Deficit reduction influenced the Agricultural Act of 2014 ( P.L. 113-79 ; 2014 farm bill) throughout its legislative development. Questions about the availability of mandatory funding, trends over time, and sequestration affected the suite of policies that were enacted. Congress returns to the "farm bill" about every five years to establish an omnibus policy for food and agriculture. The farm bill authorizes programs in two spending categories: mandatory and discretionary. Mandatory programs generally operate as entitlements; the farm bill pays for them using multi-year budget estimates when the law is enacted. Discretionary programs are authorized for their scope, but are not funded in the farm bill; they are subject to appropriations. While both types of programs are important, mandatory programs often dominate the farm bill debate. The 2014 farm bill was enacted on February 7, 2014. The previous farm bill, the 2008 farm bill, expired in 2012 and was extended through 2013. The 2014 farm bill had been in development for over two years, with committee bills originating in 2012 and passing the Senate ( S. 3240 ), but not reaching the House floor ( H.R. 6083 ), in part because of budget concerns. In 2013, new bills were introduced in the House ( H.R. 1947 ) and passed in the Senate ( S. 954 ). But the House rejected the committee bill and—for the first time in 40 years—separated food stamps from the farm bill. Two separate bills were passed—one for farm programs ( H.R. 2642 ) and the other for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps; H.R. 3102 ). The House bills were recombined for conference with the Senate ( H.R. 2642 , H.Rept. 113-333 ). The range of deficit reduction proposals indicates the importance of the budget. Some broad deficit reduction plans proposed reducing the farm bill by $10 billion to $179 billion. The Agriculture committees' reductions ranged from $17.8 billion over 10 years in the Senate bill, to $51.9 billion in the recombined House bill. The enacted reduction was $16.6 billion over 10 years, but even this has been referred to, unofficially, as a $23 billion because of sequestration. At enactment of the 2014 farm bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the total cost of mandatory programs at $489 billion over the next five years (FY2014-FY2018). Four farm bill titles account for most of the mandatory spending. Of the projected net outlays, about 80% ($391 billion over five years) is for SNAP. Farm commodity support and crop insurance are expected to account for a combined 13% of mandatory program costs ($65 billion), with another 6% of costs in USDA conservation programs ($28 billion). Programs in all other farm bill titles are expected to account for about 1% of all mandatory expenditures ( Figure 1 ). If the 2008 farm bill had continued, CBO estimated that mandatory outlays would have been $494 billion for the five-year period. Compared to this baseline, the 2014 farm bill reduces projected spending and the deficit by $5.3 billion (-1.1%) over five years. The net reduction is composed of some titles receiving more funding, while other titles provide offsets ( Table 1 ). Federal spending on agriculture can be divided several ways. Understanding budget terminology and the methods of determining federal spending is important when analyzing farm bill spending. The federal budget for agriculture-related programs is about $145 billion in FY2014; farm bill programs are a subset of that amount. The total can be divided several ways using terms such as mandatory and discretionary spending. Moreover, some parts of the annual Agriculture appropriation are not in the jurisdiction of one or both of the Agriculture authorizing committees for the farm bill ( Figure 2 ). Of the $145 billion total FY2014 Agriculture appropriation (P.L. 113-76), about $125 billion was for mandatory programs (entitlements that are authorized both inside and outside the farm bill), of which about $106 billion was for mandatory programs that are authorized in the farm bill, and $19 billion was for child nutrition programs that are authorized outside the farm bill and not in the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee, and $21 billion was for discretionary programs (partially authorized in the farm bill). Discretionary spending (the green pie slice and stacked column in Figure 2 ) is controlled by annual appropriations acts and is under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The farm bill may authorize discretionary appropriations, but the programs are not funded until an appropriation is made. Most agency operations (salaries and expenses) are paid for with discretionary funds. The primary discretionary programs are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); agricultural research; most rural development programs; the Food for Peace and other international food aid programs; agricultural credit and administration of farm supports; meat and poultry inspection; certain conservation programs; and food marketing, plant and animal health, and regulatory programs. For mandatory spending (the salmon-colored slices in Figure 2 ), the Agriculture appropriation carries the amounts, but does not pay for them or generally determine the amounts. Mandatory spending is controlled by authorizing legislation and—for farm bill programs—is under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. The primary mandatory spending categories carried in the Agriculture appropriations bill are the: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps)—designed primarily to increase the food purchasing power of eligible low-income households to help them buy a nutritionally adequate low-cost diet; Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)—the funding mechanism for most mandatory farm bill programs, including the farm commodity programs and some conservation, trade, research, horticulture, bioenergy, and rural development programs; crop insurance—a risk management tool that offers subsidized premiums to farmers and administrative payments and reinsurance to private insurance companies; some Section 32 programming—Section 32 is a separate account funded by customs receipts and created to assist non-price-supported commodities; and child nutrition programs—to fund meals, snacks, and milk for children (and, in one program, some adults) in congregate, institutional settings. The account includes funding for the National School Lunch Program, among other programs. Differences over what is included in the Agriculture appropriations bill—as compared with the farm bill—primarily can be attributed to certain nutrition programs and the Food and Drug Administration. The child nutrition programs and WIC, which are in Agriculture appropriations, are not part of the farm bill because they are not in the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee (the Senate Agriculture Committee does have jurisdiction). