Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Congressional research reportMar 20, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Agricultural Conservation and the Next
Farm Bill
March 20, 2023
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R47478
SUMMARY
Agricultural Conservation and the Next
Farm Bill
R47478
March 20, 2023
Megan Stubbs
The agricultural conservation title of omnibus farm bills contains authorizing and amending
Specialist in Agricultural
Conservation and Natural
language to existing and new voluntary resource conservation efforts on productive farm and
Resources Policy
ranch lands. Most of the conservation programs and provisions in a farm bill include technical
and financial assistance for agricultural operators to carry out various conservation measures
designed to address local natural resource concerns on their land. Typically renewed about every
five or six years, a farm bill provides an opportunity for Congress to address agricultural and
food issues, including conservation efforts. Programmatic issues related to the existing
conservation programs could be debated as well as other overarching concerns for the conservation title, such as funding,
reauthorization, program participation, technical assistance, and compliance.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers conservation programs authorized in farm bills, which can be
grouped into the following categories: working lands programs, land retirement programs, easement programs, partnership
and grant programs, and conservation compliance. Title II (Conservation) of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018
(2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334) reauthorized and amended portions of most conservation programs with a focus on the largecost programs, namely the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).
Most farm bill conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding (i.e., they do not require an annual
appropriation) and include authorities that expire with other farm bill programs at the end of FY2023. Subsequent legislation,
has extended the funding authority for some conservation programs, including EQIP, CSP, Agricultural Conservation
Easement Program (ACEP), and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Other conservation programs,
namely CRP is still set to expire at the end of FY2023. Budgetary concerns continue to drive the farm bill reauthorization
discussion, with additional interest in supplemental funding provided to conservation programs in recent years. The
reconciliation bill commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169) directed $17 billion in
additional funding toward farm bill conservation programs. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) also
provided nearly $1 billion to watershed conservation programs. Both measures were supplemental and in addition to
mandatory funding authorized in the farm bill baseline. The supplemental funding could impact the debate on how much
funding is provided through the conservation title and to which category of conservation programs.
Ongoing concerns about how climate change affects agriculture and how producers are able to respond to these changes
could impact the conservation title. Most farm bill conservation programs integrate adaptation to changes in climate within
their current structure. Additional funding provided under the Inflation Reduction Act directed USDA to prioritize climate
change mitigation activities under the farm bill conservation programs. Congress may evaluate how the conservation
programs assist producers in achieving climate change-related goals and whether adjustments are necessary. Since the 2018
farm bill, Congress passed legislation requiring USDA to establish a greenhouse gas technical assistance provider and thirdparty verifier program, and establish contribution accounts for public-private partnership projects. USDA has also created
several initiatives related to climate change, including the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, which uses the
Commodity Credit Corporation to fund partnerships for production practices and markets that promote climate benefits. How
USDA implements these climate-focused initiatives and enacted laws since the 2018 farm bill may influence development of
the conservation title.
Application acceptance rates and backlogs for conservation programs can vary by program and year. Arguments for
expanding conservation program funding because of high numbers of eligible unfunded applications have been successful in
past farm bill debates. Debate on a new farm bill could see similar arguments as demand to participate in many of the
conservation programs exceeds available program dollars several times over in some programs.
Other programmatic changes could also be considered such as how the conservation programs incentivize participation from
historically underserved producers (e.g., beginning, socially disadvantaged, and limited resource farmers and ranchers), how
technical assistance is provided and funded through the conservation programs, and whether additional interest in the
watershed programs could warrant additional funding changes.
Congressional Research Service
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Contents
Current Conservation Portfolio ....................................................................................................... 1
Working Lands Programs .......................................................................................................... 2
Land Retirement Programs ....................................................................................................... 2
Easement Programs ................................................................................................................... 2
Partnership and Grant Programs ............................................................................................... 3
Conservation Compliance ......................................................................................................... 3
Funding for Conservation ................................................................................................................ 3
Potential Issues for the Next Farm Bill ........................................................................................... 4
Budget and Baseline Issues ....................................................................................................... 4
Conservation Programs with No Baseline .......................................................................... 5
Supplemental Funding ........................................................................................................ 6
Shifts in Funding for Conservation Programs, by Category ............................................... 8
Programmatic Issues ................................................................................................................. 8
Climate Change and Carbon Markets ................................................................................. 8
Unfunded Applications and Interest.................................................................................. 10
Funding and Program Expiration ...................................................................................... 10
Historically Underserved Producers ................................................................................. 13
Technical Assistance ......................................................................................................... 14
Watershed Programs ......................................................................................................... 16
Conservation Compliance ................................................................................................. 17
Figures
Figure 1. Farm Bill Conservation Program Mandatory Spending, FY2002-FY2033 ..................... 4
Figure 2. Conservation Program Funding: Farm Bill and Inflation Reduction Act ........................ 7
Figure 3. Farm Bill Conservation Program Budget Authority by Type........................................... 8
Figure 4. FY2023 Total Estimate of NRCS Technical Assistance, by Program ............................ 15
Tables
Table 1. Conservation Programs in the 2018 Farm Bill with No Baseline...................................... 6
Table 2. Conservation Program Funding Authority Expiration Dates ............................................ 11
Table 3. Historically Underserved Producer Data: Selected Conservation Programs ................... 13
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 17
Congressional Research Service
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
he conservation title of a farm bill generally contains reauthorizations, amendments, and
new programs that encourage farmers and ranchers to voluntarily implement resourceconserving practices on private land. Starting in 1985, farm bills have broadened the
conservation agenda to include addressing multiple natural resource concerns, such as soil health,
water quality, air quality, and wildlife habitat. Although the number of conservation programs has
increased and techniques to address resource problems continue to emerge, the basic approach to
agricultural conservation has not changed: provide financial and technical assistance to
implement conservation systems supported by education and research programs.
