Emergency Funding for Agriculture: A Brief History of Supplemental Appropriations, FY1989-FY2012

Ralph M. Chite
Section Research Manager

From FY1989 through FY2012 (to date), 42 appropriations, authorization, or farm disaster acts added approximately $70.0 billion in supplemental funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs (excluding the Forest Service, which is funded annually under the Interior appropriations bill). Approximately $51.1 billion, or just under three-fourths of the total amount, was provided since FY2000.

Since FY1989, a large portion ($44 billion) of the total supplemental funding has been paid directly to farmers, primarily through two mechanisms: “market loss payments” ($21.7 billion, almost all from FY1999 to FY2001) to compensate for low farm commodity prices; and crop disaster payments ($22.3 billion) paid to any producer who experienced a major crop loss caused by a natural disaster. The remaining $26 billion has funded a wide array of other USDA programs, including livestock feed assistance programs, farm conservation programs, specialty crop assistance, farm loans, and non-farm USDA programs such as overseas food aid, and rural development assistance. (Not included in the total is funding provided through the Supplemental Revenue Assistance (SURE) Program and four other disaster programs that were authorized and funded by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), and were designed to replace ad-hoc crop disaster payments through FY2011.)

In recent years, virtually all of the supplemental spending has been provided under an emergency designation from Congress and the Administration, meaning that the new spending did not have to be offset with comparable reductions in other programs. However, in some earlier cases a portion of the supplemental was offset by spending reductions in other programs.

Total annual funding additions in the 42 acts providing supplemental economic, farm disaster, and other assistance through USDA programs since FY1989 are as follows: FY1989, $3.4 billion; FY1990, $1.5 billion; FY1991, $0; FY1992, $1.0 billion; FY1993, $1.9 billion; FY1994, $3.1 billion; FY1995, $0.6 billion; FY1996, $0.1 billion; FY1997, $0.5 billion; FY1998, $0.2 billion; FY1999, $6.6 billion; FY2000, $14.8 billion; FY2001, $11.3 billion; FY2002, $0.6 billion; FY2003, $3.6 billion; FY2004, $0.2 billion; FY2005, $3.8 billion; FY2006, $2.2 billion; FY2007, $3.65 billion; FY2008, $3.17 billion; FY2009, $6.89 billion; FY2010, $0.5 billion; FY2011, $0; FY2012, $0.4 billion. 
Grand total, FY1989-FY2012, $70.0 billion.

Date of Report: November 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL31095
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill

Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

As Congress debates the next farm bill, the conservation title continues to receive increased attention and interest from farmers and ranchers as well as environmental and conservation organizations. Conservation programs, provisions, and funding authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 farm bill) will expire at the end of FY2012. Discussions for the conservation title could center on amending existing programs, adding new options to protect or restore resources on agricultural lands, and/or consolidating duplicative approaches.

Conservation is provided through a combination of technical assistance, cost-sharing, and performance-based incentives that are supported by education and research programs. The existing portfolio of conservation includes more than 20 programs, ranging in size and scope. Participation is voluntary and all farm bill conservation programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Generally, farm bill conservation programs may be grouped by similar characteristics, such as working lands, land retirement and easements, conservation compliance, and other programs and overarching provisions. The majority of these programs are authorized to received mandatory funding from USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

During this time of heightened budgetary concerns, additional emphasis is placed on reducing mandatory spending. In the past 25 years, conservation has received an increasing level of mandatory funding authorized through farm bills. Nutrition, direct payments, crop insurance, and conservation make up 99% of the 10-year estimated baseline funding for farm bill programs. As a result, conservation is one of the four major sources of mandatory program spending that is expected to be closely examined during reauthorization. Also, 37 farm bill provisions do not have baseline funding beyond FY2012, five of which are within the conservation title. It appears that funding continues to be at the forefront of discussions surrounding the conservation title, and could likely drive the debate for program reauthorization.

