. 8739]
For 2014-2018 crop years, same as prior
law. [Sec. 1209]
For 2014 and each succeeding crop year,
same as the Senate bill. [Sec. 1209]
Same as the Senate bill except payment
yield for feed grains is the lower of the
PLC yield or actual yield. [Sec. 1209]
Adjustments of loan rates are
authorized for any commodity (other
than cotton) based on differences in
grade, type, quality, location, and
other factors. Allows county loan
rates as low as 95% of the U.S.
average, if it does not increase
outlays; prohibits adjustments that
would increase the national average
loan rate. For cotton, loan rates may
be adjusted for differences in quality
Same as prior law. [Sec. 1210]
Nearly identical to the Senate bill except
removes certain mandatory provisions to
quality adjustments. [Sec. 1210]
Identical to the House bill. [Sec. 1210]
CRS-32
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Same as Senate bill, with application to
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Revenue
Loss Coverage (RLC). House bill excludes
requirement for production reports and
use of crop insurance data. [Sec. 1108]
Similar to the Senate bill, with application
to Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and
Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC).
Excludes provision for use of crop
insurance data. [Sec. 1118]
No comparable provision.
Similar to the Senate bill with
modification. See Title II Conservation. [Sec. 2611]
factors. [7 U.S.C. 8740]; [7 U.S.C.
8758] for peanuts.
Conservation Compliance/Producer Agreement
Eligibility for direct payments,
counter-cyclical payments, or average
crop revenue election payments
requires producers to comply with
conservation, wetland, and planting
flexibility requirements; use base
acres for agricultural or conserving
use, and not for nonagricultural
commercial, industrial, or residential
use; control noxious weeds and
maintain sound agricultural practices.
Producers must submit annual
acreage reports for all cropland on
the farm. [7 U.S.C. 8716 (a)] Same
provision for peanuts. [7 U.S.C.
8755(a)] Under Title II
(Conservation) of the 2008 farm bill
(P.L. 110-246), benefits under the
marketing loan program are subject
to conservation compliance for highly
erodible land [16 U.S.C.
3811(a)(1)(A)] and for Swampbuster
[16 U.S.C. 3812(a)(1)].
Same as prior law, with application to the
new Adverse Market Payment (AMP) and
Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC)
programs [Sec. 1109] and continued
compliance requirement to receive
benefits under the marketing assistance
loan program. [Sec. 1201]
To receive ARC payments, producer
must annually report data on production
in addition to acreage. The Secretary is to
use data reported by the producer for
crop insurance requirements to meet
obligations for program payments
without additional submissions to USDA.
Acreage receiving payments are used for
an agricultural or conserving use, and not
for a nonagricultural commercial,
industrial, or residential use. [Sec. 1109]
See also Title II - Conservation,
whereby in order to receive crop
insurance premium subsidies, a producer
must be in compliance with highly
erodible land conservation requirements
and wetland requirements. [Sec. 2609]
Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance (Funding expired on 9/30/11)
Beginning in 2008, five new disaster
programs were authorized and
CRS-33
SURE is not reauthorized. Other four
programs are reauthorized retroactively
Same as Senate bill, except as noted
below. Also, programs are authorized and
Identical to the House bill. [Sec. 1501]
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
funded for disasters occurring on or
before 9/30/11. [7 U.S.C. 1531]
Program funding derived from a
transfer of 3.08% of annual customs
receipts to the newly created
Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust
Fund. [19 U.S.C. 2497(a)] Under
P.L. 112-240, all but SURE (below)
reauthorized (but not funded) for
FY2012 and FY2013.
with mandatory funding from the
Commodity Credit Corporation for
FY2012 through FY2018. Producers are
not required to purchase crop insurance
or NAP coverage. [Sec. 1501]
funded without an expiration date. [Sec.
1501]
The five programs: (1) Supplemental
Revenue Assistance (SURE) Payments
for crops (not just farm program
crops); compensates producers for a
portion of losses that are not eligible
for an indemnity payment under a
crop insurance policy; (2) Livestock
Indemnity Program (LIP), which
compensated ranchers at a rate of
75% of market value for livestock
mortality caused by a disaster; (3)
Livestock Forage Disaster Program
(LFP) for grazing losses due to
qualifying drought conditions (as
determined by the U.S. Drought
Monitor report) or fire on rangeland
managed by a federal agency, with
monthly payments equal to 60% of
estimated feed costs; (4) Emergency
Assistance for Livestock, Honey
Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish (ELAP),
which provided up to $50 million
annually to compensate producers
for disaster losses not covered under
other disaster programs; and (5)
Tree Assistance Program (TAP),
LIP payment rate is reduced from 75% to
65% of the market value of livestock.
LIP payment rate remains at 75%. Eligible
loss expanded to include attacks by
animals reintroduced into the wild by the
federal government or protected by
federal law.
For LFP, payment is triggered by eligible
forage losses, which may be determined
by either (1) drought conditions as
measured by the U.S. Drought Monitor
report, or (2) low precipitation (at least
50% below normal level in a county
during a calendar year). The monthly
payment rate is equal to 50% of estimated
feed costs. Coverage continues for losses
due to fire on public rangeland. LFP is to
serve as the sole source of livestock
forage assistance, combining the livestock
forage assistance functions of ELAP and
the noninsured crop disaster assistance
program (NAP). Producers may also
receive assistance for eligible forage
losses that occur due to weather-related
conditions other than drought or fire.
For LFP, retains program language in 2008
farm bill. In certain cases, farm payment
amount is increased compared with
program established in 2008 farm bill. For
example, an eligible livestock producer
that owns or leases grazing land or
pastureland that is physically located in a
county that is rated as having at least a D3
(extreme drought) intensity in any area of
the county at any time during the normal
grazing period for the county is eligible to
receive assistance equal to 3 monthly
payments compared with 2 monthly
payments under the 2008 farm bill.
Maximum funding for ELAP is $15 million
annually.
Maximum funding for ELAP is $20 million
annually.
CRS-34
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
which provided payments to eligible
orchardists and nursery growers to
cover 70% of the cost of replanting
trees or nursery stock and 50% of
the cost of pruning/removal following
a natural disaster. To be eligible for
these programs, a producer must
purchase crop insurance or coverage
under the Noninsured Crop Disaster
Assistance Program (NAP).