T
As Congress begins the process of authorizing the next farm bill, areas of possible interest in the
conservation title may include funding for programs, climate strategies for the agricultural sector,
the backlog of unfunded applications, program participation by historically underserved
producers, and technical assistance.
Current Conservation Portfolio
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers conservation programs through either
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
Agricultural conservation programs can be grouped into the following five categories: working
lands programs, land retirement programs, easement programs, partnership and grant programs,
and conservation compliance (see text box).
Categories of Farm Bill Conservation Programs
Working lands programs allow private land to remain in production while implementing various conservation
practices to address natural resource concerns specific to the area.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program—Conservation Incentive Contracts; Conservation Stewardship—
Grasslands Conservation Initiative; and Agricultural Management Assistance
Land retirement programs provide payments to private agricultural landowners for temporary changes in land
use and management to achieve environmental benefits.
Conservation Reserve Program––Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Farmable Wetland Program,
Grassland Contracts, Clean Lakes Estuaries and Rivers Pilot (CLEAR30), Soil Health and Income Protection
Pilot, and Transition Incentives Program
Easement programs voluntarily impose a permanent or long-term restriction on land use in exchange for a
payment.
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program—Agricultural Land Easements and Wetland Reserve
Easements; and Healthy Forests Reserve Program
Partnership and grant programs use partnership agreements and grants to leverage federal funding with
nonfederal funding.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program, Conservation Innovation Grants, On-Farm Conservation
Innovation Trials, Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program, Voluntary Public Access and Habitat
Incentive Program, and Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production
Conservation compliance prohibits a producer from receiving selected federal farm program benefits
(including crop insurance premium subsidies) when conservation program requirements for highly erodible lands
and wetlands are not met.
Highly erodible land conservation (Sodbuster), wetland conservation (Swampbuster), and Sodsaver
Other types of conservation programs—such as watershed programs, emergency land
rehabilitation programs, and technical assistance—are authorized in nonfarm-bill legislation.
Most of these programs have permanent authorities and receive appropriations annually through
the discretionary appropriations process. These programs generally are not addressed in farm bill
legislation unless amendments to the program are proposed.
Congressional Research Service
1
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Title II (Conservation) of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115334) reauthorized and amended portions of most conservation programs with a focus on the largecost programs, namely the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Most farm bill
conservation programs are authorized to receive mandatory funding (i.e., they do not require an
annual appropriation) and include authorities that expire with other farm bill programs at the end
of FY2023. For additional information on conservation programs in the 2018 farm bill, see CRS
Report R45698, Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill.
Working Lands Programs
Working lands conservation programs implement various conservation practices to address
natural resource concerns specific to an area while allowing private land to remain in production.
Program participants receive some form of conservation planning and technical assistance to
guide their decision on the most appropriate practices to apply, given the natural resource
concerns and land condition. Participants receive federal financial support to defray a portion of
the cost to install or maintain the vegetative, structural, or management practices agreed to in the
terms of the program contract.
The two main working lands programs are EQIP and CSP; combined, they account for more than
half of all conservation program funding. EQIP funds a percentage of the cost to implement
approved conservation practices according to a conservation plan. EQIP participants can address
resource concerns on all or a portion of their operation through one or more EQIP contract that
pays upon completion of the practice(s). CSP provides annual and cost-share payments for
adopting new conservation practices and continuing existing conservation efforts. CSP contracts
are for five years with the possibility of renewal. CSP requires enrollment of a producer’s entire
operation.
Land Retirement Programs
Land retirement programs authorize USDA to make payments to private landowners to
voluntarily retire land from production for less-resource intensive uses. The primary land
retirement program is CRP. The program provides financial compensation (i.e., annual rental rate,
incentive payments, and cost-share) for landowners to voluntarily remove land from agricultural
production for an extended period, typically 10-15 years, for the benefit of soil and water quality
improvement and wildlife habitat. CRP enrolls land through three types of enrollment options—
general, continuous, and grasslands. CRP includes numerous subprograms and pilot programs
that redirect portions of CRP to specific conservation goals, resource concerns, and land uses.
Enrollment in CRP is limited to a national cap on the total number of acres allowed in the
program in a given year.
Easement Programs
Easement programs impose a permanent or long-term land-use restriction on the land in exchange
for a government payment. The primary conservation easement program is the Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), which provides financial and technical assistance
through two types of easements—agricultural land easements (ALE) and wetland reserve
easements (WRE). ACEP-ALE limit nonagricultural uses on productive farm or grasslands by
entering into partnership agreements with eligible entities to purchase permanent easements from
willing landowners. ACEP-WRE protect and restore wetlands through 30-year easements,
contracts, or permanent easements.
Congressional Research Service
2
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Partnership and Grant Programs
The farm bill authorizes agricultural conservation programs that provide grant or partnership
opportunities to leverage federal funding with private funding to achieve specific conservation
objectives or target specific geographic regions. The primary partnership program is the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), in which USDA enters into agreements with eligible
partners to deliver conservation projects in specific geographical areas. Within an RCPP project,
producers enter into contracts and agreements with USDA to carry out eligible conservation
activities similar to other conservation programs (e.g., EQIP, CSP, and ACEP).
Other grant programs, such as Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) and On-Farm Conservation
Innovation Trials, offer competitive grants to support the development of innovative tools,
approaches, practices, and technologies on agricultural land. The Feral Swine Eradication and
Control Pilot Program and the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program offer
grants to states for wildlife control and recreation activities.