Aside from budgetary issues, other programmatic topics continue to be discussed. Major questions being debated about conservation include the following: (1) Should existing programs be amended, and if so, how? (2) Could savings be created by reducing program duplication? (3) How should funding be divided between programs for land retirement and for working lands? (4) Should conservation programs be subject to the same program limitations as other commodity support programs? (5) What will be the impact on the debate of new data that highlights the connection between conservation practices and positive environmental results? Answers to these questions have been offered in extensive testimony at hearings, and are reflected in the policy options that Congress is considering.

The federal response to environmental concerns related to agriculture is viewed as both supportive and restrictive. One of the primary means of support is provided through the voluntary conservation programs established in the farm bill. These conservation programs are increasingly called upon to support best management practices to meet federal environmental requirements; however, these programs are being considered for funding reductions. Other conservation efforts, such as conservation compliance on highly erodible lands and wetlands compliance, may be viewed as restrictive. Potential changes in commodity programs could reduce the effectiveness of compliance programs. This has caused some to advocate for reestablishing compliance ties to other farm programs, such as crop insurance.


Date of Report: November 21, 2011
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R42093
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Renewable Energy Programs and the Farm Bill: Status and Issues

Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) renewable energy programs have been used to incentivize 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—including corn starch-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and soybean-based biodiesel.

The 2002 farm bill (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L. 107-171) was the first omnibus farm bill to explicitly include an energy title (Title IX). The energy title authorized grants, loans, and loan guarantees to foster research on agriculture-based renewable energy, to share development risk, and to promote the adoption of renewable energy systems. The 2002 farm bill was followed by two major energy bills (the Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58; and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, P.L. 110-140), which established and expanded a national biofuels mandate along with several other renewable energy programs.

The 2008 farm bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) built on the 2002 farm bill as well as the previous renewable energy legislation, but refocused biofuels policy initiatives in favor of non-corn feedstocks, especially cellulosic-based feedstocks, in response to growing concerns about the emerging spillover effects of increasing corn use for ethanol production. Like the 2002 farm bill, the 2008 farm bill contained a distinct energy title (Title IX) that significantly expanded the number and types of programs available to support renewable energy production and use. In addition, new renewable-energy provisions were included in the rural development (Title VI), research (Title VII), livestock (Title XI), and tax (Title XV) titles of the 2008 farm bill.

The 2008 farm bill authorized $1.1 billion in mandatory funding for energy programs for FY2008 through FY2012, compared with $800 million in the 2002 farm bill (FY2002-FY2007). Mandatory authorization in the 2008 farm bill includes $320 million to the Biorefinery Assistance Program, $300 million to the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, and $255 million to the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) is authorized to receive such sums as necessary (i.e., funding is open-ended and depends on program participation). Discretionary funding in the 2008 farm bill totaled $1.7 billion (including $600 million for the Biorefinery Assistance Program), compared to $245 million in the 2002 farm bill. However, all discretionary program funding is subject to the annual appropriations process, which may or may not appropriate funds due to budget constraints. Actual discretionary appropriations to Title IX energy programs have been substantially below authorized levels through FY2012.

Implementation of the farm bill’s energy provisions is ongoing. President Obama, in May 2009, directed USDA and the Department of Energy (DOE) to accelerate implementation of renewable energy programs. Notices, proposed rules, and final rules have appeared in the Federal Register soliciting applications for those programs with available funding. The primary energy-related issue for the next farm bill is the expiration at the end of FY2012 and lack of baseline funding going forward for all major energy-related provisions of Title IX. In addition, the appearance of substantial redundancy across renewable energy programs at USDA and DOE, the slow development of the U.S. cellulosic biofuels sector, and concerns about the emerging spillover effects of increasing corn use for ethanol production are issues that are likely to emerge during the next farm bill debate.


Date of Report: November 18, 2011
Number of Pages: 36
Order Number: R41985
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Environmental Regulation and Agriculture

Megan Stubbs, Coordinator
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

As the U.S. and global economies continue to struggle, some inside and outside of Congress have expressed concern about how environmental regulation may stifle growth and productivity. Much of the criticism has focused on environmental regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some claim that EPA is overreaching its regulatory authority and imposing costly and burdensome requirements on society. The agriculture community, among others, has been vocal in its concerns, contending that EPA appears to be focusing some of its recent regulatory efforts on agriculture. Environmental advocates, on the other hand, support many of EPA’s overall regulatory efforts to protect public health and the environment. Where agriculture contributes to environmental impairment, these groups say, it is appropriate to consider ways to minimize or eliminate the adverse impacts.