TAP payment rate for replanting is
reduced from 70% to 65%.
Same as Senate bill.
Maximum payments set at $100,000
per person per year for first four
programs combined. TAP has a
separate limit of $100,000 and
payment acreage may not exceed 500
acres.
Retains the combined $100,000 per
person payment limit for LIP, LFP, and
ELAP. Retains the separate limit of
$100,000 for TAP and the 500-acre limit.
Combined payment limit of $125,000 per
person for LIP, LFP, and ELAP. Retains
separate limit of $125,000 for TAP and
the 500-acre limit.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Establishes a National Drought Council
within USDA to develop a comprehensive
National Drought Policy Action Plan for
delineating and integrating responsibilities
among federal agencies for drought
preparedness, mitigation, research, risk
management, training, and emergency
relief. [Sec. 1502]
No comparable provision.
Same as the Senate bill except program
authority continues without an expiration
date. [Sec. 1301] Continues the
feedstock flexibility program through the
2018 crop year. [See Sec. 9009 in Title
IX- Energy]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sections
1301 and 9009]
Sugar Program
Price Support and Supply Management
Requires USDA to the maximum
extent practicable to operate the
sugar nonrecourse loan program at
no net cost by avoiding loan
forfeitures to the CCC (i.e., no
outlays recorded). [7 U.S.C. 7272
(f), 7 U.S.C. 1359bb (b)(1), 7
U.S.C. 1359cc (b)] USDA is directed
to maintain market prices above loan
CRS-35
Continues all features of the current
program and maintains loan rates
(18.75¢/lb. for raw cane sugar; 24.09¢/lb.
for refined beet sugar) through the 2018
crop year. [Sec. 1301] Continues the
feedstock flexibility program (i.e., sugarto-ethanol program) through the 2018
crop year. [See Sec. 9008 in Title IX -
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
rates by (1) limiting amount of sugar
that processors of sugar beets and
sugarcane sell to the U.S. market
under marketing allotments, (2)
restricting imports under a quota
(see below), and (3) operating the
feedstock flexibility program for
bioenergy producers (i.e., sugar-toethanol program) under specified
conditions. [7 U.S.C. 1359aa et
seq., 7 U.S.C. 8110]
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Energy]
Increases in stages raw cane sugar
loan rate from 18.0¢/lb. in FY2009 to
18.75¢/lb. in FY2012, and refined beet
sugar loan rate from 22.9¢/lb. in
FY2009 to 24.09¢/lb. in FY2012.
Continues other provisions found in
prior law. [7 U.S.C. 7272 (a, b, c, d,
e, g, h, i)]
Limits amount of sugar for food that
processors can sell each year (equal
to a national “overall allotment
quantity” (OAQ) divided between
sugarcane and sugar beet sectors, and
then allocated to individual
processors). Requires USDA each
year to set the OAQ at not less than
85% of estimated U.S. human
consumption. [7 U.S.C. 1359aa1359jj, 1359ll]
Import Quotas
For each marketing year, requires
USDA by October 1 to set the initial
sugar import quota at 1.256 mill.
CRS-36
Same as prior law.
Same as prior law.
Same as prior law.
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
short tons – the minimum spelled out
in a U.S. multilateral trade
commitment to other World Trade
Organization member countries.
Stipulates that this quota can only be
raised before the midpoint of the
year (April 1) in case of an
emergency sugar shortage caused by
a weather disaster, war, or a similar
event determined by the Secretary,
and specifies the steps that must be
followed to increase imports in the
event of such a shortage. For each
marketing year, grants USDA
discretionary authority to increase
the sugar quota beginning on April 1.
[7 U.S.C. 1359 kk]
Dairy Programs
Repeal or Reauthorization of Dairy Programs
Dairy Product Price Support
Program. Mandates the direct
support of cheese, nonfat dry milk,
and butter at specified prices for five
years (through December 31, 2012).
Specifies minimum purchase prices of:
block cheese, $1.13/lb.; barrel
cheese, $1.10/lb.; butter, $1.05/lb.;
and nonfat dry milk, $0.80/lb (same
levels previously used to support the
farm price of milk at $9.90 per
hundred lbs. or hundredweight
(cwt.)) Allows USDA sale of acquired
products when market prices rise to
110% of purchase price. Allows
reduction of mandated purchase
prices when USDA acquisitions
CRS-37
Repealed. [Sec. 1471(a)]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1411(a)]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1421]
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Milk Income Loss Contract
(MILC) Program. MILC is a
counter-cyclical payment program.
When the monthly farm price of fluid
milk falls below $16.94/cwt., all dairy
farmers are paid an amount equal to
45% of the difference between
$16.94 and the lower market price.
Payments per farm are limited to
2.985 million lbs. of annual
production. For the month of
September 2013, the payment factor
and the payment quantity are 34%
and 2.4 million pounds, respectively.
The $16.94/cwt. threshold price must
be adjusted upward whenever feed
costs are above $7.35/cwt. Beginning
on September 1, 2013, the Nat’l. Avg.
Dairy Feed Ration Cost trigger rises
from $7.35/cwt. to $9.50/cwt. MILC
program expires September 30,
2013. [7 U.S.C. 8773]
Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC)
Program. Extended temporarily through
June 30, 2014, using the 45% rate rather
than reverting to the 34% rate for
calculating the payment rate. Effective July
1, 2014, MILC is repealed. [Sec. 1471(b)]
Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC)
Program. Repealed. [Sec. 1411(b)]
Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC)
Program. Extended temporarily, MILC is
repealed effective the earlier of: the date
the new Margin Protection Program (MPP,
see below) is operational or September 1,
2014. During the MILC extension period
the payment rate shall be calculated using
pre-September 2013 parameters—i.e.,
45%, 2,985 million lbs., and $7.35/cwt.
[Sec. 1422]
Dairy Export Incentive Program.
Provides cash bonus payments to
U.S. dairy exporters, subject to
World Trade Organization
obligations to limit export subsidies.