Conservation Compliance
The Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill; P.L. 99-198) created the highly erodible lands
conservation and wetland conservation compliance programs, which tied various farm program
benefits to conservation standards. This provision has been amended numerous times to remove
certain farm program benefits and add others. The 2018 farm bill made few changes to
compliance requirements.
Funding for Conservation
The majority of farm bill conservation programs are funded through USDA’s Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) as mandatory spending.1 Mandatory spending can be thought of as multiyear
appropriations in authorizing legislation (e.g., a farm bill). These authorizations do not require an
annual appropriation. Mandatory conservation programs receive either a statutorily authorized
level of funding (e.g., $1.75 billion available for a conservation program during a fiscal year) or
an acreage allotment (e.g., enroll up to 32 million acres nationally). Mandatory funds from the
authorizing law are available unless they are expressly reduced to smaller amounts by a
subsequent act of Congress, usually initiated in the appropriations process or by the authorizing
committees.
The conservation title is one of the larger non-nutrition titles of the farm bill. It accounts for 7%
of the total projected 2018 farm bill cost at enactment, or $60 billion of the total $867 billion in
10-year mandatory funding it authorized (FY2019-FY2028). Spending for agricultural
conservation programs generally increased from $2.3 billion in FY2002 to over $5.1 billion in
total outlays in FY2022 (unadjusted for inflation). Annual projected outlays beyond FY2026 are
projected to plateau around $6 billion (Figure 1) assuming programs are reauthorized with no
changes.2
In addition to funding authorized in the 2018 farm bill, Congress provided nearly $17 billion for
selected farm bill conservation programs in the reconciliation bill commonly referred to as the
1 For additional information on the CCC, see CRS Report R44606, The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
2 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF12233, Farm Bill Primer: Budget Dynamics.
Congressional Research Service
3
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA; P.L. 117-169). Funding in the IRA was primarily directed
toward EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and RCPP and is available until expended through FY2031.3
Figure 1. Farm Bill Conservation Program Mandatory Spending, FY2002-FY2033
Outlays in billions of dollars (actuals adjusted for inflation through FY2022)
Source: CRS using Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline data, FY2001-FY2023; and Office of
Management and Budget, Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product [GDP] and Deflators Used in the Historical
Tables: 1940-2028, March 2023.
Notes: FY2002-FY2022 include actual spending levels adjusted for inflation to 2022 dollars using the GDP price
deflator. FY2023-FY2032 are projected spending levels in current year dollars. Chart does not include
sequestration or savings from repealed programs.
Potential Issues for the Next Farm Bill
Budget and Baseline Issues
Budgetary constraints and baseline funding may affect conservation in the next farm bill. Most
conservation programs authorized in farm bills receive mandatory funding. The conservation title
has experienced both increases and decreases in recent farm bills but generally remains about 7%
3 For additional information, see CRS Insight IN11978, Inflation Reduction Act: Agricultural Conservation and Credit,
Renewable Energy, and Forestry and the “Supplemental Funding” section.
Congressional Research Service
4
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
of total mandatory spending in the bill.4 Overall, the 2018 farm bill was budget neutral over the
10-year baseline; the conservation title was one of three titles that experienced a reduction in
mandatory program funding.5 The majority of this reduction came from changes to CSP. If
Congress chooses to expand the conservation title in the next farm bill, under current budget
rules, it would need to pay for the expansion with offsets from other sources or farm bill titles.
Conversely, reductions to the conservation title could serve as offsets for other congressional
priorities.
Conservation Baseline and Score
Most conservation programs receive an authorization (budget authority) for mandatory funding in omnibus farm
bills. Generally, the bill authorizes and pays for the mandatory funding (expressed as outlays) with a multiyear
budget estimate when the law is enacted. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determines the official
cost/savings estimate when bills are considered based on long-standing budget laws and rules.6
The budgetary impact of mandatory spending proposals is measured relative to an assumption that certain
programs continue beyond the end of the farm bill. The benchmark is the CBO baseline—a projection at a
particular point in time of future federal spending on mandatory programs under current law. The baseline
indicates future funding levels if policymakers decide that programs should be reauthorized, or if not, the baseline
can be reallocated to other programs, or used as an offset for deficit reduction. Generally, most large
conservation programs, such as CRP and EQIP, are assumed to continue in the baseline as if there were no change
in policy and they did not expire. However, some of the smaller conservation programs, such as the Feral Swine
Eradication and Control Pilot, are not assumed to continue beyond the end of a farm bill.
The most recent CBO baseline was released in February 2023. It projects that if farm bill conservation programs
were extended, it would cost $57.5 billion over the next 10 years (FY2024-FY2033). Most of this amount, 90%, is
in three programs—EQIP, CSP, and CRP.
When a new bill is proposed that would affect mandatory spending, CBO estimates the score (cost impact) in
relation to the baseline. Changes that increase spending relative to the baseline have a positive score; those that
decrease spending relative to the baseline have a negative score. Budget enforcement rules use these baselines and
scores to follow various budget rules. When a new law is passed, the projected cost at enactment equals the
baseline plus the score. This sum becomes the foundation of the new law and may be compared with future CBO
baselines as an indicator of how actual spending transpires as the law is implemented and market conditions
change.
Conservation Programs with No Baseline
Nineteen provisions in the 2018 farm bill received mandatory budget authority but are not
assumed to receive such funding in the budget baseline beyond the original expiration of the 2018
farm bill (FY2023).7 Of these 19 provisions, three are for programs within the conservation title
(Table 1). These three programs received $130 million in mandatory funding in the 2018 farm
bill. Under current budget rules, if policymakers want to continue these programs they would
need to pay for them with offsets.
