The 2013 Farm Bill: A Comparison of the Senate-Reported Bill (S. 954) and House- Reported Bill (H.R. 1947) with Current Law

Ralph M. Chite, Coordinator
Section Research Manager

Congress periodically establishes agricultural and food policy in an omnibus farm bill. The 113th Congress faces reauthorization of the current five-year farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246), since many of its provisions expire in 2013. The 2008 farm bill originally expired in 2012, but the 112th Congress did not complete action on a new farm bill and instead extended most authorities and funding for one additional year in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the fiscal cliff bill, P.L. 112-240). The 2008 farm bill contains titles that cover farm commodity support, horticulture, livestock, conservation, nutrition assistance, international trade and food aid, agricultural research, farm credit, rural development, bioenergy, and forestry.

The Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version of an omnibus 2013 farm bill (S. 954, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013) by a vote of 15-5 on May 14, 2013. The next day, the House Agriculture Committee conducted markup of its own version of the farm bill (H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013) and approved the amended bill by a vote of 36-10. Floor action on the Senate bill began during the week of May 20, 2013, and is scheduled to resume the week of June 3; the House has not yet officially scheduled floor action.

Within the 12 titles of S. 954 and H.R. 1947 are provisions that would reshape the structure of farm commodity support, expand crop insurance coverage, consolidate conservation programs, revise the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and extend authority to appropriate funds for many U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) discretionary programs through FY2018. Both farm bills would eliminate direct payments to farmers and revise (and rename) them to enhance price or revenue protection for producers in the farm commodity support programs.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the mandatory programs of the 2008 farm bill, if they were to continue, would cost $973 billion over the next 10 years (FY2014-FY2023). This baseline has been reduced by $6.4 billion to reflect the effects of sequestration. Compared to this “baseline,” S. 954 as reported would reduce spending by $18 billion (-1.9%); and the House Agriculture Committee-reported bill, H.R. 1947, would reduce it by $33 billion (-3.4%). The bills differ most notably in their estimated reductions to SNAP spending. The House-reported bill proposes to restrict categorical eligibility (estimated to reduce SNAP spending by approximately $11.6 billion over 10 years), whereas the Senate bill does not include such a restriction.

This report provides a side-by-side comparison of every provision in the House Agriculture Committee- and Senate Agriculture Committee-reported farm bills with current law or policy, as amended and extended by the fiscal cliff bill.


Date of Report: May 30, 2013
Number of Pages: 162
Order Number: R43076
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43076.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues

Charles E. Hanrahan
Senior Specialist in Agricultural Policy

For almost six decades, the United States has played a leading role in global efforts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and to enhance world food security through the sale on concessional terms or donation of U.S. agricultural commodities. The objectives for foreign food aid include providing emergency and humanitarian assistance in response to natural or manmade disasters, and promoting agricultural development and food security. In its FY2014 budget submission to Congress, the Administration proposes major changes in the funding and structure of both emergency and development food aid programs (Food for Peace Title II).

U.S. international food aid programs have traditionally been authorized in farm bills. The most recent of such bills, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246), authorized through FY2012 and amended international food aid programs. These programs are administered either by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). U.S. international food aid has been distributed mainly through five program authorities: the Food for Peace Act (P.L. 480); Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949; the Food for Progress Act of 1985; the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program; and the Local and Regional Procurement Pilot Project, a pilot program in the 2008 farm bill which ended in FY2012. In addition, the 2008 farm bill also reauthorized the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (BEHT), a reserve of commodities and cash for use in the Food for Peace programs to meet unanticipated food aid needs.

The 112th Congress extended the 2008 farm bill, including its international food aid provisions and food aid funding levels in effect during FY2012, through September 30, 2013, as part of the “fiscal cliff” legislation (P.L. 112-240).