Intended to counter foreign (mostly
EU) dairy subsidies. Expires
September 30, 2013. [15 U.S.C.
713a-14]
Repealed. [Sec. 1472]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1412]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1423]
exceed specified levels. Expires on
December 31, 2013. [7 U.S.C. 8771]
CRS-38
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
Dairy Forward Pricing Program.
Authorizes a dairy forward pricing
program. Prices paid by milk handlers
under the contracts are deemed to
satisfy the minimum price
requirements of federal milk
marketing orders. Applies only to
milk purchased for manufactured
products (Classes II, III, and IV), and
excludes milk purchased for fluid
consumption (Class I). Expires on
September 30, 2013.
[7 U.S.C. 8772]
Extended through FY2018. Allows for
new contracts until September 30, 2018,
but no contract can extend beyond
September 30, 2021. [Sec. 1473]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1413]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1424]
Dairy Indemnity Program.
Authorizes payments to dairy
farmers when a public regulatory
agency directs removal of their raw
milk from the market because of
contamination by pesticides, nuclear
radiation or fallout, or toxic
substances and other chemical
residues. Expires December 31,
2013. [7 U.S.C. 4501]
Extended through FY2018. [Sec. 1474]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1414]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1425]
Dairy Promotion and Research
Program. The Dairy Producer
Stabilization Act of 1983 authorized a
generic dairy product promotion,
research, and nutrition education
program, funded by a mandatory
$0.15/cwt assessment on milk
produced/marketed in the 48
contiguous states. Importers in all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico must also pay an
assessment rate of $0.075/cwt. on
imported products. Authorizes
Extended through FY2018. [Sec. 1475]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1415]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1426]
CRS-39
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
USDA to issue regulations on time
and method of importer payments.
Expires September 30, 2013.
[7 U.S.C. 4504]
Federal Milk Marketing Orders.
Federal milk marketing order rules
issued by USDA place requirements
on the first buyers or handlers of
milk, including paying at least
minimum prices for the milk
depending on its end use. Permanent
federal authority to regulate the
handling of milk was first provided in
the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1933, and subsequently revised by
the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended.
FMMOs are established under
permanent authority and do not need
periodic reauthorization.
[7 U.S.C. 601 et seq]
Requires USDA to use a specified prehearing procedure to consider alternative
formulas for Class III milk product
pricing. [Sec. 1462]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Requires USDA to analyze (and report to
Congress) the effects of replacing the use
of end-product price formulas with other
pricing alternatives. [Sec. 1481]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Inclusion of California as
Separate Federal Marketing
Order. Upon the petition and
approval of California dairy
producers in the manner provided in
section 608c of this title, the
Secretary shall designate the state of
California as a separate Federal milk
marketing order (FMMO). The order
covering California shall have the
right to reblend and distribute order
receipts to recognize quota value.
USDA was required to announce any
such proposed amendment to
FMMOs by April 4, 1998, and to
No comparable provision.
Inclusion of Additional Order. Adds a
provision to remove the expiration date
for USDA to act upon a petition from
California dairy producers for designation
as a separate FMMO. [Sec. 1402(c)]
Identical to the House bill.
[Sec. 1410(d)]
CRS-40
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
implement such amendment by April
4, 1999. [7 U.S.C. 7253(a)(2)]
Federal Milk Marketing Order
Review Commission. As
established by the 2008 farm bill
[Sec. 1509], the FMMO Review
Commission is mandated to conduct
a comprehensive review and
evaluation of (1) FMMO system, and
(2) non-FMMO systems.
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Provides an option for funding from
sources other than annual appropriations.
[Sec. 1476]
Repealed. [Sec. 1416]
Identical to the House bill. [Sec. 1427]
Requirements are added that specify a
reporting periodicity that is more
frequent than once per month. [Sec.
1461]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Actual Dairy Production Margin:
difference between all-milk price and
average feed cost. [Sec. 1401(1)]
Identical to the Senate bill. Amended Sec.
1511(a)(1) of the enacted 2008 farm bill.
[Sec. 1401]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1401(1)]
No comparable provision.
All-Milk Price: the national average
price received, per cwt. of milk, by dairy
operations. [Sec. 1401(2)]
Identical to the Senate bill. Amended Sec.
1511(a)(2). [Sec. 1401]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1401(2)]
Dairy Market Transparency
Dairy Product Mandatory
Reporting. Dairy Market
Enhancement Act of 2000 requires
manufacturers to report to USDA
the price, quantity, and moisture
content of dairy products sold. The
2008 farm bill (Sec. 1510) authorizes
USDA to establish an electronic
reporting system (subject to available
funds), after which increased
frequency in mandatory reporting of
dairy product sales would be
required. Provides for quarterly
audits of submitted information and
comparison with related dairy market
statistics. [7 U.S.C. 1637b]
Definitions
CRS-41
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
No comparable provision.
Average Feed Cost: the average price
paid for feed used by a dairy operation to
produce a cwt. of milk, as determined by
the formula—1.0728 x (corn price per
bu.) + 0.00735 x (soybean meal price per
ton) + 0.0137 x (alfalfa hay price per ton).
[Sec. 1401(4)]
Identical to the Senate bill. Amended Sec.
1511(a)(3). [Sec. 1401]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1401(3)]
No comparable provision.
Consecutive 2-Month Period: the six
2-month periods of Jan.-Feb., Mar.-Apr.,
May-June, July-Aug., Sep.-Oct., and Nov.Dec. [Sec. 1401(6)]
Identical to the Senate bill. Amended Sec.
1511(a)(4). [Sec. 1401]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1401(4)]
No comparable provision.
Dairy Operation. An individual or
entity that shares in the pooling of
resources and a common ownership
structure, the risk of producing milk, and
contributes land, labor, management,
equipment, or capital to the dairy
operations. [1401(7)]
Dairy Producer. Similar to the Senate
bill, but excludes the pooling of resources
and common ownership criteria.
Amended Sec. 1511(a)(3). [Sec. 1401]
Dairy Operation. Similar to the House
bill, but replaces the term Dairy Producer
with Dairy Operation. [1401(5)]
No comparable provision.
Calculation of Average Feed Costs:
Corn and alfalfa hay prices are monthly
national average prices received as
reported by USDA in Agricultural Prices.