4 For additional information, see CRS Report R45425, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2018 Farm Bill and CRS Report
R42484, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2014 Farm Bill.
5 The other two titles reduced in the 2018 farm bill were Rural Development (-$2.5 billion) and Crop Insurance (-$104
million) over the 10-year baseline.
6 For additional information, see CRS Report 98-560, Baselines and Scorekeeping in the Federal Budget Process.
7 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF12115, Farm Bill Primer: Programs Without Baseline Beyond
FY2023.
Congressional Research Service
5
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Table 1. Conservation Programs in the 2018 Farm Bill with No Baseline
2018
Farm Bill
Section
Program
CBO Score in
2018, time of
enactment
Program Description
(U.S. Code Citation)
2405
Grassroots Source
Water Protection
Program
$5 million
Provides funding to the National Rural Water
Association for technical assistance to operate state
source water protection programs (16 U.S.C. §3839bb2(b)(3)).
2406
Voluntary Public
Access and Habitat
Incentive
$50 million
Provides grants to states and tribal governments to
encourage private landowners to voluntarily make land
available for public access hunting and fishing programs
(16 U.S.C. §3839bb-5(f)(1)).
2408
Feral Swine
Eradication and
Control Pilot
$75 million
Requires USDA to study the extent of damage from feral
swine, develop eradication and control measures and
restoration methods, and provide cost-share funding to
agricultural producers in established pilot areas (7 U.S.C.
§8351 note).
Source: CRS using P.L. 115-334 and Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 2, Agriculture Improvement Act
of 2018, December 11, 2018, at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54880.
Note: Programs without baseline are identified as having mandatory budgetary outlays during FY2019-FY2023
but no budget authority beyond FY2023.
Supplemental Funding
The IRA provided an additional $17 billion in budget authority for farm bill conservation
programs.8 Funding in the IRA was primarily directed toward EQIP ($8.0 billion), CSP ($3.1
billion), ACEP ($1.3 billion), and RCPP ($4.7 billion) and is available until expended through
FY2031.9 Program funds are directed to climate change-related conservation practices that
improve soil carbon; reduce nitrogen losses; or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester greenhouse
gas emissions associated with agricultural production.10 The IRA also provided additional funding
for conservation programs and activities typically conducted through nonfarm bill authorities,
including conservation technical assistance ($1.0 billion), the carbon sequestration and
greenhouse gas emissions quantification program ($300 million), and administrative expenses
($100 million).
The funding provided in the IRA for conservation programs is supplemental and in addition to
mandatory funding authorized to the conservation programs as part of the farm bill baseline
(Figure 2). Unlike the farm bill authorized funding for agricultural conservation, IRA funding is
temporary and may not be expended beyond FY2031.11 The additional IRA funding is expected to
influence the farm bill debate for conservation funding, though the actual impact is uncertain.
8 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Table 2. Estimated Budgetary Effects of Title II, Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, of P.L. 117-169, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of S. Con. Res. 14,”
September 7, 2022.
9 CBO, “CBO’s February 2023 Baseline from Farm Programs,” February 2023. The CBO score for budget authority
under EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and RCPP differs from funding amounts listed in the IRA. For additional information, see
CRS Insight IN11978, Inflation Reduction Act: Agricultural Conservation and Credit, Renewable Energy, and
Forestry.
10 P.L. 117-169, §21001.
11 P.L. 117-169, §21002.
Congressional Research Service
6
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Figure 2. Conservation Program Funding: Farm Bill and Inflation Reduction Act
FY2022-FY2033
Source: CRS using Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “CBO’s February 2023 Baseline from Farm Programs,”
February 2023.
Notes: ACEP=Agriculture Conservation Easement Program; CRP=Conservation Reserve Program;
CSP=Conservation Stewardship Program; EQIP=Environmental Quality Incentives Program; IRA=Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169); and RCPP=Regional Conservation Partnership Program. “Other” includes
mandatory spending for the Agricultural Management Assistance, Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve
Program, Grassroots Source Water Protection, Feral Swine Eradication, Voluntary Public Access and Habitat
Incentive Program, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, Watershed Rehabilitation, and reductions from
the transfer of amounts to the Farm Production and Conservation Business Center.
Additional supplemental funding was also provided for the NRCS watershed programs in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58, Division J, Title I). The IIJA provided
$500 million to the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) program, $118 million
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, and $300 million for the Emergency Watershed
Protection program.12 The watershed programs were enacted outside of farm bill legislation and
historically receive annual appropriations. The 2018 farm bill, however, authorized $50 million in
permanent annual mandatory funding for WFPO and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
Similar to the IRA funding, the IIJA funding is supplemental and outside of the farm bill baseline.
Unlike the IRA funding, USDA has announced the obligation of over $719 million of the IIJA
funding, making it less likely to be rescinded or repurposed for other farm bill spending.13
12 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF11990, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Funding for
USDA Broadband, Watershed, and Bioproduct Programs.
13 Announced funding according to data downloaded on March 1, 2023 from the General Services Administration’s
website, “D2D: Data to Decisions,” at https://d2d.gsa.gov/report/bipartisan-infrastructure-law-bil-maps-dashboard.
Congressional Research Service
7
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Figure 3. Farm Bill Conservation Program
Budget Authority by Type
(2002, 2008, 2014, and 2018 farm bills)
Shifts in Funding for Conservation
Programs, by Category
The overall farm bill baseline can limit the
total funding available to write a farm bill;
however, how this total funding is divided by
title and program can vary with congressional
priorities. The amount of funding authorized
in the conservation title increased with each
farm bill until the 2018 farm bill (Figure 1).