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), part of Agriculture appropriations, is not in the jurisdiction of the House or Senate Agriculture Committees (House Commerce Committee; and Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee). The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is in the jurisdiction of both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, and the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee (but not the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee). Allocating and determining mandatory spending is one of the primary purposes of the farm bill. The farm bill "pays for" mandatory spending by creating the necessary budget authority, using resources available under budget enforcement rules. The rest of this report focuses on mandatory spending and its allocation during the legislative process. Funding to write new legislation (e.g., a new farm bill) is based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline projections of the cost of current laws (e.g., existing farm bill programs) and budgetary assumptions about whether programs will continue. These amounts are shown in the CBO baseline projections for mandatory spending (what is available) and in the budget scores of proposed bills (changes to the baseline). CBO develops the baseline and scores of bills under the supervision of the House and Senate Budget Committees. This process sets the mandatory budget for the farm bill. The CBO baseline is an estimate (projection) at a particular point in time of what future federal spending on mandatory programs would be under current law. The 2014 farm bill was developed throughout 2013, and passed in January 2014, using the CBO baseline projection from May 2013. CBO periodically re-estimates the baseline to incorporate changes in economic conditions. When CBO updates the baseline (an update of a projection without any changes to law), the revision does not trigger budget enforcement mechanisms that require an increase to be paid for or allow savings to be claimed. Instead, the update shows how changing economic conditions affect projected outlays under current law. That is, increases in projected costs from last year's baseline to this year's re-estimate (e.g., because more people qualify for entitlements) do not require offsets to pay for higher costs. Likewise, reductions in projected costs from last year's baseline to this year's re-estimate (e.g., because less government intervention is needed) do not create savings that can be used to pay for (offset) other programs. The baseline serves as a benchmark or starting point for assessing changes from proposed legislation. When new bills affect mandatory spending, the impact of a bill (or its "score") is measured as a difference from the baseline . Projected increases in costs above the baseline (that is, a score greater than zero) may be subject to budget rules such as statutory or other types of PAYGO. Reductions in cost below the baseline (that is, a score less than zero) provide savings for deficit reduction or offsets that can be used to help pay for other provisions that have a cost. From a budget perspective, programs with a continuing baseline are assumed to go on under current law, and have their own funding available for reauthorization if policymakers want them to continue. Normally, a program that receives mandatory funding in the last year of its authorization will be assumed to continue at that level of funding into the future as if there were no change in policy. This allows major farm bill provisions such as the farm commodity programs or nutrition assistance to be reauthorized periodically without assuming that funding will cease or following zero-based budgeting. However, some programs may not be assumed to continue in the budget baseline beyond the end of a farm bill because the program did not receive new mandatory budget authority during the last year of a farm bill, or the baseline during the last year of a farm bill is below a minimum $50 million scoring threshold that is needed to continue a baseline, or the budget committees and agriculture committees did not give the program a baseline in the years beyond the end of the farm bill—either to reduce the program's 10-year cost when the farm bill was written, or to prevent a continuing baseline. Budget enforcement rules use a 10-year period to measure the future effect of proposed legislation. Therefore, regardless of the length of an authorization (e.g., that the farm bill usually covers a 5-year period), the budget effects and baseline are discussed in 1-, 5-, and 10-year increments for budget enforcement purposes. The May 2013 CBO baseline for mandatory farm bill programs was $973 billion for the 10-year period FY2014-FY2023 ( Figure 3 ). This may be considered the amount that was available to write the 2014 farm bill. This baseline already reflected a reduction of $6.4 billion over the 10-year baseline because of the effects of sequestration (discussed later in this section). Of the total amount, most of the $973 billion post-sequestration baseline was for domestic nutrition assistance programs ($764 billion, or 79%), primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The rest, about $208 billion, was divided among various agriculture-related programs, primarily crop insurance ($84 billion, or 8.6%), farm commodity price and income supports ($59 billion, or 6.0%), and conservation ($62 billion, or 6.3%). Less than 1% of the baseline was for mandatory spending on international trade ($3.4 billion), horticulture programs ($1.1 