The soybean meal price is the monthly
price for central Illinois as reported by
USDA in Market News. [Sec. 1402(a)]
Identical to the Senate bill. Amended Sec.
1511(b)(1). [Sec. 1401]
Identical to the House and Senate bills.
[Sec. 1402(a)]
No comparable provision.
Calculation of Actual Dairy
Production Margin for the
Production Margin Protection
Program: the margin is calculated for
each 2-month period as the difference
between the 2-month average all-milk
price and the 2-month average feed cost.
[Sec. 1402b(1)]
Identical to the Senate bill. Amended Sec.
1511(b)(2). [Sec. 1401]
Similar to the House and Senate bills [Sec.
1402(b)(1)], but with the addition of a
specification on the timing of the
calculation—to be made as soon as
practicable using the full-month price of
the applicable reference month. [Sec.
1402(b)(2)]
No comparable provision.
Calculation of Actual Dairy
Production Margin for the Dairy
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
CRS-42
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Market Stabilization Program: the
margin is calculated for each individual
month as the difference between the
preceding month’s average all-milk price
and the preceding month’s average feed
cost. [Sec. 1402b(2)]
Margin Protection Program (MPP) for Dairy Producers
No comparable provision.
Dairy Production Margin Protection
Program (DPMPP). Establishes a dairy
production margin protection program
within 120 days after the effective date.
DPMPP has two components: basic
margin protection (BMP) and
supplemental margin protection (SMP).
[Sec. 1411]
Dairy Production Margin Insurance
Program (DPMIP). Establishes a dairy
production margin insurance program but
is silent on timing. DPMIP includes a single
margin insurance program. Amended Sec.
1511(c) of the enacted 2008 farm bill.
[Sec. 1401]
Margin Protection Program (MPP)
for Dairy Producers. Establishes a
margin protection program for dairy
producers. MPP includes a single margin
protection program. [Sec. 1403]
No comparable provision.
Effective Date: This subtitle shall take
effect on October 1, 2013. [Sec. 1491]
Program Start Date: USDA shall
conduct the margin insurance program
beginning on October 1, 2013. Amended
Sec. 1511(i). [Sec. 1401]
Program Start Date: USDA shall
establish the margin protection program
no later than September 1, 2014. [Sec.
1403]
No comparable provision.
Duration: The margin protection
program ends on December 31, 2018.
[Sec. 1451]
No comparable provision.
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1409]
No comparable provision.
Eligibility for DPMPP. All dairy
producers are eligible to participate.
[Sec. 1412(a)]
Identical to the Senate bill. Amended Sec.
1511(d)(1). [Sec. 1401]
Eligibility for MPP. Identical to the
House and Senate bills, except for
program name change to MPP from
DPMPP. [Sec. 1404(a)]
No comparable provision.
Treatment of Multi-Producer Dairy
Operations. If a dairy operation
consists of more than one dairy
producer, all of the dairy producers shall
be treated as a single dairy producer for
purposes of participation in the margin
protection program, payment of related
fees and premiums, and participation in
Similar to the Senate bill, but with the
exclusion of participation in the dairy
stabilization program. Amended
Sec. 1511(d)(3). [Sec. 1401]
Treatment of Multi-Producer Dairy
Operations. If a dairy operation consists
of more than one dairy producer, all of
the dairy producers shall be treated as a
single dairy producer for purposes of
participation in the margin protection
program. [Sec. 1404(b)(2)]
CRS-43
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
the dairy stabilization program.
[Sec. 1412(b)(2)]
No comparable provision.
Treatment of Producers with
Multiple Dairy Operations. If a dairy
producer operates 2 or more dairy
operations, each dairy operation shall
separately register to DPMPP and only
those operations so registered shall be
covered by the margin protection and
dairy stabilization program. [Sec.
1412(b)(3)]
Similar to the Senate bill, but with the
exclusion of participation in the dairy
stabilization program. Amended
Sec. 1511(d)(3). [Sec. 1401]
Treatment of Producers with
Multiple Dairy Operations. If a dairy
producer operates 2 or more dairy
operations, each dairy operation shall
separately register to participate in the
margin protection program.
[Sec. 1404(b)(3)]
No comparable provision.
Timing for Registration: Existing
producers must make an election within
15 months after initiation of sign-up
period, whereas new dairy producers
must make an election during the oneyear period after their first milk is
marketed commercially. [Sec. 1412(c)]
Timing for Registration: Existing dairy
producers must make an election within
one year of enactment, and annually
thereafter. New dairy producers must
make an election during the 180-day
period after their first milk is marketed
commercially. Amended Sec. 1511(d)(3).
[Sec. 1401]
Timing for Registration: USDA shall
specify the manner and form by which a
participating dairy operation may register
to participate in the margin program.
[Sec. 1404(b)(1)]
No comparable provision.
Transition from MILC to DPMPP: A
dairy operation may elect to remain in
MILC during temporary extension
through June 30, 2014, or to participate
in DPMPP, but not both. Producers that
elect MILC may at any time make a
permanent transfer to DPMPP.
[Sec. 1412(d)]
No comparable provision. Since MILC is
repealed immediately in the House bill,
there is no possibility of remaining in
MILC; a producer either elects to
participate in DPMIP or not.
Transition from MILC to MPP: MILC
is extended temporarily, MILC is repealed
effective the earlier of: the date the new
Margin Protection Program (MPP, see
below) is operational or September 1,
2014. During the MILC extension period
the payment rate shall be calculated using
the pre-September 2013 parameters—i.e.,
45%, 2.985 million lbs., and $7.35/cwt.
[Sec. 1422]
No comparable provision.
Participation in DPMPP and LGM: A
dairy operation may participate in either
DPMPP or the Livestock Gross Margin
(LGM) for Dairy Program, but not both
[Sec. 1412(f)]
No comparable provision.
Participation in MPP and LGM:
Identical to the Senate bill, except for
program name change to MPP from
DPMPP. [Sec. 1404(d)]
CRS-44
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Retroactive participation: During the
period between the effective date and the
initiation of program sign-up, a dairy
producer may give notice of intent to
participate in DPMIP and may then receive
margin insurance retroactive to the
effective date, provided he subsequently
signs up for DPMIP. USDA is required to
publish notice of retroactive margin
insurance within 30 days of the effective
date. Amended Sec. 1511(c)(4). [Sec.