How that funding has been allocated to
different conservation program types has
shifted over time (Figure 3).
Since the 2002 farm bill, land retirement
programs, namely CRP, make up a smaller
percentage of the conservation title portfolio.
In contrast, funding has increased for working
lands programs (i.e., EQIP and CSP) as well
as partnership programs (i.e., RCPP).
Supplemental funding from the IRA that
funded EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and RCPP but not
CRP further magnifies this shift in programs.
Some of this shift can be attributed to external
factors that can affect participation, such as
high commodity prices that can cause interest
in land retirement programs to decline. Other
factors, such as advances in conservation
technology can increase interest in working
lands programs that allow land to remain in
production while achieving environmental
goals. The increased use of partnership
programs that leverage federal funding could
continue depending on congressional support.
If spending limits restrict the overall size of
the conservation title then debate could center
on the mix of conservation program funding
that makes up the conservation title portfolio.
Programmatic Issues
Source: CRS using CBO baseline data, FY2001FY2023.
Notes: Figure includes mandatory funding for farm
bill authorized conservation programs. The 2002,
2008, and 2014 farm bill charts cover the period after
enactment to the next bill’s passage and are adjusted
for reductions, rescissions, and sequestration. The
2018 farm bill chart is based on the CBO estimate of
budget authority for the life of the farm bill (FY2018FY2023). Funding for conservation education,
extension and research, and discretionary spending
are not included.
Congressional Research Service
Climate Change and Carbon Markets
Current agriculture sector strategies for
addressing climate change, through both
adaptation and mitigation, rely on the delivery
of voluntary conservation technical assistance
and financial support programs. Most farm
bill conservation programs are designed to
address multiple concerns through locally
8
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
adaptable practices. Thus, no existing conservation program is specific to climate change
adaptation or mitigation, but most programs can integrate adaptation to changes in climate within
their current structure.
As part of the next farm bill, Congress may evaluate how well farm bill conservation programs
assist producers in achieving climate change-related goals and how additional funding provided
through the IRA could affect achievement of these goals. The IRA provided $17 billion in
additional funding for EQIP, CSP, ACEP, and RCPP (see Figure 2). Funding is directed to
conservation practices and enhancements that achieve climate change-related goals and prioritize
mitigation activities. For example, funding provided to EQIP is required to be for one or more
agricultural conservation practices or enhancements that USDA determines would directly
improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses, or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester greenhouse
gas emissions, associated with agricultural production.14 Investments in measuring and
monitoring the effects of the NRCS conservation practices funded through the working lands
programs have resulted in the identification of a suite of conservation practices that may deliver
quantifiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, increases in carbon sequestration, or both.15
NRCS refers to these as “climate-smart mitigation activities.”16 From FY2018 through FY2022,
NRCS practice data indicate that approximately $2.6 billion has been obligated to NRCS
identified climate-smart mitigation activities.17 This is roughly 35% of all reported program
obligations during the same period.18
In addition to the increased funding provided in the IRA, the 117th Congress debated and enacted
legislation related to carbon markets and the role agriculture could play in them. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (FY2023 appropriation; P.L. 117-328) included two new
provisions. The first provision requires USDA to establish a greenhouse gas technical assistance
provider and third-party verifier program.19 The role of agriculture in carbon markets has
produced a variety of perspectives, including support for and opposition to a USDA role in
standardizing voluntary carbon markets for agriculture and forestry.20 This debate could carry into
the next farm bill, including what role the conservation title could play in assisting producers to
generate carbon credits or support carbon markets. The second provision in the FY2023
appropriation amends the farm bill conservation title requiring USDA to establish contribution
accounts for public-private partnership projects.21 These projects can address natural resource
14 P.L. 117-169, §21001(a)(1)(B)(iii).
15 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), “NRCS Practice Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reduction and Carbon Sequestration,” at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Climate_Smart_Agriculture_and_Forestry_Booklet.pdf.
16 For more information on how these can be applied to agricultural operations, see NRCS, COMET-Planner, at
http://comet-planner.com/.
17 Practice and obligation data reported by NRCS are likely undercounting the actual level of funding spent on these
practices as some data was suppressed if too small of a count occurred. For example, anaerobic digesters are funded
through Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in FY2014-FY2021, but funding is reported only in
FY2016; all other years are reported as being suppressed. USDA, NRCS, “RCA Data Viewer,” at
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/data-and-reports/rca-data-viewer.
18 Total FY2018 through FY2022 obligations for all practices are approximately $7.4 billion. USDA, NRCS, “RCA
Data Viewer,” at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/data-and-reports/rca-data-viewer.
19 P.L. 117-328, §201, Title I, Division HH.
20 For additional information, see CRS Report R46956, Agriculture and Forestry Offsets in Carbon Markets:
Background and Selected Issues.
21 P.L. 117-328, §202, Title I, Division HH.
Congressional Research Service
9
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
priorities, including but not limited to climate change and carbon sequestration, and leverage
existing conservation program funds.
Congress may also assess USDA initiatives related to climate change, including the Partnerships
for Climate-Smart Commodities. In September 2022, USDA announced the selection of 70
projects, totaling $2.8 billion in funding, in the initiative’s first funding pool.22 USDA announced
a second funding pool in December 2022 and included an additional 71 projects totaling $325
million.23 The initiative finances partnerships that implement climate-smart production practices;
measure, quantify, and verify greenhouse gas benefits associated with climate-smart practices;
and develop markets that promote the resulting climate benefits.24 How USDA implements these
climate-focused initiatives and pilot projects may influence development of the conservation title.