billion), and the miscellaneous title ($1.4 billion for the Noninsured Assistance Program, NAP). The baseline showed that the 2008 farm bill's programs, if they were to continue, were expected to spend about $100 billion per year through FY2016, and then decline through the rest of the baseline period to about $95 billion per year in 2023. The nutrition portion was expected to decline, while conservation and crop insurance outlays were expected to increase ( Figure 4 ). Table 2 lists the baseline totals shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 , and the amounts for individual programs that had baseline within each title. The table provides data for each year FY2014-FY2018, the 5-year total (FY2014-FY2018), and the 10-year total (FY2014-FY2023). Table 2 also shows an alternative total that is slightly smaller. Some programs had baseline for expected outlays that remained from the 2008 farm bill, but were not considered to have funding available for reauthorization beyond the end of the 2008 farm bill. These include the Wetlands Reserve Program, Grasslands Reserve Program, Biomass Crop Assistance Program and other bioenergy programs, Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program, and organic and specialty crops research. Without these programs, the 10-year baseline for "continuing" farm bill programs was $949 million smaller. The alternative 10-year total was thus $972 billion, and the alternative total for the non-nutrition agricultural programs still rounded to $208 billion. Figure 5 shows the baselines for the individual programs comprising the $208 billion 10-year subtotal of the non-nutrition programs (all of the programs except SNAP). The colors assigned to the programs are consistent with the colors of the titles in earlier figures, and show which programs in each title have the most baseline. In the farm commodity programs, "direct payments" were the primary program with a mandatory funding baseline. Direct payments had become vulnerable politically in a high farm-income environment because they were made regardless of market price and farm income conditions. The other farm commodity programs that make "counter-cyclical payments" did not have much baseline in May 2013 because high market prices for farm commodities had reduced payments. The crop insurance baseline was larger than for the farm commodity programs, and considered by most farmers and policymakers to be the most important remaining component of the farm "safety net." Premium subsidies to farmers were the largest component, but reimbursements to insurance companies for delivery expenses and underwriting gains were not insignificant. Total estimated costs of the conservation programs were about as large as estimated farm commodity spending. The largest three conservation programs had 93% of total conservation baseline (the Conservation Reserve Program, the Conservation Security Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program). Two other farm bill titles had more than $1 billion in 10-year baseline. The trade title had $3.4 billion, mostly in the Market Access Program (MAP). The horticulture and organic agriculture title had $1.1 billion of 10-year baseline, with half in specialty crop block grants, and half for pest and disease prevention. The miscellaneous title had $1.4 billion of continuing 10-year baseline for the Noninsured Assistance Program (NAP). The energy title had $0.2 billion of 10-year baseline for continuing programs, specifically the Feedstock Flexibility program to convert sugar to ethanol. The forestry, research, and rural development titles were combined under "Other" in the figure and did not have programs with continuing baseline. The credit title is not shown because it had a negative baseline, reflecting receipts into a Farm Credit System insurance fund. Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board spending reductions under which budgetary resources are permanently canceled to enforce statutory budget goals. The current requirement for sequestration was included in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25 ). Many of these rules are based on the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended (Title II of P.L. 99-177 , also known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act). Some farm bill programs are exempt from sequestration. The nutrition programs and the Conservation Reserve Program are exempt from sequestration. Other programs, including prior legal obligations in crop insurance and some of the farm commodity programs, may be exempt, as determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). However, many agricultural programs are subject to budget sequestration, if it is imposed, as illustrated below. Given the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose budget reductions by January 2012 and in the absence of a "grand bargain" for deficit reduction, OMB ordered budget sequestration on March 1, 2013. The sequestration rate for FY2013 was 5.0% from non-defense discretionary spending and 5.1% from non-defense mandatory programs. The March 1, 2013, OMB report indicated that about $1.9 billion was sequestered in FY2013 from accounts in Agriculture and related agencies appropriations—$1.2 billion from discretionary accounts and $700 million from mandatory accounts. Nearly all of the $23 billion of discretionary agriculture budget authority was subject to sequestration. About $14 billion of the mandatory budget was sequesterable. This latter amount was a fraction of the $100 billion total mandatory amount since most of SNAP and child nutrition were exempt, and OMB exempted most of crop insurance. User-fee funded accounts and trust funds were subject to sequestration. The May 2013 CBO baseline for farm bill programs incorporates a sequestration effect beyond FY2013 ( Table 3 ). As discussed before, the rules for constructing a baseline allow for continuation of program funding in the baseline at the funding level in the last year of authorization. Because sequestration reduced the budget authority for several farm bill programs, and that reduction happened to be during the last year of their authorization, the sequestration reduction had the consequence, via budget rules, of a multiple year effect