Average annual spending on international food aid programs over the decade FY2002-FY2011 was approximately $2.2 billion, with Food for Peace Title II activities comprising the largest portion of the total budget. In recent years, the volume of Title II emergency food aid has exceeded the amount of nonemergency or development food aid. The 2008 farm bill provides for a “safe box” for funding of nonemergency development assistance projects under Title II, which was set at $400 million for FY2013. This requirement can be waived by the President if certain criteria are met. The 2008 farm bill also maintained funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program on a discretionary basis, and authorized $60 million over four years for a local and regional procurement pilot project to be implemented in developing countries in order to expedite the provision of food aid to vulnerable populations affected by food crises and disasters. Separately authorized and funded is USAID’s Emergency Food Security Assistance Program, which uses International Disaster Assistance funds to provide cash-based food security assistance (local/regional procurement, cash vouchers, or cash transfers) for emergency relief.

Food aid issues debated in 2012 have re-emerged as the 113th Congress takes up the President’s food aid reform proposal. The issues include ensuring the nutritional quality of food aid provided; assessing the role of monetization (selling food aid commodities in recipient countries to finance development projects); determining the effectiveness and appropriateness of local and regional procurement of food aid; and determining the cost-effectiveness of U.S. cargo preference for delivering U.S. food aid. The Administration’s food aid proposal would shift funds from Food for Peace to three USAID accounts and eliminate the monetization procedure, provide flexibility to
procure commodities in local and regional markets overseas, and reduce the volume of commodities subject to cargo preference legislation. The Administration’s proposals will be fiercely debated as Congress takes up the President’s budget request.

Date of Report: May 20, 2013
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R41072
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41072.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Wildfire Fuels and Fuel Reduction

Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

Severe wildfires have been burning more acres and more structures in recent years. Some assert that climate change is at least partly to blame; others claim that the increasing number of homes in and near the forest (the wildland-urban interface) is a major cause. However, most observers agree that wildfire suppression and historic land management practices have led to unnaturally high accumulations of biomass in many forests, particularly in the intermountain West. While high-intensity conflagrations (wildfires that burn the forest canopy) occur naturally in some ecosystems (called crown-fire or stand-replacement fire ecosystems), abnormally high biomass levels can lead to conflagrations in ecosystems when such crown fires were rare (called frequentsurface- fire ecosystems). Thus, many propose activities to reduce forest biomass fuels.

The characteristics of forest biomass fuels affect the nature, spread, and intensity of the fire. Fuel moisture content is critical, but is generally a function of weather patterns over hours, days, and weeks. Fuel size is also important—fine and small fuels (e.g., needles, grasses, leaves, small twigs) are key to fire spread, while larger fuels (e.g., twigs larger than pencil-diameter, branches, and logs) contribute primarily to fire intensity; both are important to minimizing fire damages. Fuel distribution can also affect damages. Relatively continuous fuels improve burning, and vertically continuous fuels—fuel ladders—can lead a surface fire into the canopy, causing a conflagration. Total fuel accumulations (fuel loads) also contribute to fire intensity and damage. Thus, activities that alter biomass fuels—reducing total loads, reducing small fuels, reducing large fuels, and eliminating fuel ladders—can help reduce wildfire severity and damages.

Several tools can be used to reduce forest biomass fuels. Prescribed burning is the deliberate use of fire in specific areas under specified conditions. It is the only tool that can eliminate fine fuels, but is risky because it burns any fuel available. Wildland fire use is the term used for allowing a wildfire to be used like a prescribed burn (i.e., within specified areas and conditions). Thinning is a broader forestry tool useful for eliminating fuel ladders and total fuels in the crown, but it does not eliminate fine fuels, and it concentrates fuels in a more continuous array on the surface. The combination of thinning with prescribed burning is often proposed to combine the benefits, but it also combines the cost of both. Logging does little to reduce fuel loads.

The federal land management agencies undertake all of these activities under general authorities for wildfire protection and land and resource management. Fuel reduction, primarily via prescribed burning, is funded with direct annual appropriations for wildfire management. Other activities, particularly thinning, are funded through other annual appropriations accounts, such as vegetation management. Also, several mandatory spending accounts provide funds for related activities, such as treating logging and thinning debris. In addition, wildfire assistance funding allows the Forest Service to provide technical and financial aid for reducing forest biomass fuel loads on nonfederal lands, among other things.