1401]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Annual administration fee. An annual
administration fee is required for
participation in DPMPP as follows: $100 if
(milk production) < 1million (M) lbs.;
$250 if 1M lbs. to 5M lbs.; $350 if > 5M
lbs. and < 10M lbs.; $1,000 if > 10M lbs.
and < 40M lbs.; and $2,500 if > 40M lbs.
This provision also details deposit and
use of the fees and conditions for denial
of program benefits. [Sec. 1412(e)]
No comparable provision.
Annual administration fee. An annual
administration fee of $100 is required for
participation in MPP. [Sec. 1404(c)(2)]
No comparable provision.
Margin Insurance. Dairy producers are
offered an initial choice of BMP and an
annual election of SMP as described
below.
Margin Insurance. Dairy producers are
offered the annual choice of purchasing
margin insurance with coverage levels
ranging in $0.50/cwt. increments from a
minimum of $4.00/cwt. to a maximum of
$8.00/cwt.
Margin Protection Program. Similar
to the House bill but referred to as
margin protection rather than margin
insurance. In addition, coverage
percentage is expanded to not more than
90%, nor less than 25% (available in 5%
increments) of the Production History
of the dairy operation. [Sec. 1406(a)]
Basic Margin Protection (BMP). BMP
provides margin protection at a
$4.00/cwt. level. At sign up, dairy
producers make a one-time choice of
participating in BMP for the life of the
farm bill. Under BMP, a payment is made
to participating dairy operations
whenever the 2-month average actual
dairy production margin (for a defined
consecutive 2-month period) is less than
CRS-45
A participating producer shall elect a
coverage percentage equal to not more
than 80%, nor less than 25% of the
Production History of the dairy
operation.
Amended Sec. 1511(f). [Sec. 1401]
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
$4.00/cwt. [Sec. 1414]
Supplemental Margin Protection
(SMP). A dairy operation participating in
BMP may annually purchase additional
margin insurance beyond the basic
$4.00/cwt. in increments of $0.50/cwt. up
to maximum margin coverage of
$8.00/cwt. A participating dairy operation
also must elect a percentage of SMP
coverage equal to not more than 90%,
nor less than 25% of the Annual
Production History of the dairy
operation. An SMP payment is
triggered whenever the average actual
dairy production margin for a 2-month
period is less than the SMP Coverage
Level selected by the dairy operation. An
SMP payment, if warranted by market
conditions, is in addition to the BMP
payment. [Sec. 1415]
No comparable provision.
Production History. Separate
production histories are used for the
BMP and SMP programs as follows.
Basic Production History. Under
basic margin protection (BMP), the
highest annual milk marketings of the
dairy operation during any one of the 3
preceding calendar years prior to
registration. Special provisions are made
for new dairy operations. Once
established, the basic production history
does not change over succeeding years.
[Sec. 1413(a)]
Annual Production History. Under
supplemental margin protection, the
CRS-46
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Production History. The highest annual
milk marketings of the dairy operation
during any one of the 3 calendar years
preceding registration. As long as a
producer remains registered, the
production history shall be updated
annually using the same formula. Special
provisions are made for new dairy
operations. Amended Sec. 1511(e).
[Sec. 1401]
Production History. At the initial
registration, the production history is
equal to the highest annual milk
marketings of the dairy operation during
any one of the 3 calendar years 2011,
2012, or 2013. In subsequent years,
USDA shall adjust the production history
to reflect any increase in the national
average milk production. [Sec. 1405(a)]
Special provisions are made for new dairy
operations. [Sec. 1405(b)]
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
annual production history is the actual
milk marketings of the dairy operation
during the preceding calendar year.
[Sec. 1413(b)]
Special provisions are made for new dairy
operations, and for transfer or movement
of production history. [Sec. 1413(d-e)]
No comparable provision.
Margin Insurance Payment Rate.
The BMP payment rate equals the
amount that the margin is below
$4.00/cwt. (up to a value of $4.00) and is
paid on the lesser of: (80% of the Basic
Production History)/6 or the actual
quantity of milk marketed during the 2month period. [Sec. 1414]
The SMP payment rate per cwt. is
equal to the difference between the
selected SPMP coverage level and the
greater of either $4.00 or the average
margin for the 2-month period.
The total payment equals the SPMP
payment rate x the selected coverage % x
the lesser of: (SMP production history)/6
or the actual milk marketings during the
2-month period. [Sec. 1415(g)]
No comparable provision.
Producer Premiums. In addition to
the annual administration fee for BMP, an
annual premium for SMP must be paid
equal to the product of the selected
coverage %, the annual production
history, and the SMP premium rate per
cwt. of milk. [Sec. 1415d(1)]
The SMP premium rate schedule
varies based on scale of operations and
CRS-47
Margin Insurance Payment Rate. A
payment is made to participating dairy
operations whenever the 2-month average
actual dairy production margin is less than
the coverage level threshold selected by
the producer.
Identical to the House bill.
[Sec. 1406(b)]
The margin insurance payment rate equals
the amount that the margin is below the
selected margin coverage level threshold.
The total payment equals the payment
rate x the selected coverage % x the
lesser of: (production history)/6 or the
actual milk marketings during the 2-month
period.
Amended Sec. 1511(f). [Sec. 1401]
Producer Premiums. Margin insurance
is free at a $4.00/cwt. coverage on the
first 4 million lbs. Otherwise premium
rates are nearly identical to the Senate
bill—the most notable exception is at the
$7.00/cwt. coverage plus slightly higher
rates in general on milk marketings above
4 million lbs.
For the first 4 million lbs. of milk
The total payment equals the payment
rate x the selected coverage % x (the
production history divided by 6). [Sec.
1406(c)]
Producer Premiums. An annual
premium must be paid equal to the
product of the selected coverage %, the
annual production history, and the
premium rate per cwt. of milk.