on the baseline. The May 2013 baseline ( Table 2 ) is $6.4 billion less over FY2014-FY2023 than it would have been without sequestration. Table 3 shows how the sequestration reduction was allocated across years, titles, and programs in determining the farm bill baseline. The agriculture committees had less mandatory baseline available to write the 2014 farm bill because sequestration had already taken effect. This multi-year reduction to the farm bill baseline did occur and would have remained in effect even if no 2014 farm bill were enacted. Observers who assert that the deficit reduction achieved by the enacted 2014 farm bill was greater than the official CBO scores (as discussed in the next section) essentially are trying to use a different baseline—a baseline that did not exist. Therefore, the official scores of the 2014 farm bill are the CBO scores as discussed below. The 2014 farm bill was in development for over two years and was debated in both the 112 th and 113 th Congresses. In 2012, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees each reported a bill. The Senate passed S. 3240 and the House Agriculture Committee reported H.R. 6083, but House floor action never occurred, resulting in a one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 112-240 ). In 2013, new Agriculture committee bills were introduced in the House (H.R. 1947) and passed in the Senate ( S. 954 ). But the House rejected the initial committee bill and—for the first time in 40 years—separated food stamps from the farm bill. Two separate bills were passed in the House: one for farm programs (H.R. 2642) and the other for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps; H.R. 3102). The two House bills were recombined for conference with the Senate and final enactment (H.R. 2642, H.Rept. 113-333 ). Because of the focus on deficit reduction and the connection to budget enforcement, the most commonly cited budgetary amounts during the farm bill debate were the 10-year totals for the baseline and scores. These 10-year amounts are highlighted throughout this section, but 5-year amounts for the FY2014-FY2018 authorization period are discussed in Figure 1 and Table 1 . As discussed earlier, the budgetary impact of the 2014 farm bill is measured relative to what the 2008 farm bill would have spent—that is, the CBO baseline. The May 2013 CBO baseline projected that the mandatory programs of the 2008 farm bill, if it were continued, would have spent $973 billion over the next 10 years (FY2014-FY2023). This consisted of $764 billion for nutrition programs, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and $208 billion for non-nutrition agriculture-related programs. This "baseline" already had been reduced by $6.4 billion to reflect the effects of sequestration over the 10-year baseline, all of which has come from the agriculture-related portion since SNAP is generally exempt from sequestration. Compared to the $973 billion post-sequestration baseline, the 2014 farm bill—at enactment—reduced projected spending and the deficit by $16.6 billion (-1.7%) over the 10 year period FY2014-FY2023. Over the 5-year period through FY2018, the enacted farm bill reduced projected spending by $5.3 billion (-1.1%). The enacted 2014 farm bill saves less than either the House-passed or Senate-passed proposals. The House-passed combination of H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3102 together would have reduced spending by $51.9 billion (-5.3%) over 10 years. The Senate-passed farm bill proposal ( S. 954 ) would have reduced spending by $17.9 billion (-1.8%) over 10 years. If the baseline had not already been reduced by sequestration, the enacted 2014 farm bill could have been credited for reducing spending by $23 billion over 10 years. Similarly, the savings from each of the House and Senate proposals could have been $6.4 billion greater. But sequestration had already been factored into the baseline, so the official score of P.L. 113-79 remains that it reduced the deficit by $16.6 billion over 10 years. The net reduction is composed of some titles receiving more funding than in the past, while others receive less. The latter provide budgetary offsets to pay for titles with increased spending, and the rest of the savings go to deficit reduction. Budgetary savings are scored in the nutrition, farm commodity subsidies, and conservation titles. Additional funding is provided for the crop insurance, research, bioenergy, horticulture, rural development, trade, and forestry titles. Figure 6 illustrates the 10-year budgetary impacts of changes to each title in the House and Senate bills, and in the enacted law. Under the combined House bills, seven titles would have received a combined $10.7 billion increase, and three titles would have offered a combined budgetary reduction of $62.5 billion. The net reduction would have been $51.8 billion over 10-years. Under the Senate bill, seven titles would have received a combined $7.4 billion increase, and four titles would have offered a combined budgetary reduction of $25.2 billion. The net reduction would have been $17.8 billion over the 10-year period. Under the enacted law, the 2014 farm bill increases outlays for eight titles by a combined $9.8 billion relative to their baselines, and three titles offer a combined budgetary reduction of $26.3 billion. The net reduction is $16.5 billion over 10 years. Table 4 contains the same data in tabular form and includes an estimate of the proposed outlays (baseline plus score). Table 5 presents the more-detailed year-by-year scores of each provision in the enacted law. The corresponding detailed scores for the proposed bill are available in Appendix A (House) and Appendix B (Senate). One of the most noticeable budget differences between House and Senate bills was the reduction proposed for the nutrition title, with the House bill proposing to reduce it by $39.0 billion (-5.1%) over 10 years, and the Senate bill proposing to reduce it by $3.9 billion (-0.5%). This $35 billion difference between the House and Senate bills emerged as one of the most important political issues for the farm bill in 2013. The enacted bill settled on an $8.0 billion reduction in the nutrition title (-1.0%). Nearly all of the budgetary reductions