A healthy agriculture industry and a healthy environment are both important to the nation. However, agricultural production can have varying impacts on the environment. The use of both natural resources and synthetic inputs in agricultural production can sometimes create a negative impact on human health and the surrounding ecosystem. The magnitude of these environmental impacts varies widely across the country and changes over time. Given the agricultural sector’s size and potential to affect its surrounding environment, there is interest in tightening environmental policies while also maintaining an economically viable industry. Most recognize the agriculture community’s efforts to protect natural resources while striving to maintain a sustainable and abundant food supply.

The current federal response to environmental issues associated with agriculture is viewed as being both restrictive and supportive. Traditionally, farm and ranch operations have been exempt or excluded from many environmental regulations. The challenges and complexity of regulating numerous crop and livestock operations can be cost-prohibitive for government regulators; thus environmental policies have historically focused on large industrial sources such as factories and power plants, not farms. Much of the current farm policy addressing environmental concerns is through economic incentives to encourage beneficial production practices.

Growing interest in the impact of EPA’s regulatory actions on many sectors of the economy is evident in Congress, which has been examining the roles of EPA and other federal agencies in regulating environmental protection. Among the broad options for Congress, besides conducting general oversight, are reviewing rules under the Congressional Review Act, amending current law to modify an agency’s authority, introducing freestanding legislation, or using appropriations bills to prevent funds from being used for specific actions.

The majority of environmental regulations that could affect agriculture are administered by EPA, though not all. In some cases, agriculture is the direct or primary focus of the regulatory actions. In other cases, agriculture is one of many affected sectors. Of particular interest to agriculture are regulatory actions affecting air, water, energy, and chemicals. Issues associated with air (e.g., dust and emissions) and water quality (e.g., fertilizer and nutrient run-off) are a primary focus of many regulations affecting agriculture because of agriculture’s potential to affect these resources. Changes in energy policy, namely bioenergy, have recently become important to many in the agricultural industry based on the potential of corn-based biofuel production to contribute to the nation’s energy supply. The risks associated with agricultural chemical use and possible impacts on human health and the environment have also led to recent federal regulatory reviews of chemical fertilizer and pesticide use.


Date of Report: November 15, 2011
Number of Pages: 46
Order Number: R41622
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Farm Safety Net Proposals for the 2012 Farm Bill

Dennis A. Shields
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Ongoing budget deliberations by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction have generated concerns that a farm bill to reauthorize farm programs expiring in 2012 may be written by budget negotiators rather than by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. Various proposals have emerged that recommend lower federal spending, including cuts to agriculture programs ranging from $10 billion to more than $80 billion over 10 years.

In response, Members of Congress, the Administration, and a number of farm groups have put forward proposals to reduce government expenditures on farm subsidies and revise farm programs. Many of these farm program proposals were unveiled in September 2011 as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction began its deliberations on government-wide budget cuts. The proposals discussed here might be a starting point for developing the next installment of farm programs when the 2008 farm bill expires in 2012. Other ideas have also been proposed but are not discussed here because of duplication or due to insufficient information at time of publication.

Many proposed cuts and policy changes have been directed at commodity programs and crop insurance because these programs account for the bulk of agricultural funding (excluding conservation and nutrition programs, which are also considered part of the agricultural budget). Commodity programs, crop insurance, and the recently expired farm disaster programs comprise the so-called “farm safety net”—the federal government’s suite of programs designed to support farm income and help farmers manage risks associated with variability in crop yields and prices. To generate budget savings and provide funding for proposed changes to the farm safety net, nearly all of the proposals either reduce or eliminate direct and counter-cyclical payments. Most proposals either leave the marketing loan program unchanged or retain it with modest modifications; however, it would be eliminated under two proposals.

To facilitate comparisons, the various proposals are loosely grouped into five categories: (1) minor policy changes, (2) revised revenue programs, (3) enhanced crop insurance, (4) whole-farm insurance, and (5) other.


Date of Report: November 10, 2011
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R42040
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.