Below is a comparison of existing law to the Farm Bill that passed
in the House of Representatives on October 5, 2001 and the Farm Bill that
passed the Senate on February 13, 2002. This comparison focuses on
the Commodity Title and Conservation Title
A conference committee will meet in the coming weeks to work on the differences in the two versions of the bill. In some areas, these differences are quite large.
One key difference to consider when comparing the House and Senate bills is that the House bill is a 10-year bill while the Senate version is a 5-year bill.
Click here for the full text of the House version of the Farm Bill - HR 2646, The Farm Security Act of 2001.
Click here for the full text of the Senate version of the Farm Bill - S. 1731.
To view the proposals submitted by farm groups earlier this year, click
here .
|
|
HR 2646 |
S. 1731 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| The 1996 Farm Bill provides counter cyclical income support through
marketing loan gains and LDP's. The only direct counter cyclical payments
come through LDP's.
Congress has also provided support in recent years through a series of ad hoc disaster assistance payments. Prior to the current law, the 1995 Farm Bill included the following target prices: Target Price
|
Direct counter-cyclical payments on a commodity-by-commodity basis
would be provided.
Counter-cyclical payments would be made to producers if prices for a commodity fell below a certain level. Payments would be calculated as follows: (Target Price) - (Fixed Payment) - (Higher of: Marketing loan rate or National twelve-month season average price received by producers). Payments would be made on 85% of a producer's base. Target prices: Wheat: $4.04
|
Payment rate for each crop would equal:
(Income Protection Price) - (Direct Payment) - (Higher of 5-month avg.
price or loan rate)
Producers would receive counter-cyclical payments equal to: (base acres)X(program yield)X(payment rate)
Payments would be made on 100% of a producer's base. Income Protection Prices: Wheat $3.45
*An amendment offered by Senator McConnell and passed by the Senate reduces these rates - but in each case by less than one cent (the benefits are diverted to nutrition programs). |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| Loan rates are set, generally, at not less than 85% of the 5-year Olympic average price for the commodity and not more than the paplicable loan rate cap. | Formulas are maintined. | Formulas are eliminated, and firm loan rates are set. | ||
| 2001 Marketing Loan Rates
Wheat: $2.58
*set by formula taking into account the feed value relative to corn |
Proposed marketing loan
rate caps:
Wheat: $2.58
|
Proposed marketing loan
rates:
Wheat: $3.00
Dry Peas: $6.78
*An amendment offered by Senator McConnell and passed by the Senate reduces these rates - but in each case by less than one cent (the benefits are diverted to nutrition programs). |
||
|
|
||||
| The 1996 Farm Bill provided
transition payments for eligible commodities through production flexibility
contracts.
Payments are based on contract acreage and past production and are "decoupled" from current production. Oilseeds were not eligible for these payments. The 1996 Farm Bill set up a payment rate schedule that was scheduled to decrease payments each year from 1996 through 2002. Payments are made on 85% of crop base and payment yields have been frozen since 1985. |
Continuation of transition
payments equal to the amount provided in 2002. Payments would continue
to be made on 85% of base.
The 2002 scheduled payment
levels are:
Oilseeds would be eligible
at the following rates:
|
Payments would be made on
100% of base. Direct Payment Rates are reduced over the 5-year life of
the bill as follows:
2002/03 2004/05 2006 Wheat: $0.45 $0.225 $0.113
Soybeans: $0.550 $0.275 $0.138
|
||
|
|
||||
| The 1996 Farm Bill established
"Contract Acreage" as a base for payments. The contract acreage was equal
to the crop acreage bases that would have been in effect for each producer
in 1996 under the previous law.
That base was generally the average acres planted and considered planted to each crop for the preceding 5 crop years (1991-1995). For cotton and rice, the basis was the average of the previous 3 crop years (1993-1995). |
Producers would be able
to update base acres if so desired. Under the proposal, payment base may
be calculated using:
Payment base for decoupled and counter-cyclical payments are 85% of base |
Base would be determined
using one of two options:
Producers electing to update bases would also be able to update program yields to the greater of:
|
||
|
|
||||
| Any commodity can be grown on acreage except, in most cases, fruits and vegetables | Flexibility provisions would be maintained | Flexibility provisions would be maintained | ||
|
|
||||
| Payment limitations are
set at $40,000/year in AMTA payments and $75,000/year in marketing loan
gains and LDP payments in the current Farm Bill.
The payment limit for marketing loan gains and LDP's was raised to $150,000 for the 1999 crop year by the 200 Ag Appropriations bill and again for the 2000 crop year by the 2001 Ag Appropriations bill. |
Payment limitations are increased to $50,000 for fixed payments, $150,000 for marketing loan gains and LDP payments, and $75,000 for counter-cyclical payments | Eliminates the Three-entity Rule and replaces it with a system designed
to limit any individual or entity to one total payment with limits of $75,000
in direct and counter cyclical payments and $125,000 in loan gains or LDP's.
An additional $50,000 in payments would be allowed for qualifying married
couples.