Unfunded Applications and Interest
Arguments for expanding conservation programs in earlier farm bills were persuasive in light of
evidence that large numbers of unfunded, eligible applications were unable to enroll in
conservation programs due to a lack of funds. Debate on a new farm bill could see similar
arguments. Demand to participate in many of the conservation programs exceeds available
program dollars several times over in some programs.
Acceptance rates and backlogs for conservation programs vary by program and program type. In
general, working lands programs continue to experience low acceptance rates, whereas recent
sign-ups under land retirement programs have had higher acceptance rates. For example, in
FY2022, USDA funded 56% of eligible program applications received for EQIP, an increase from
FY2021 and FY2020, which funded 54% and 44% of eligible applications respectively.25 By
comparison, the 2022 CRP general sign-up had nearly 2.3 million acres offered for enrollment
and almost 2.1 million acres were accepted (90%).26 Policy issues beyond funding levels can
affect application acceptance rates. Large, ongoing backlogs of unfunded applications could
provide a case for additional funding, whereas other policy mechanisms could be proposed to
reduce demand.
Funding and Program Expiration
For many conservation programs, program authority is permanent. Therefore, it is the authority to
receive funding that is of most interest since funding authority could affect the program’s
operation the most if that authority were to expire. Discretionary spending is authorized through
the farm bill for some conservation programs. However, since most appropriations law allows the
22 USDA, “USDA Announces Historic Investment in Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities,” September 14,
2022, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fVZ1wca5sM.
23 USDA, “Biden-Harris Administration Announces an Additional $325 Million in Pilot Projects through Partnerships
for Climate-Smart Commodities, for Total Investment of $3.1 Billion,” press release, December 12, 2022, at
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/12/12/biden-harris-administration-announces-additional-325-millionpilot.
24 USDA, “USDA to Invest $1 Billion in Climate Smart Commodities, Expanding Markets, Strengthening Rural
America,” press release, February 7, 2022, at https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/02/07/usda-invest-1billion-climate-smart-commodities-expanding-markets.
25 USDA, FY2024 Budget Explanatory Notes—Natural Resources Conservation Service, p. 120, USDA, FY2023
Budget Explanatory Notes—Natural Resources Conservation Service, p. 109, and USDA, FY2022 Budget Explanatory
Notes—Natural Resources Conservation Service, p. 103.
26 Farm Service Agency, “Sign-Up 58 State Acceptance,” May 4, 2022, at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDAFSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/Excel/SU58StateAcceptance.xlsx.
Congressional Research Service
10
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
continued operation of a program where only appropriation action has occurred, it is generally the
programs that rely on mandatory funding that are most impacted when funding authority
expires.27 Without reauthorization or an extension, these mandatorily funded programs would
cease to operate or undertake new activities following the expiration of funding authority.
Most farm bill authorized conservation programs have program and funding authority that runs
for the duration of the farm bill, typically four to six years in duration.28 Many of the programs
authorized in the 2018 farm bill were authorized through FY2023. The IRA extended certain
conservation programs and their funding authority through the IRA’s 10-year budget window—
through FY2031. This has resulted in some conservation programs expiring at the end of FY2023
and others at the end of FY2031. Table 2 includes the expiration date of most farm bill
conservation programs by type of funding authority—mandatory or discretionary.
Table 2. Conservation Program Funding Authority Expiration Dates
No Expiration
One-Time
Sept. 30, 2031
Program
Sept. 30, 2023
Expiration of Funding
Authority
Programs Authorized to Receive Mandatory Funding
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)
X
Agricultural Management Assistance
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
CRP – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
CRP – CLEAR30
CRP – Farmable Wetlands
CRP – Grasslands
CRP – Soil Health and Income Protection Program (SHIPP)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
CSP – Grassland Conservation Incentive
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
EQIP – Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)
X
X
X
X
27 For additional information, see CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction.
28 CRS Report R45210, Farm Bills: Major Legislative Actions, 1965-2018.
Congressional Research Service
11
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
EQIP, CIG – On-farm Conservation Innovation Trials
No Expiration
One-Time
Sept. 30, 2031
Program
Sept. 30, 2023
Expiration of Funding
Authority
X
Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program
X
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program
X
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
X
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program
X
Programs Authorized to Receive Discretionary Funding
Emergency Conservation Program
X
Emergency Forest Restoration Program
X
Emergency Watershed Protection program
X
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program
X
Healthy Forest Restoration Program
X
Water Bank Program
X
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
X
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
X
Wetlands Mitigation Banking
X
Source: CRS using various statutory authorities.
Notes: Some mandatory farm bill conservation programs were authorized to receive a specific amount of onetime mandatory funding. In some cases no fiscal year is specified or only one fiscal year is identified. Funds are to
remain available until expended. These funds are referred to in the table as “One-Time.”
The IRA extended only certain policy provisions within the funded conservation programs.
Therefore, some programs that are extended through FY2031 contain policy provisions that
expire at the end of FY2023. Without reauthorization or extension, policy provisions expiring in
FY2023 would no longer apply to funds provided for the overall program that continues. For
example, under EQIP, the following policy provisions were either extended through FY2031 or
will expire at the end FY2023:
Expires in FY2023
Livestock funding. Requires 50% of funding be used for payments related to
livestock practices.
Payment limits. Limits total EQIP payments to $450,000 per person or legal
entity for the duration of the 2018 farm bill.
Organic payment limits. Limits total EQIP payments related to organic
production to $140,000 per person or legal entity for the duration of the 2018
farm bill.
Congressional Research Service
12
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Extended to FY2031
Wildlife habitat funding. Requires 10% of funding be used for payments related
to wildlife habitat.
Air quality funding. Requires $37.5 million annually be used for payments for
air quality concern practices.
