{ "id": "R45275", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R45275", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 583661, "date": "2018-07-27", "retrieved": "2018-08-09T13:41:48.916676", "title": "The House and Senate 2018 Farm Bills (H.R. 2): A Side-by-Side Comparison with Current Law", "summary": "Congress sets national food and agriculture policy through periodic omnibus farm bills that address a broad range of farm and food programs and policies. The 115th Congress has the opportunity to establish the future direction of farm and food policy, because many of the provisions in the current farm bill (the Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79) expire in 2018. \nOn June 21, 2018, the House voted 213-211 to approve H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, an omnibus farm bill that would authorize farm and food policy for FY2019-FY2023. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 2, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also a five-year bill, on June 28, 2018, on a vote of 86-11. \nIn terms of cost, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of July 24, 2018, of the programs in both bills with mandatory spending\u2014such as nutrition programs, commodity support programs, major conservation programs, and crop insurance\u2014over a 10-year budget window (FY2019-FY2028) amounts to $867 billion in the Senate-passed bill and $865 billion in the House-passed bill. These cost projections compare with CBO\u2019s baseline scenario of an extension of existing 2014 farm bill programs with no changes of $867 billion. In both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2, most existing programs would be extended through FY2023. Overall, the bills provide a relatively large measure of continuity with the existing framework of farm and food programs even as they would modify numerous programs, alter the amount and type of program funding that certain programs receive, and exercise discretion not to reauthorize some others. \nBoth bills would extend commodity support programs largely along existing lines while modifying them in different ways. For instance, the House bill could raise the effective reference price for crops enrolled in the Price Loss Coverage program (PLC) under certain market conditions. It would also amend payment limits and the adjusted gross income (AGI) limit for eligibility for farm program payments and increase the number of producer exemptions from payment and income limits. In contrast, the Senate bill would leave payment limits unchanged while lowering the AGI limit for payment eligibility. The Senate would also leave PLC unchanged while adopting changes to the Agricultural Risk Coverage program (ARC) that could enhance its appeal as a program option. Both bills would amend disaster assistance programs but under different approaches. Both bills would also rename the dairy program and expand coverage choices for milk producers, and both bills extend the sugar program with no changes. \nThe House and Senate bills would reauthorize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for five years, and both bills include polices intended to improve error and fraud detection. Among their differences, the House bill includes multiple changes to who is eligible for SNAP and the calculation of benefits, which are not included in the Senate bill. The House bill includes major changes to work requirements, while the Senate bill would make changes that are minor by comparison.\nWithin the conservation title, the two bills would raise the acreage limit on enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), with the House bill setting a higher limit than the Senate does. Among other differences, the House bill would repeal the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), whereas the Senate bill would extend CSP but lower the limit on acreage enrollment. The House bill also increases funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), while the Senate bill reduces funding for EQIP. Within the credit title, both bills increase the maximum loan amounts for the U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s guaranteed farm ownership loans and guaranteed farm operating loans. The Senate bill would also raise the limits for direct farm ownership loans and direct farm operating loans, whereas the House bill would not. The miscellaneous title of both bills establishes an animal disease preparedness program and a vaccine bank, although they diverge over funding.\nThe Senate bill includes a number of provisions that are intended to facilitate the possible commercial cultivation of industrial hemp, while the House bill would amend certain regulatory requirements that apply to industrial hemp. For rural communities, the House bill would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reprioritize certain loan and grant programs and take other actions to respond to specific health emergencies, and it would require the Secretary to promulgate minimum acceptable standards for broadband service. The Senate bill would establish priorities for awarding loans and grains for rural broadband projects and add a new program on substance abuse education and prevention. Both bills extend most bioenergy programs, but the House bill places them within the title on rural development and infrastructure, while the Senate bill maintains a separate energy title. Moreover, while the House bill would provide discretionary funding for these programs but no mandatory funding, the Senate bill would provide both mandatory and discretionary funding.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45275", "sha1": "3caa3a32a3aeca4569d685ed8919a6327a29df84", "filename": "files/20180727_R45275_3caa3a32a3aeca4569d685ed8919a6327a29df84.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45275_files&id=/2.png": "files/20180727_R45275_images_cc82b368ead396bceaf537b6d3d19e5d30104d46.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45275_files&id=/3.png": "files/20180727_R45275_images_a721bcf8c7f27f28174c462991592e0dff475473.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45275_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180727_R45275_images_77427ef5d991443a18412feb240b7243ff069458.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45275_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180727_R45275_images_82e4cf2c7f4bbb684f3fff1c009ca3603f7c38a8.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45275", "sha1": "190fd188cb3108fa61235c2cfdbda65fb3b13f1f", "filename": "files/20180727_R45275_190fd188cb3108fa61235c2cfdbda65fb3b13f1f.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4743, "name": "Animal Agriculture" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4770, "name": "Conservation & Natural Resources" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4771, "name": "Food Safety" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4829, "name": "Agricultural Trade & Food Aid" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4830, "name": "Agriculture Budget & Appropriations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4856, "name": "Nutrition Programs & Policies" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4919, "name": "Farm Support" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Agricultural Policy", "Economic Policy", "Energy Policy", "Environmental Policy", "Foreign Affairs", "Health Policy", "Industry and Trade" ] }