Sets up an income cap of $2.5 million. Any individual or entity with a three-year average income over $2.5 million would not be eligible for any payments. Also includes provisions that would include gains from commodity certificates in with loan gains and LDP's as part of the limit and makes several changes to the "actively engaged in farming" requirements. |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| Production for the domestic
edible peanut market is limited to a national quota of 1.18 million tons.
Additional peanuts are not limited but may be sold only for export or crushing.
Quota can be sold or leased by farmers within a state.
Quota peanut prices are supported by a nonrecourse loan at not less than $610/ton. Additional peanuts are supported by a loan rate currently set at $132/ton. Since the government sets the market price through a combination of production controls and a loan program, there are no direct government payments. |
Reforms the peanut program
to make it similar to other commodities:
Fixed decoupled payment =
$.018/lb.
Terminates the quota program (and the restrictions on selling certain peanuts only for export or crushing) and provides a $0.10/lb payment to quota holders for five years. |
Reforms the peanut program
to make it similar to other commodities:
Fixed decoupled payment =
$.018/lb.
Terminates the quota program (and the restrictions on selling certain peanuts only for export or crushing) and provides a $0.11/lb payment to quota holders for five years. |
||
|
|
||||
| Nonrecourse loans are available
with loan rates fixed at $0.18/lb. for raw cane sugar & $0.229/lb.
for refined beat sugar . A one cent penalty is imposed by the CCC on any
sugar that is forfeited under the nonrecourse loan program.
Sugar marketing assessments are set at 1.375 percent of the loan rate for cane and 1.47425 percent of the loan rate for beets. |
|
|
||
|
|
||||
| The current dairy price support program is set at $9.90/cwt. | Extends the milk price support program at $9.90/cwt |
For most states, the program would provide payments to dairy producers based on the following formula: Payment Quantity x Payment Rate Payment Quantity = milk produced & marketed during a given quarter
A separate payment program is created for the Northeast (DE, ME, MA,
MD, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, and WV). For those states, a producer
would receive monthly payments based on the same formula, except that:
For both programs, payment quantity would be limited based on a "milk
marketing base" formula that is based on historic production
|
||
|
|
||||
| Wool and Mohair price supports were terminated in 1996. | Creates a marketing assistance
loan program similar to other commodities.
Loan rate =
|
Creates a marketing assistance
loan program similar to other commodities.
Loan rate =
*The marketing loan for mohair was amended out of the Senate bill. |
||
|
|
||||
| Honey loan programs were terminated in 1996. | Creates a
marketing assistance loan similar to other commodities.
Loan rate = $0.60/lb. |
Creates a
marketing assistance loan similar to other commodities.
Loan rate = $0.60/lb. |
||
|
|
||||
| Neither the House bill nor the committee version of the
Senate bill contained short-term emergency assistance provisions, but a
floor amendment added the following provisions to the Senate bill:
· $1.8 billion for emergency income loss assistance to be administered
in a similar manner as the assistance provided in the 1999 and 2001 Ag
Appropriations bills
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| Provides farmers with annual
payments through a multi-year contract for converting environmentally sensitive
land out of production to vegetable cover.
CRP enrollment is currently capped at 36.4 million acres |
|
|
||
|
|
||||
| Provides funding and technical
assistance to eligible producers for soil and water projects.
Funding for EQIP is currently set at $200 million/year with half of that amount targeted to livestock water quality |
|
|
||
|
|
||||
| Provides financial support for wetlands restoration through permanent easements, 30-year easements, and wetlands restoration agreements. | Reauthorizes WRP with an additional 150,000 acres/year |
|
||
|
|
||||
| Provides cost sharing for the development and maintenance of wildlife habitat | Funds WHIP annually at $30 million in FY '03,'04; $35 million in FY '05, '06; $40 million in FY '07; $45 million in FY '08, '09; and $50 million in FY '10, '11. |
|
||
|
|
||||
| Provides funding to help keep farmland that is subject to development pressures in agricultural use. | Reauthorizes of FPP at $50 million annually |
|
||
|
|
||||
| No existing Program |
|
|
||
|
|
||||
| No current program | Farmland Stewardship Program
Establishes a Farmland Stewardship Program that allows the Secretary to implement or combine together features of the Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Forest Land Enhancement Program, Farmland Protection Program, or other conservation programs at the Federal, State, or local level into one agreement with owners or operators of eligible land. Funding for the agreements would be provided by funds used to carry out the specific conservation programs listed in the agreement and from matching funds made at the State or local level. The Secretary would be authorized to administer an agreement in partnership with other agencies (Federal, State, or local) whose programs are incorporated into the agreement. The Secretary would also be able to authorize other government agencies to act as contracting agencies on behalf of the Secretary in administering these agreements. |
Conservation Security Program
Establishes a Conservation Security Program that, with CCC funds, provides incentive payments to farmers for maintaining and adopting conservation practices on working lands. Under the Conservation Security Program, producers would develop and submit a conservation plan to the Secretary. The plan would include conservation practices that fall within one of three tiers provided in the program. The producer would then enter into a conservation security contract that would provide a base payment for the conduct of practices designated in the conservation plan. Producers may also be eligible for bonus payments for the implementation of additional conservation measures. |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
This page was last updated on February 22, 2002.