On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials. Requires that $25 million annually
be used to carry out on-farm conservation innovation trials.
Historically Underserved Producers
Beginning with the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 farm bill; P.L. 107171), programs within the conservation title of farm bills have included provisions providing
preference to select farmers and ranchers. The type of agricultural producers receiving preference
has expanded over time to include beginning, socially disadvantaged, limited resource, and
veteran farmers and ranchers—collectively referred to as historically underserved.29 Some of the
conservation programs, namely EQIP, CSP, and RCPP, include additional incentives or designated
funding levels for these producers. Many of these provisions were reauthorized in the 2018 farm
bill and some were extended as part of the IRA. For example, annually 5% of EQIP and CSP
funds are allocated to beginning farmers or ranchers and another 5% to socially disadvantaged
farmers or ranchers with preference given to veterans.30 This allocation originated in the 2008
farm bill, was reauthorized in in the 2014 and 2018 farm bills, and extended by the IRA through
FY2031.31
According to available data (Table 3), participation by historically underserved producers varies
by program. Both EQIP and CSP include specific incentives for historically underserved farmers
and ranchers, such as higher cost-share rates, advanced payment options, and funding set-asides.
In the absence of additional information, it is unclear to what extent these additional incentives
contribute to the participation rates of historically underserved, and to what extent other factors,
such as the total amount of funding available for a program and program’s purpose, are
influential.32
Table 3. Historically Underserved Producer Data: Selected Conservation Programs
FY2014-FY2022
Program
Contract Count
AMA
9,078
1,874
$22,290,116
56.9%
CSP
16,657,197
18,480
$985,619,085
14.6%
104,497
1,622
$9,412,843
8.0%
EQIP
25,147,610
125,046
$3,536,934,354
37.8%
RCPP
1,006,764
3,079
$114,586,103
23.7%
CSP-GCI
Dollars Obligated
Percent of Total
Obligations
Contract Acres
29 For definitions, see USDA, NRCS, “Historically Underserved Producers,” at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/getting-
assistance/underserved-farmers-ranchers. Gender is not included under the socially disadvantaged definition for
conservation programs.
30 16 U.S.C. §3841(h).
31 See P.L. 110-246, §2704; P.L. 113-79, §2604; P.L. 115-334, §2501(e); and P.L. 117-169, §21001(c)(5)(C)(ii).
32 Data are not available to compare conservation program participation rates with total U.S. agriculture producers
meeting the collective historically underserved definition.
Congressional Research Service
13
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Source: USDA, “NRCS Financial Assistance Program Data Download,” accessed March 15, 2023.
Notes: AMA = Agricultural Management Assistance program; CSP = Conservation Stewardship Program; GCI =
Grassland Conservation Initiative; EQIP = Environmental Quality Incentives Program; and RCPP = Regional
Conservation Partnership Program. Includes active and completed contract data from FY2014 through FY2022.
EQIP includes data from the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and the Agricultural Water
Enhancement Program (AWEP). Both WHIP and AWEP were repealed and reorganized under EQIP in the 2014
farm bill. RCPP includes contracts made related to EQIP and CSP. FY2022 is the most recent data available.
Other provisions, such as those included in CRP, provide land access to selected individuals
through the Transition Incentives Program (TIP). TIP facilitates the transfer of CRP acres from a
retiring owner to a beginning, socially disadvantaged, or veteran producer to return land to
production. In exchange, the retiring owner receives up to two additional years of annual CRP
rental payments following expiration of the CRP contract. The 2018 farm bill limited TIP to $50
million for the duration of the farm bill (FY2019-FY2023), including $5 million for outreach.
Each successive farm bill has added to the type of producers included as historically underserved
and/or the provisions allocating incentives or funding to a particular group. Additional incentives
could be sought for historically underserved producers in the upcoming farm bill. Similarly,
additional flexibilities for groups under the current definition of historically underserved could be
sought. For example, some tribal nations are seeking an expansion of alternative funding
arrangements under EQIP and CSP through which funding can be directly provided to tribes.33
Environmental interest groups are seeking increased conservation funding in the next farm bill,
including priority for the needs of historically underserved producers.34
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance is provided as part of all farm bill conservation programs, primarily by
NRCS.35 This assistance provides conservation knowledge to producers and landowners and
includes information, technical expertise (e.g., engineering, biological, and agronomic), and a
local delivery system (e.g., county offices) for assisting landowners and users to conserve and use
natural resources.36 At the landowner’s request, NRCS provides technical assistance through a
network of federal staff located throughout the United States, that serve as technical conservation
experts with knowledge of local conditions. Other USDA and non-USDA agencies also may
provide technical assistance to address resource concerns, though this assistance may not
necessarily be in connection with farm bill programs.37
33 Native Farm Bill Coalition, “2022 NFBC Webinar on Title II: Conservation,” February 25, 2022, at
https://www.nativefarmbill.com/post/friday-february-25-2022-nfbc-webinar-on-title-ii-conservation.
34 Letter from Alabama Rivers Alliance, Alliance for the Great Lakes, and Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments, et al. to Members of Congress, June 23, 2022, at http://protectcleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/
06/CWfA-Farm-Bill-Letter.pdf.
35 The statutory authority for NRCS to provide conservation technical assistance is derived from the Soil Conservation
and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-46; 16 U.S.C. §590 et seq.) Farm bills require that conservation technical
assistance be funded through the farm bill authorized programs as well (16 U.S.C. §3841). The farm bill also authorizes
third parties in certain circumstances to provided technical assistance (16 U.S.C. §3842).
36 16 U.S.C. §590j.