came from adjusting standard utility allowances based on receipt of energy assistance payments, and did not include any changes to categorical eligibility that further reduced the baseline in the House proposal. For the agriculture-related (non-nutrition) portion of the bill, the House bill's proposed reduction was $12.8 billion (-6.2%) over 10 years, and the Senate bill's proposed reduction was $13.9 billion (-6.7%) over 10 years. The enacted bill settled on an $8.5 billion reduction (-4.1%) in the agriculture-related subset of the bill, smaller than either the House or Senate proposal. Reductions in the farm safety net were not as large as in the House or Senate proposals, as discussed below. Moreover, increases in other titles of the bill—primarily in the research and horticulture titles—were larger than in either the House or Senate proposals, the scope of the miscellaneous title was larger and more costly, and other titles such as rural development and energy adopted the larger of increases proposed by either chamber. For crop insurance and the farm commodity programs—together considered by many the farm "safety net" —the combined reduction would have been larger in the Senate proposal than in the House bill: a combined reduction of $12.4 billion in the Senate bill and $9.8 billion in the House bill. Although the House bill would have made a bigger net reduction to the farm commodity programs than the Senate bill, it would have increased crop insurance by more than the difference. For commodity programs, both bills recognized nearly $47 billion of savings by repealing direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, and the average crop revenue election. But both created new counter cyclical-type payment programs in their place and reauthorized certain disaster assistance programs that together cost relatively more in the Senate bill than in the House bill. For crop insurance, the House bill would have increased benefits more than the Senate bill, providing $3.9 billion more in new funding than the Senate bill. The net result for the combined safety net is that the House bill would have spent $2.7 billion more than the Senate bill. That is, proposed 10-year safety net outlays in the combined farm commodities and crop insurance titles would have been about $133.1 billion under the House bill, and $130.4 billion under the Senate bill. The enacted 2014 farm bill reduces the farm safety net baseline by $8.6 billion over 10 years, comprised of a $14.3 billion net reduction in Title I, offset by a $5.7 billion increase for crop insurance. This is a smaller net reduction than in either the House or Senate proposals. Although the increase for crop insurance was closer to the smaller increase in the Senate bill, the net reduction in Title I was less than proposed in either bill, since the projected costs from blending the components of the House's and Senate's counter-cyclical approaches in the conference agreement, and the compromise for the dairy program, were higher than in either proposal. The combined farm safety net (farm commodity programs plus crop insurance) was projected at enactment to cost $134.3 billion over 10 years. One possible "big picture" view of the enacted law's budget effects is that the $8 billion reduction in nutrition plus the $8.6 billion net reduction in the farm safety net together approximately equal the $16.5 billion deficit reduction that was scored the new law. Subsequently, following this view, the amount of reduction in the conservation title ($3.967 billion) approximately equals—or offsets—the increases in spending for the other titles such as trade, rural development, research, forestry, horticulture and the miscellaneous title ($4.048 billion, combined). Changes to conservation programs are similar in many regards between the two bills, though the House bill would have saved $1.3 billion more than the Senate bill in Title II (reductions of $4.8 billion and $3.5 billion, respectively). The enacted 2014 farm bill reduces the conservation baseline by $4.0 billion over 10 years (-6.4%). For the rest of the titles in the enacted farm bill, research programs receive $1.145 billion more than their baseline over 10 years, the miscellaneous title costs an additional $0.953 billion, the energy title $0.879 billion, horticulture $0.694 billion, rural development $0.228 billion, trade $0.139 billion, and forestry $0.010 billion. Figure 7 shows the score of the farm bill for each of the 10 years individually. The format is title-by-title like Figure 6 , but shows when outlays or savings occur during the budget window. Net budgetary savings do not begin until the second year of the farm bill in FY2015. Savings from the commodity title do not begin until FY2015 because agricultural disaster payments begin in FY2014, and the repeal of direct payments is not felt until FY2015. Direct payments for the 2013 crop year (authorized under the extension of the 2008 farm bill and paid according to statute after October 1, 2013) were paid in FY2014. Moreover, most payments for the new farm commodity program do not occur until FY2016 because they are paid after the end of the marketing year, which occurs a year after harvest (e.g., for crops harvested in the fall of 2014—the first year of the 2014 farm bill—payments would be after October 1, 2015, which is FY2016). This makes the budgetary effect for Title I in FY2015 particularly large because it is primarily the repeal of direct payments. Changes to both crop insurance and conservation grow gradually over time, with more of the effect in the second five years. In fact, conservation has additional spending in the first two years, relative to the baseline, before savings occur. Figure A-1 and Figure B-1 show the corresponding multi-year graphs for the House and Senate bills, respectively. These year-by-year figures reveal additional differences that are peculiar to the House and Senate bills. For example, a cumulative limit on new farm program payments in the House bill is scored so that it reduces outlays in FY2020 (revealing more of the repeal of direct payments) and defers those payments until FY2021 (balancing the program over those two years). As mentioned at the beginning of this