The issues for Congress include the appropriate level of funding for prescribed burning and thinning for fuel reduction and the appropriate reporting of accomplishments. Current reporting does not identify ecosystems being treated and the effectiveness of the treatments. Similarly, current appropriations and reporting do not distinguish thinning for fuel reduction from thinning for other purposes, such as enhancing timber productivity. More complete reporting could allow Congress to better target its appropriations for fuel reduction to enhance wildfire protection.


Date of Report: May 13, 2013
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R40811
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R40811.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Agriculture-Based Biofuels: Overview and Emerging Issues

Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Since the late 1970s, U.S. policymakers at both the federal and state levels have authorized a variety of incentives, regulations, and programs to encourage the production and use of agriculture-based biofuels—i.e., any fuel produced from biological materials. Initially, federal biofuels policies were developed to help kick-start the biofuels industry during its early development, when neither production capacity nor a market for the finished product was widely available. Federal policy (e.g., tax credits, import tariffs, grants, loans, and loan guarantees) has played a key role in helping to close the price gap between biofuels and cheaper petroleum fuels. Now, as the industry has evolved, other policy goals (e.g., national energy security, climate change concerns, support for rural economies) are cited by proponents as justification for continuing or enhancing federal policy support.

The U.S. biofuels sector responded to these government incentives by expanding output every year from 1980 through 2011 (with the exception of 1996), with important implications for the domestic and international food and fuel sectors. Production of the primary U.S. biofuel, ethanol (derived from corn starch), has risen from about 175 million gallons in 1980 to nearly 14 billion gallons in 2011. U.S. biodiesel production (derived primarily from vegetable oil), albeit much smaller, has also shown strong growth, rising from 0.5 million gallons in 1999 to a record 969 million gallons in 2012. Despite the rapid growth of the past decades, total agriculture-based biofuels consumption accounted for only about 8% of U.S. transportation fuel consumption (9.7% of gasoline and 1.5% of diesel) in 2012.

Federal biofuels policies have had costs, including unintended market and environmental consequences and large federal outlays (estimated at $7.7 billion in 2011, but declining to $1.3 billion in 2012 with the expiration of the ethanol blender’s tax credit). Despite the direct and indirect costs of federal biofuels policy and the relatively small role of biofuels as an energy source, the U.S. biofuels sector continues to push for federal involvement. But critics of federal policy intervention in the biofuels sector have also emerged. Current issues and policy developments related to the U.S. biofuels sector that are of interest to Congress include:

• Many federal biofuels policies require routine congressional monitoring and occasional reconsideration in the form of reauthorization or new appropriations.

• The 10% ethanol-to-gasoline blend ratio—known as the “blend wall”—poses a barrier to expansion of ethanol use. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued waivers to allow ethanol blending of up to 15% (per gallon of gasoline) for use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. However, the limitation to newer vehicles, coupled with infrastructure issues, could limit rapid expansion of blending rates.

• The slow development of cellulosic biofuels has raised concerns about the industry’s ability to meet large federal usage mandates, which in turn has raised the potential for future EPA waivers of mandated biofuel volumes and has contributed to a cycle of slow investment in and development of the sector.

In 2012, the expiration of the blender tax credit, poor profit margins (due primarily to high corn prices), and the emerging blend wall limitation have contributed to a drop-off in ethanol production and have generated considerable uncertainty about the ethanol industry’s future.


Date of Report: May 1, 2013
Number of Pages: 44
Order Number: R41282
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41282.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Animal Agriculture: Environment

A selected collection of Congressional Research Service studies expanded by Penny Hill Press through content selection and hyperlink activation.


Date of Report: May 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 122
Order Number: IC1325
Price: $28.00

To Order:

IC1325.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.