[Sec. 1407(a)]
The premium rate schedule varies
based on scale of operations and the
selected coverage %. For the first 4 million
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
the selected coverage %. For the first 4
million lbs. of milk marketings the
premium per cwt. is $0.01 for $4.50
margin coverage; $0.02 for $5.00; $0.035
for $5.50; $0.045 for $6.00; $0.09 for
$6.50; $0.40 for $7.00; $0.60 for $7.50;
and $0.95 for $8.00. In excess of 4 million
lbs. the premium per cwt. is: $0.02 for
$4.50 margin coverage; $0.04 for $5.00;
$0.10 for $5.50; $0.15 for $6.00; $0.29
for $6.50; $0.62 for $7.00; $0.83 for
$7.50; and $1.06 for $8.00.
[Sec. 1415d(2-3)]
marketings the premium per cwt. is $0.00
for $4.00 margin coverage; $0.01 for
$4.50; $0.020 for $5.00; $0.035 for $5.50;
$0.045 for $6.00; $0.09 for $6.50; $0.18
for $7.00; $0.60 for $7.50; and $0.95 for
$8.00.
lbs. of milk marketings the premium per
cwt. is $0.00 for $4.00 margin coverage;
$0.01 for $4.50; $0.025 for $5.00; $0.040
for $5.50; $0.055 for $6.00; $0.09 for
$6.50; $0.217 for $7.00; $0.30 for $7.50;
and $0.475 for $8.00. For calendar 2014
and 2015, all of the preceding premiums
(except the $8.00/cwt. coverage level) are
reduced by 25%. [Sec. 1407(b)]
In excess of 4 million lbs. the premium per
cwt. is: $0.03 for $4.00; $0.045 for $4.50;
$0.066 for $5.00; $0.11 for $5.50; $0.185
for $6.00; $0.29 for $6.50; $0.38 for
$7.00; $0.83 for $7.50; and $1.06 for
$8.00.
Amended Sec. 1511(f). [Sec. 1401]
In excess of 4 million lbs. the premium per
cwt. is: $0.00 for $4.00; $0.020 for $4.50;
$0.040 for $5.00; $0.10 for $5.50; $0.155
for $6.00; $0.29 for $6.50; $0.83 for
$7.00; $1.06 for $7.50; and $1.36 for
$8.00. [Sec. 1407(c)]
No comparable provision.
Time for Premium Payments. USDA
is instructed to provide more than one
method of payment and to use a method
that “maximizes dairy operation payment
flexibility and program integrity.”
[Sec. 1415d(4)]
Time for Premium Payments. Dairy
producers choose between a single annual
payment of 100% of the premium made by
January 15 of the calendar year, or semiannual payments of 50% each of the
premium value made by January 15 and
June 15 of the calendar year. Amended
Sec. 1511(f)(4)(D). [Sec. 1401]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1407(d)]
No comparable provision.
The SMP premium is pro-rated for new
dairy producers and maybe waived in the
case of death, retirement, permanent
dissolution, or other circumstances as
judged by USDA. [1415(e)]
The premium is pro-rated for new dairy
producers and may be waived in the case
of death, retirement, permanent
dissolution, or other circumstances as
judged by USDA. Amended Sec.
1511(f)(4)(D). [Sec. 1401]
Identical to the House bill. [Sec. 1407(c)]
No comparable provision.
Rules are established for failure of a
producer to pay the BPMP administrative
fee or SPMP premium. [Sec. 1416]
Participating producers are legally
obligated to pay the applicable premium,
but the House bill is silent on any
enforcement mechanism. Amended Sec.
1511(f)(5) [Sec. 1401]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 1408]
CRS-48
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP)
No comparable provision.
Dairy Market Stabilization Program
(DMSP). Establishes a new program
applicable for the purpose of balancing
the supply of milk with demand (via
reduced payments on milk marketings)
when operating margins are low or
negative. Participation in DMSP is
mandatory for all dairy producers that
participate in the DPMPP. The milk
marketing volume used for determining
dairy payment reductions under the
DMSP is formula-based comparing
shares of actual milk marketings with the
producer’s Stabilization Program
Base. At signup in the DPMPP,
participating dairy producers elect the
calculation method of the Stabilization
Program Base for their dairy operation
as either—(A) the average volume of
monthly milk marketings during the 3
preceding months, or (B) the volume of
monthly milk marketings for the same
month in the preceding year. [Sec. 1431]
The market stabilization program ends on
December 31, 2018. [Sec. 1451]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
DMSP Implementation Threshold.
When either (a) the actual dairy
production margin is $6.00/cwt. or less
for each of the 2 preceding months, or
(b) actual dairy production margin is
$4.00/cwt. or less for the preceding one
month, then reduced payments on milk
marketings under the DMSP are in effect
beginning the first day of the month
immediately following the threshold
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
CRS-49
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
trigger as announced by USDA. [Sec.
1432] However, no payment reduction is
made if the dairy operation’s milk
marketings are < the applicable
percentage of the Stabilization Program
Base as described in (A)-(C) of the
following provision. [Sec. 1434]
No comparable provision.
Calculation of DMSP Payment
Reductions. During any month in which
the milk payment reductions are in effect,
each handler shall reduce milk payments
to each participating dairy producer from
whom the handler receives milk
according to the formula:
(A) Reduction Requirement 1: if the
actual dairy production margin per cwt. is
< $6.00, but > $5.00 for 2 consecutive
months, then payment reductions are
based on the greater of: (a) 98% of the
Stabilization Program Base, or (b) 94% of
the actual milk marketings for the month;
(B) Reduction Requirement 2: if the
actual dairy production margin per cwt. is
< $5.00, but > $4.00 for 2 consecutive
months, then payment reductions are
based on the greater of: (a) 97% of the
Stabilization Program Base, or (b) 93% of
the actual milk marketings for the month;
(C) Reduction Requirement 3: if the
actual dairy production margin per cwt. is
< $4.00 for any one month, then payment
reductions are based on the greater of:
(a) 96% of the Stabilization Program Base,
or (b) 92% of the actual milk marketings
for the month.
CRS-50
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Once the DMSP has been initiated, the
largest level of payment reduction
required under (A)-(C) shall be continued
monthly until the stabilization program is
suspended. [Sec. 1434]
No comparable provision.