report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that, at enactment, the total cost of the farm bill would be $489 billion over the next five years (FY2014-FY2018), which is -1.1% less than the May 2013 baseline. Of this amount, $391 billion was for nutrition, $65 billion for the farm safety net (farm commodity support and crop insurance), $28 billion for conservation, and nearly $5 billion for other titles ( Figure 1 , Table 1 ). In terms of the 10-year score at enactment discussed throughout this section, the 2014 farm bill is expected to spend $956 billion over 10 years (-1.7% compared to the baseline). Of this amount, $756 billion is for nutrition and $200 billion is for the agriculture-related portion. Figure 8 illustrates the 10-year amount relative to the May 2013 baseline that was used to develop the bill and the House and Senate proposals. The first stacked bar is the same $973 billion distribution of the baseline from Figure 3 . The House bill's combined $51.9 billion reduction over 10 years (-5.3%) would have reduced expected outlays to $921 billion over the FY2014-FY2023 period (the second bar). The Senate bill's $17.9 billion reduction (-1.8%) would have reduced expected outlays to $955 billion (the third bar). The enacted Agricultural Act of 2014 reduces outlays by $16.6 billion (-1.7%) to $956 billion (the fourth bar). This last bar corresponds to the distribution of the pie graph in Figure 1 , although on a 10-year basis. The allocation of baseline among titles, and the size of each amount, is not a zero-sum game when CBO updates the baseline projection over time. Every year, CBO re-estimates the baseline—separately and independently for each program—to determine expected costs. It uses the formulas that exist in law at that time. Baseline projections rise and fall based on changes in economic conditions, even without any action by Congress. Each farm bill title with mandatory spending represents a share or proportion of the farm bill budget. One share of the farm bill that has attracted attention is the nutrition baseline, but other shares of the baseline have similar stories. The proportion and size of the farm bill budget contained in the nutrition title has increased over time. When the 2008 farm bill was enacted, the nutrition title was 67% of the 10-year total ($406 billion out of a $604 billion 10-year projected total). When the 2014 farm bill was enacted six years later, the share in the nutrition title was 79% of the total ($756 billion out of a $956 billion 10-year projected total). This growth in size and proportion does not mean, however, that the nutrition has grown at the expense of agricultural programs. During this period, legislative changes in the farm bill account for only a fraction of the change. For example, the 2014 farm bill scored $16 billion in 10-year savings from the most recent baseline, while 10-year expected costs increased $352 billion from one farm bill to the next. By title, the farm bill scored $8 billion in 10-year savings from nutrition, while 10-year nutrition outlays increased by $350 million. Similarly, legislative changes to crop insurance and the farm commodity program do not equal the changes in outlays for those titles. Table 6 highlights changes in budgetary expectations for SNAP and farm safety net supports from enactment of the 2008 farm bill to enactment of the 2014 farm bill. This is a separate way of analyzing costs than the official scoring analysis discussed earlier in this report. In recent years, due to the recession, projected nutrition program outlays rose because food assistance needs increased as the automatic safety net triggered greater payments to more beneficiaries according to formulas in the law. The projected 10-year SNAP outlay rose by 10.9% per year from enactment of the 2008 farm bill to enactment of the 2014 farm bill. This $350 billion increase in expected 10-year outlays is entirely from changing economic expectations that require more outlays, since the legislative changes in the farm bill scored an $8 billion reduction. Over the same period, expected crop insurance outlays increased as agricultural market prices rose and caused the insured value of crops (and thus premium subsidies) to grow. The expectation of 10-year crop insurance outlays rose by 11.3% per year from enactment of the 2008 farm bill to enactment of the 2014 farm bill—a higher annualized rate of increase than for SNAP, though the dollar magnitude is less. The $43 billion increase in expected 10-year outlays for crop insurance is mostly from changing economic expectations rather than the $5.7 billion increase that was legislated in Title XI by the 2014 farm bill. Conversely, expected farm commodity program outlays fell as market prices rose and less counter-cyclical price support was expected under the law. In addition, the 2014 farm bill eliminated direct payments, the largest relevant component of 2008 farm bill spending. The expectation of 10-year farm commodity program outlays fell by 10.3% per year from enactment of the 2008 farm bill to enactment of the 2014 farm bill. In total, the $41 billion reduction in expected 10-year outlays from enactment of the 2008 farm bill to enactment of the 2014 farm bill is from both changing economic conditions and the $14 billion net reduction legislated in Title I. The "farm safety net" subtotal of crop insurance and the farm commodity programs is nearly constant from the 2008 farm bill to the 2014 farm bill. Expected 10-year outlays were $133 billion in 2008 and are $134 billion in the 2014 farm bill. Despite the $14.3 billion reduction in Title I scored in the 2014 farm bill and the offsetting $5.7 billion increase in crop insurance—which scored as net reduction in the safety net—expected 10-year outlays for the farm safety net increased slightly (by +0.2% per year) from the enactment of the 2008 farm bill to enactment of the 2014 farm bill. Other titles are expected to spend more in the 2014 farm bill than in the 2008 farm bill, primarily because of policy changes. The amount for the research title, in particular, has grown at the greatest pace despite its comparatively small magnitude. While some programs (like most farm commodity programs and nutrition assistance) have assumed future funding, other programs (mostly newer ones) do not. Thirty-seven programs that received mandatory funding throughout nearly all titles of the 2008 farm bill did not continue to have assured funding for the 2014 farm bill. Continuing all of these programs would have required an estimated $9 billion to $14 billion of offsets from other programs. The one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill in P.L. 112-240 did not provide any additional mandatory funding for any of the 37 programs without baseline. In lieu of mandatory funding, the extension of the farm bill made numerous "authorizations of appropriations" to allow discretionary funding for FY2013, but this did not provide funding. Discretionary funding, subject to availability in a tight budget environment, conceptually could have been provided (but was not) by the appropriations committees in the FY2013 Agriculture appropriation ( P.L. 113-6 ). The enacted 2014 farm bill provides 29 of these 37 programs with new mandatory funding that totals $6.2 billion over the five-year period FY2014-FY2018. A few of these programs even received permanent baseline for the second five years, including the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and the Rural Energy for America Program, or were incorporated into other programs. The enacted law provides more mandatory funding to more of these 37 programs than either proposal. The combination of House-passed farm bills would have provided about $4.9 billion of mandatory funding (over five years) to 14 of the programs. The Senate-passed farm bill would have provided more than $4.5 billion of mandatory funding for 25 of the programs. Table 5 indicates which programs in the 2014 farm bill might become future concerns because of this issue. The scores for the second five-year period of the budget horizon (FY2019-FY2023) reveal which programs would receive baseline funding beyond the expiration of the 2014 farm bill in FY2018, and which would receive baseline only for the initial five-year window of the bill. For example, three other research programs would receive baseline only through FY2018. Similarly, all of the mandatory-funded program in the rural development title, the farmers market promotion program, and outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers, among other programs, also do not have a baseline beyond FY2018. This also is an issue for all of the energy title programs, except for the Rural Energy for America program, which received a permanent baseline. The farm commodity programs could have become more expensive if left to expire and outdated "permanent law" provisions were resurrected. A set of non-expiring provisions from the 1938 and 1949 farm bills, as amended, remain in statute, but have been suspended by modern farm bills. No official estimates exist for the budgetary effect of reverting to permanent law. But the support levels under permanent law were above even some of the high market prices for commodities in 2013. This could have resulted in greater subsidy outlays than under the May 2013 baseline. Several government-wide deficit reduction proposals from 2010 to 2013 included agricultural programs (see Appendix C ). These proposals sometimes may have been seen to have affect—or correspond to—the level of savings in the farm bill proposals, in either amount or components. The $24 billion in savings in S. 954 —if sequestration reductions were restored—is consistent with the score of the 2012 Senate farm bill proposal ($23.1 billion) and the savings proposed by the House and Senate Agriculture committees for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (a.k.a. the Super Committee) in the fall of 2011. The reduction in S. 954 from the nutrition title (which is not affected by sequestration) is nearly the same as in the Super Committee proposal. And the $13 billion reduction from commodity programs in the Super Committee proposal was roughly the same as the $12.4 billion of net savings in S. 954 from the farm commodity program and crop insurance. For the House bill, the evolution of scores begins with the July 2012 score of $35.1 billion of savings for H.R. 6083 being consistent with the $33.2 billion of reconciliation instructions in the FY2013 House budget resolution ( H.Con.Res. 112 ) and the $35.8 billion of savings identified by the Agriculture Committee for budget reconciliation. A primary difference, though, was that all of the reconciliation savings were from nutrition programs, while more than half of the savings in the subsequent farm bill proposals have been from nutrition programs. In 2013, H.R. 1947 proposed to make $33.4 billion of reductions, about the same as the 2012 proposals on first blush. But the bill's effective reduction before the adjustment for sequestration implied a greater reduction than 2012, sometimes stated as high as $39 billion. Compared to the 2012 House proposal, H.R. 1947 raised the proposed nutrition reduction from $16.1 billion to $20.5 billion. When H.R. 1947 failed to pass the House, H.R. 3102 increased the proposed nutrition reduction to $39 billion, and the combined reduction in H.R. 3102 and H.R. 2642 to $52 billion. Thus, each iteration of the House proposal took the House bill further away from the Senate proposal's budget effect. Separate from the mandatory spending figures above, the CBO cost estimates of the farm bill proposals include a projection of discretionary appropriations that would be needed to carry out the authorized farm bill programs. For S. 954 and H.R. 1947 , CBO estimated that $37.6 billion and $32.9 billion of discretionary appropriations (budget authority), respectively, would be needed over the five-year period FY2014-FY2018. (A corresponding estimate was not made for H.R. 2642 , but it would be similar to that for H.R. 1947 given the similarity in provisions between H.R. 1947 and H.R. 2642 .) No estimate was provided for the conference agreement. However, not all of these amounts represent new programs or spending, since much of the totals are for reauthorizing programs that already are appropriated in the annual Agriculture appropriations bill (e.g., agricultural research). Moreover, these amounts would be subject to annual decisions by the budget committees and the appropriations committees . Appendix A. Score of the House Farm Bill ( H.R. 2642 , as combined with H.R. 3102 ) Table A-1 presents the detailed year-by-year scores of each provision in the House-passed farm bill ( H.R. 2642 , as combined with H.R. 3102 ). The score at the title level is slightly different as presented in the summary in the conference report score, but section-by-section details were not available. Therefore, the more detailed section-by-section score from the earlier but consistent CBO score of the bill, as reported, is provided here. Figure A-1 shows the title-by-title totals of the House-passed farm bill for each individual year in the budget window. The format and scale are consistent with Figure 7 that shows the amounts for the enacted 2014 farm bill. In addition to the larger scale of reductions apparent in the House bill, a cumulative limit on new farm program payments in the House bill was scored so that it reduced outlays in FY2020 (revealing more of the repeal of direct payments) and deferred those payments until FY2021 (balancing the program over those two years). This provision was not in the enacted farm bill, which consequently does not have the range of scores in the commodity title for FY2020-FY2021. Appendix A. Appendix B. Score of the Senate Farm Bill (S. 954) Table B-1 presents the detailed year-by-year scores of each provision in the Senate-passed farm bill (S. 954). Figure B-1 shows the title-by-title scores of the Senate-passed farm bill for each individual year in the budget window. The format and scale are consistent with Figure 7 that shows the amounts for the enacted 2014 farm bill. Appendix C. Broad Deficit Reduction Proposals In February 2010, President Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to identify changes to balance the budget. From 2010-2013, several other government-wide proposals were made and most included reductions to agriculture or farm bill spending ( Table C-1 ). In these government-wide deficit reduction proposals, cuts from the agriculture committees' baseline ranged from $10 billion in the President's Fiscal Commission, $30 billion in the Bipartisan Policy Center plan, and $179 billion in the House-passed FY2013 budget resolution. These proposals often are compared to the $23 billion reduction offered by the leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to the Joint Select Committee of Deficit Reduction. Each of these proposals specifically recommended some reduction to the farm commodity programs or crop insurance, and sometimes to export promotion and conservation. Only a subset recommended reductions to nutrition programs. Together, they represent a range of common ideas and the visibility of the agriculture and nutrition spending for deficit reduction.

Summary: Congress returns to the "farm bill" about every five years to establish an omnibus policy for food and agriculture. Deficit reduction influenced the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79; 2014 farm bill) throughout its legislative development. Related political dynamics sometimes forced Congress to make difficult choices concerning how much total support to provide for agriculture and nutrition, and how to allocate it among competing constituencies. The farm bill authorizes programs in two spending categories: mandatory and discretionary. Mandatory programs generally operate as entitlements; the farm bill pays for them using multi-year budget estimates when the law is enacted. Discretionary programs are authorized for their scope, but are not funded in the farm bill; they are subject to appropriations. While both types of programs are important, mandatory programs often dominate the farm bill debate. At enactment of the 2014 farm bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the total cost of mandatory programs would be $489 billion over the next five years (FY2014-FY2018). Four farm bill titles account for most of the mandatory spending. Of the projected net outlays over five years, about 80% ($391 billion over five years) is for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—SNAP, formerly food stamps. Farm commodity support and crop insurance are expected to account for a combined 13% of mandatory program costs ($65 billion), with another 6% of costs in USDA conservation programs ($28 billion). Programs in all other farm bill titles are expected to account for about 1% of all mandatory expenditures. In terms of change from the former farm bill, the budgetary impact of the 2014 farm bill is measured relative to what the 2008 farm bill would have spent had it continued—that is, the CBO baseline. The May 2013 CBO baseline projected that the mandatory programs of the 2008 farm bill would have spent $973 billion over the next 10 years (FY2014-FY2023). This "baseline" already had been reduced by $6.4 billion to reflect the effects of sequestration. Compared to the baseline, the 2014 farm bill—at enactment—reduced projected spending and the deficit by $16.6 billion (-1.7%) over the 10-year period FY2014-FY2023. Over the 5-year period through FY2018, the enacted farm bill reduces projected spending by $5.3 billion (-1.1%). If the baseline had not already been reduced by sequestration, the enacted 2014 farm bill could have been credited for reducing spending by $23 billion over 10 years. But since sequestration already had been factored into the baseline, the official score is the $16.6 billion 10-year reduction. The net reduction is composed of some titles receiving more funding than in the past, while other titles receive less. Titles with reductions provide budgetary offsets to pay for titles with increased spending, and the rest of the savings go to deficit reduction. Budgetary savings totaling $26.3 billion are scored in the nutrition, farm commodity subsidies, and conservation titles. Additional funding totaling $9.8 billion is provided for the crop insurance, research, bioenergy, horticulture, rural development, trade, and forestry titles. The enacted 2014 farm bill saves less (is projected to spend more) than either the House-passed or Senate-passed proposals. Over 10 years, the House-passed proposal would have reduced spending by $51.9 billion (-5.3%); the Senate-passed proposal would have reduced spending by $17.9 billion (-1.8%).