37 For example, the Economic Research Service (ERS) found that among four major commodity crops (soybeans, oats,
cotton, and wheat) reporting resource concerns, 67% received technical assistance from NRCS. Others received
technical assistance from USDA’s Cooperative Extension System, local conservation districts, and state agencies.
Andrew Rosenberg and Steven Wallander, USDA Conservation Technical Assistance and Within-Field Resource
Concerns, USDA, ERS, EIB 234, May 2022.
Congressional Research Service
14
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Technical assistance for agricultural conservation is funded through both mandatory and
discretionary sources (see Figure 4). The Conservation Operations account is the primary
discretionary account that funds NRCS technical assistance activities through the Conservation
Technical Assistance (CTA) program.38 Funds support salaries and expenses for NRCS staff,
technology development, conservation system design, compliance reviews, grants to partners for
additional technical assistance capacity, and resource assessment reports.
Figure 4. FY2023 Total Estimate of NRCS Technical Assistance, by Program
Budget authority in millions of dollars
Source: Figure created by CRS using USDA, FY2024 Budget Explanatory Notes—Natural Resources Conservation
Service, p. 31.
Notes: Numbers may not add due to rounding. NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service; ACEP =
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program; CSP = Conservation Stewardship Program; EQIP = Environmental
Quality Incentives Program; GHG = Greenhouse Gas; IRA = Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-169);
PMC = Plant Material Centers; and RCPP = Regional Conservation Partnership Program. The Agricultural Act of
2014 (P.L. 113-79) repealed and consolidated several farm bill conservation programs. The repealed and
consolidated programs are no longer authorized, but have valid contracts that continue to require technical
assistance. These programs are referred to as Expired Farm Bill Programs and include Agricultural Water
Enhancement Program, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, Farm and Ranchland Protection Program,
Grassland Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. Other Farm
Bill Programs include the NRCS portion of Agricultural Management Assistance, Voluntary Public Access and
Habitat Incentive Program, Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot, and Healthy Forest Reserve Program.
38 Conservation Operations and subsequently the Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program is funded through
annual appropriations. For additional information, see CRS Report R46971, Agricultural Conservation: FY2022
Appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
15
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
Technical assistance is also funded through the farm bill conservation programs that receive
mandatory funding. Most technical assistance activities within mandatory programs support the
delivery of some level of financial assistance as part of a contract or agreement. These activities
could include providing designs, standards, and specifications needed to install approved
conservation practices and activities. Generally, technical assistance prior to a producer entering
into a contract for financial assistance is considered part of CTA. After a producer signs a contract
for financial assistance, technical assistance is funded from the individual mandatory program
rather than CTA. Once the financial assistance contract is complete, most mandatory program
funds are no longer available to support ongoing assistance in maintaining the conservation plans,
practices, and activities implemented under the mandatory program.
Increased mandatory funding for the farm bill conservation programs, therefore generally require
a corresponding increase in discretionary funding since technical assistance prior to a financial
assistance contract generally is funded through discretionary spending accounts (i.e., CTA). For
example, the IRA which increased farm bill conservation programs, provided additional funding
for CTA.39 Proposals to further increase conservation programs in the next farm bill without an
increase in discretionary spending accounts could hinder implementation. Additionally, Congress
could consider how technical assistance is currently funded and whether additional changes could
be made to the current accounting structure.
Watershed Programs
While originally enacted as stand-alone legislation and not typically amended through a farm bill,
increased interest in the USDA watershed programs could drive further amendments or funding in
the next farm bill. USDA provides assistance for watershed activities under three primary
programs that are administered by NRCS. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
(WFPO) program authorizes NRCS to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local
organizations to plan and install measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and flood damage
and to conserve, develop, and utilize land and water resources.40 The Watershed Rehabilitation
Program funds rehabilitation projects for dams previously constructed under WFPO in order to
bring them into compliance with applicable safety and performance standards or to decommission
the dams so they no longer pose a threat to life and property.41 The Emergency Watershed
Protection (EWP) program provides technical and financial assistance to reduce hazards to life
and property in watersheds damaged by natural disasters.42
The 2018 farm bill authorized $50 million annually in permanent mandatory funding for WFPO
and Watershed Rehabilitation Program activities. The mandatory funding is in addition to
discretionary funding usually provided through annual appropriations. All three watershed
programs were provided additional funds through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA; P.L. 117-58).43 These additional funds have renewed interest from local project sponsors in
39 The IRA §21002(a)(1) provided $1 billion for CTA to remain available through FY2031.
40 The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (WFPO) program consists of two authorities—Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566) and Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534). For
additional information, see CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and Programs for Wastewater,
Drinking Water, and Water Supply Infrastructure.
41 For additional information, see CRS Report R47383, Federal Assistance for Nonfederal Dam Safety.
42 For additional information, see CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
43 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provided $918 million in total for the three watershed
programs. For additional information see CRS In Focus IF11990, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA):
Funding for USDA Broadband, Watershed, and Bioproduct Programs.
Congressional Research Service
16
Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
the watershed programs and could result in expanded congressional interest during the next farm
bill debate.
Conservation Compliance
The Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 farm bill; P.L. 99-198) created the highly erodible lands
conservation and wetland conservation compliance programs, which tied various farm program
benefits to conservation standards. This provision has been amended numerous times to remove
certain farm program benefits and add others. The 2018 farm bill made relatively few changes to
compliance requirements. Some view these conservation compliance requirements as
burdensome, and they are unpopular among producer groups. Conservation compliance has
remained a controversial issue since its introduction in the 1985 farm bill, and debate on its
existence and effectiveness is likely to continue.
Author Information
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural
Resources Policy
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R47478 · VERSION 1 · NEW
17
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.