Producer Milk Marketing
Information. Requires USDA to
establish, by regulation, a process to
collect from participating dairy producers
and handlers such information as
necessary for each month during which
DMSP is in effect. [Sec. 1433]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Use of Funds from Payment
Reductions under DMSP. The funds
obtained from reduced payments to dairy
producers for their milk marketings shall
be remitted to USDA where they shall be
used to purchase dairy products for
donation to food banks and other
programs with an end goal of expanding
consumption and building demand for
dairy products. USDA shall submit a
report at the end of each year to the
House and Senate Agriculture
Committees concerning the funds
received, expenditures, and the impact of
the DMSP. [Sec. 1435]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Suspension Thresholds of DMSP
Payment Reductions. DMSP is
suspended under any of the following
market conditions:
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
(1) the actual dairy production margin is
> $6.00/cwt. for 2 consecutive months;
(2) the actual dairy production margin is
< $6.00/cwt. (but > $5.00/cwt.) for 2
CRS-51
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
consecutive months, but during that same
period either (A) the U.S. price for
cheddar cheese is > the world price for
cheddar cheese, or (B) the U.S. price for
nonfat dry milk (NFDM) is > the world
price for NFDM;
(3) the actual dairy production margin is
< $5.00/cwt. (but > $4.00/cwt.) for 2
consecutive months, but during that same
period either (A) the U.S. price for
cheddar cheese is > 105% of the world
price for cheddar cheese, or (B) the U.S.
price for NFDM is > 105% of the world
price for NFDM; or
(4) the actual dairy production margin is
< $4.00/cwt. for 2 consecutive months,
but during that same period either (A)
the U.S. price for cheddar cheese is >
107% of the world price for cheddar
cheese, or (B) the U.S. price for NFDM is
> 107% of the world price for NFDM.
Once DMSP has been suspended, it may
not be resumed until at least 2 months
have passed (starting on the 1st day of the
following month), and the conditions of
Sec. 1432 are met again. [Sec. 1436(b)]
No comparable provision.
Enforcement. Provisions for enforcing
DMSP are specified. [Sec. 1437]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Audit Requirements. Provisions for
auditing participating dairy operations and
for ensuring handler compliance in the
DMSP are specified. [Sec. 1438]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Study and Report on DMSP.
Mandates that the Office of the Chief
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
CRS-52
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
Economist, USDA, undertake a study of
the impact of the DMSP on both the
dairy product value chain and the
competitiveness of the U.S. dairy industry
in international markets. Study results to
be submitted as a report to the House
and Senate Agriculture Committees by
December 1, 2017. [Sec. 1439]
Dairy Product Donation Program
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Establishment of a Dairy Product
Donation Program (DPDP). No less
than 120 days after the dairy margin
program is operational, USDA shall
establish and administer a DPDP to: (1)
address low dairy margins, and (2) provide
nutrition assistance to low-income groups.
[Sec. 1431(a)]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
DPDP Program Trigger. USDA shall
announce and undertake DPDP activities
whenever the actual dairy production
margin is $4.00/cwt. or less for each of
the immediately preceding 2 months.
[Sec. 1431(b)]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
DPDP Program Activities. When
DPDP has been triggered, USDA shall
immediately purchase dairy products, at
prevailing market prices, until such time as
one of the termination conditions is met.
USDA shall consult with public and private
nonprofit organizations that feed lowincome populations, in order to determine
the types and quantities of dairy products
to purchase under the DPDP.
[Sec. 1431(c)]
CRS-53
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
The funds, facilities, and authorities of the
Commodity Credit Corporation shall be
available to USDA to implement and
administer the DPDP. [Sec. 1431(g)]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
DPDP Program Termination. USDA
shall cease DPDP activities whenever any
one of the following conditions occurs:
(1) USDA has made DPDP purchases for
three consecutive months, even if the
margin < $4.00/cwt.;
(2) the margin > $4.00/cwt. for the
preceding month;
(3) when $3.00/cwt. < margin <
$4.00/cwt. for the preceding month and
either the U.S. cheddar cheese price >
105% of world price, or the U.S. non-fat
dry milk price > 105% of world price; or
(4) the margin < $3.00/cwt. for the
preceding month and either the U.S.
cheddar cheese price > 107% of world
price, or the U.S. non-fat dry milk price >
107% of world price.
For this section, USDA shall determine
the domestic and international prices of
cheddar cheese and non-fat skim milk
powder. [Sec. 1431(d)]
No comparable provision.
CRS-54
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Distribution of DPDP Purchases.
USDA shall distribute, but not store, the
dairy products purchased under DPDP so
as to encourage domestic consumption by
diverting them to persons in low-income
groups as determined by USDA. USDA
shall use public and private nonprofit
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
organizations for distribution of DPDP
dairy products. [Sec. 1431(e)]
Any organization receiving dairy products
under the DPDP may not sell the
products back to commercial markets.
[Sec. 1431(f)]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
DPDP Duration. The DPDP shall end
on December 31, 2018. [Sec. 1431(h)]
Rulemaking Requirements.
Standard rulemaking procedures
generally require federal agencies to
issue notices and take comments on
proposed rules. [5 U.S.C. 553(b)]
USDA is required to promulgate
regulations to address administrative and
enforcement issues in carrying out the
dairy production margin protection,
supplemental production margin
protection, and market stabilization
programs. [Sec. 1452(a)]
Special Rulemaking Requirements.
As reported by the House Agriculture
Committee, the DPMIP and DMSP would
have been exempt from standard
rulemaking procedures. The House
Judiciary Committee reported the bill with
an amendment that deletes the
exemption. Instead, the Secretary is
required to promulgate interim rules
(issued without prior notice and
comment) for the stabilization program
within nine months of enactment. The
Secretary is authorized (but not required)
to issue interim rules for the margin
protection program. Final rules shall be
published for both programs within 21
months of enactment. In issuing the
interim and final rules for the dairy
stabilization program, the Secretary is
required to include an assessment of the
impact of the two new programs on dairy
markets, as specified. [Sec. 1402]
USDA is required to promulgate
regulations to address administrative and
enforcement issues in carrying out the
margin protection program.
[Sec. 1410(a)]
No comparable provision.
Reconstitution of Dairy Operation.
USDA is required to promulgate
regulations to address administrative and
enforcement issues and prohibit
reconstitution of a dairy operation for
the purpose of the dairy producer
No comparable provision.
Reconstitution of Dairy Operation.
USDA is required to promulgate
regulations to address administrative and
enforcement issues and prohibit
reconstitution of a dairy operation for the
purpose of the dairy producer receiving
CRS-55
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
participating in and receiving payments
under the dairy margin program—basic
or supplemental, or the dairy stabilization
program. [Sec. 1452(b)(1)]
No comparable provision.
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
margin protection payments.
[Sec. 1410(b)]
Administrative Appeals. USDA is
required to promulgate regulations to
provide for administrative appeals of
USDA decisions that are adverse to
participants of the dairy production
margin protection, supplemental
production margin protection, and
market stabilization programs.
[Sec. 1452(b)(3)]
No comparable provision.
Similar to the Senate bill, but only with
respect to the margin protection program.
[Sec. 1410(c)]
Establishes the maximum amount of
payments per year to a person or
legal entity for the sum of all covered
commodities, except peanuts.
Peanuts have a separate but equal
payment limitation.
—Direct payments: $40,000
—Direct payments under ACRE:
$40,000 minus the reduction
required for an ACRE participant.
—Counter-cyclical payments:
$65,000
—ACRE payments: $65,000 plus the
reduction in the limit from the direct
payment limit.
—Marketing loan gains/LDP: no limit.
[7 U.S.C. 1308 (a)-(d)]
Establishes a limit on Agriculture Risk
Coverage (ARC) and adverse market
payments, and reinstates limits on
marketing loan gains and LDPs.
—ARC and adverse market payments for
the sum of all covered commodities
except peanuts: $50,000
—ARC and adverse market payments for
peanuts: $50,000
—Marketing loan gains/LDP for sum of all
commodities except peanuts: $75,000
—Marketing loan gains/LDP for peanuts:
$75,000 [Sec. 1603]
Establishes a limit on all Title I payments,
including Price Loss Coverage and
Revenue Loss Coverage payments,
marketing loan gains and LDPs, and direct
payments made to upland cotton for 2014
and 2015. Combines all covered
commodities under one limit.
—All Title I payments for the sum of all
covered commodities, including peanuts,
$125,000, of which:
—PLC and RLC payments: $50,000
—Marketing loan gains and LDP: $75,000.
[Sec. 1603]
Adopts the House provision, with
modification. Keeps Senate approach of
separate limits for peanuts. Eliminates
separate limits on various programs, and
applies a single limit to the total from
programs. Reinstates limits on marketing
loan gains and LDP, but not forfeiture.
— PLC, ARC, marketing loan gains and
loan deficiency payments, for the sum of
all covered commodities except peanuts:
$125,000.
— PLC, ARC, marketing loan gains and
loan deficiency payments, for peanuts:
$125,000 [Sec. 1603]
Payments are attributed to a person
by accounting for the direct and
Continues other payment limit provisions
such as direct attribution, with the
Similar to Senate bill, with additional
clarification for doubling the limits for
Continues other payment limit provisions
such as direct attribution. Addresses
Administrative Provisions
Payment Limitations
CRS-56
Prior Law/Policy—
Commodities Title
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(S. 954)
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R.
2642, including text of H.R. 3102)
Enacted 2014 Farm Bill
(P.L. 113-79)
indirect ownership in any legal entity.
Payments made directly to a person
are combined with the person’s pro
rata share of payments from a legal
entity. Payments to a legal entity
cannot exceed the limits above, and
are attributed to persons. Attribution
of payments to legal entities is traced
to four levels of ownership. If a
payment has not been allocated to an
individual after four levels of
ownership, the payment to the firstlevel entity is reduced on a pro-rata
basis. [7 U.S.C. 1308 (e)-(h)]
exception of the definition of active
personal management (see below).
spouses, and definitions of legal entitles
[Sec. 1603].
active personal management (see below).
To be eligible for payments, persons
must be “actively engaged” in
farming. Actively engaged, in general,
is defined as making a significant
contribution of (i) capital, equipment
or land, and (ii) personal labor or
active personal management. Also,
profits are to be commensurate with
the level of contributions, and
contributions must be at risk. Legal
entities can be actively engaged if
members collectively contribute
personal labor or active personal
management. Special classes allow
landowners to be considered actively
engaged if they receive income based
on the farm’s operating results,
without providing labor or
management, Spouses are considered
actively engaged if the other spouse
meets the qualification, allowing
payment limits to be doubled. [7
U.S.C. 1308-1]
Deletes “active personal management”
from the definition of actively engaged in
farming (7 U.S.C. 1308-1(b)(2)).
Effectively requires personal labor in the
farming operation to be considered
actively engaged. Members of legal
entities collectively would need to make a
significant contribution of personal labor.
Adds a special class of “farm managers”
that may be considered actively engaged
by providing management but not
personal labor. However the Secretary
would take into account the size and
complexity of the operation and whether
such management requirements are
normally needed by similar operations, A
farm manager must be the only person to
qualify an operation, may qualify only one
operation, and must manage an operation
that doesn’t share resources with
another that collectively receives more
than the payment limitations. Separately,
clarifies that for the special class of
Same as Senate bill, with minor
clarification differences. [Sec. 1603A]
Does not change the existing statute
regarding requirements to be actively
engaged in farming; that is, it continues to
allow active personal management.
However, it instructs the Secretary of
Agriculture to write new regulations that
define “significant contribution of active
personal management” (to more clearly
and objectively implement 7 U.S.C 13081(b)(2), recognizing past difficulties).
Specifically allows for different limits for
varying types of farming operations, based
on considerations of size, nature, and
management requirements of different
farming types, changes in the nature of
active personal management due to
advancements in farming practices, and
the impact of this regulation on the longterm viability of farming operations.
Regulations shall not apply to entities
made solely of family members. Conferees
intend for regional differences and a range
of activities performed to be considered.
CRS-57
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.