Congress has been active in establishing federal policy for the agricultural sector on an ongoing basis since the 1930s. Over the year s, as economic conditions and technology have evolved, Congress has regularly revisited agricultural policy through periodic farm legislation. Across these decades, the breadth of policy areas addressed through such farm bills has expanded beyond providing support for a limited number of agricultural commodities to include establishing programs and policies that address a broad spectrum of related areas, such as agricultural conservation, credit, rural development, domestic nutrition assistance, trade and international food aid, organic agriculture, forestry, and support for beginning and veteran farmers and ranchers, among others. On 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 establish farm and food policy for the next five years, covering FY2019-FY2023. The vote to approve H.R. 2 followed a failed vote of 198-213 on the same bill on May 18, 2018. The final passage vote on June 21 followed a vote of 233-191 approving a motion to reconsider, which was made after the unsuccessful vote on final passage of May 18. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 2, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, on June 28, 2018, on a vote of 86-11. Both the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2 continue the tradition of multi-year farm bills that would establish policy for farm programs and nutrition assistance. To this end, H.R. 2 addresses agriculture and food policy across 11 titles in the House bill and 12 titles in the Senate bill. These titles cover commodity support programs, agricultural conservation, trade and international food aid, domestic nutrition assistance, credit, rural infrastructure and economic development, research and extension, forestry, horticulture, and a variety of other policies and initiatives. The disparity in the number of titles between the two bills reflects the provision of a separate title for energy programs in the Senate bill, whereas the House bill would eliminate what had been a separate energy title in the 2014 farm bill and place these agricultural energy programs within the title on rural infrastructure and economic development. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its scores of H.R. 2 as passed by the House and the Senate on July 24, 2018. CBO projected that spending on mandatory programs in the Senate bill would total $867 billion over the 10-year period FY2019-FY2028 and $865 billion in the House bill. These totals compare with CBO's estimate of the cost of extending the current 2014 farm bill for 10 years of $867 billion. According to CBO, the estimated costs across titles and individual programs frequently differ between the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill as well, reflecting the program priorities and policy preferences of each chamber. The Budget Impact section of this report includes a breakdown of these differences in the two bills. Both versions of H.R. 2 would supersede the current slate of farm programs and policies authorized by the 2014 farm bill, P.L. 113-79 , many of which are to expire in 2018 unless Congress acts to reauthorize or extend them. Certain programs, such as crop insurance, are permanently authorized and would continue to operate in the absence of new farm legislation or an extension of the current farm bill. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) could continue to operate as long as funding is appropriated. But if the current farm law were to expire, many other programs—such as revenue support programs for producers of major agricultural commodities—including corn, wheat, milk, sugar, and others—would be governed by so-called permanent laws, which date from the late 1930s and 1940s and do not expire. These permanent laws, including the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-430) and Agricultural Act of 1949 (P.L. 81-439), rely on supply controls to buttress price support regimes that would raise market prices of these basic farm commodities above existing levels. A change in farm policy along these lines could restrict production and prove to be broadly disruptive for farmers, farm input suppliers, agricultural exporters, food manufacturers, and consumers. Many other programs, such as conservation programs and rural development programs, would cease to function. In the past, when Congress has faced the prospect of expiring farm legislation without enacting successor legislation, it has acted to extend the existing policies, as it did when the 2002 and 2008 acts expired. A change in the current policy environment from the situation that prevailed when the 2014 farm bill was being debated and enacted is the reduced profitability of the U.S. farm economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) forecasts that for 2017 and 2018, net cash farm income—a measure of the profitability of farming—will be about one-third below the high levels reached in 2012 and 2013, when Congress was considering the 2014 farm bill. The decline in net cash farm income over this period reflects declining prices for many commodities. More recently, trade disputes involving major U.S. agricultural export markets—including China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU—has led to imposition of tariffs by these trading partners on a range of U.S. farm product exports. Agricultural exports provide critical support to U.S. commodity prices and farm profitability. The tariffs have coincided with a further decline in prices for some U.S. agricultural products while fostering uncertainty about the near-term prospects for U.S. agricultural exports and, by extension, farm income. This report provides a title-by-title summary of the policies and provisions in the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2 and compares them with current law. Following an analysis of the budgetary implications of both bills, summaries of some of the changes that the House and Senate bills would make in each of their 11 and 12 titles, respectively, are provided. These summaries are followed by title-specific side-by-side comparison tables that briefly describe the provisions in the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2 and compare them with the current law or relevant existing policy. A farm bill authorizes funding in two ways. It authorizes and pays for mandatory outlays with multiyear budget estimates when the law is enacted. It also sets the parameters for discretionary programs and authorizes them to receive future appropriations but does not provide funding. Mandatory programs often dominate farm bill policy and the debate over the farm bill budget. The budgetary impact of mandatory spending proposals is measured relative to an assumption that certain programs continue beyond the end of the farm bill. The benchmark is the CBO baseline —a projection at a particular point in time of future federal spending on mandatory programs under current law. The baseline provides funding for reauthorization, reallocation to other programs, or offsets for deficit reduction. In April 2018, CBO released a baseline for farm bill programs with mandatory spending that will be used for the rest of the legislative year. It projects that, if current law were extended, farm bill programs would cost $867 billion over the next 10 years, FY2019-2028, 77% of which is in the nutrition title for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The remaining $203 billion baseline is for agricultural programs, mostly in crop insurance, farm commodity programs, and conservation. Other titles of the farm bill contribute about 1% of the baseline ( Table 2 , Figure 1 ), some of which are funded primarily with discretionary spending. When a new bill is proposed that would affect mandatory spending, the score (cost impact) is measured in relation to the baseline. Changes that increase spending relative to the baseline have a positive score; those that decrease spending relative to the baseline have a negative score. Budget enforcement uses these baselines and scores and may follow "PayGo" and other budget rules (that in part may require no increase to the federal deficit). Relative to the baseline, CBO released its scores of H.R. 2 as passed by the House and as passed by the Senate ( Table 2 ). The 10-year score of House-passed H.R. 2 is a net reduction of $1.8 billion from the federal budget (-0.21% below the $867 billion baseline). This is the result of a decrease in projected outlays of $1.3 billion and $0.5 billion of new revenue from fees that would be paid by contractors in the SNAP program. On a shorter-time-period basis, the five-year score shows a net increase of $2.2 billion over the $426 billion baseline that is more than offset by net reductions in the second five years of the budget window. The 10-year score of the Senate-passed amendment to H.R. 2 is budget neutral ($0, +0%), with an overall increase in outlays of $68 million (+0.01%) that is offset by a $68 million increase in revenue from fees for an oilheat program. As in the House bill, the five-year score shows a net increase ($1.6 billion) that is offset by net reductions in the second five years of the budget window. The overall relatively small scores (measured in percentage changes) of the bills are the net result of sometimes relatively larger increases and reductions across individual titles ( Table 2 , Figure 2 ). In the House bill, the 10-year score of outlays shows increases for the commodities, trade, research, and miscellaneous titles. These increases are more than offset by net reductions in the nutrition, conservation, energy (rural infrastructure), and crop insurance titles, as well as a revenue provision in the nutrition title. In the Senate bill, the 10-year score shows increases for the trade, energy, horticulture, research, and miscellaneous titles. These increases are offset by net reductions in the rural development and commodities titles, along with a revenue provision in the miscellaneous title. Some of the overall scores within an individual title are the net result of increases in individual provisions, which are offset by reductions in other provisions within a title. In the House bill, the nutrition and conservation titles have numerous provisions with relatively large cumulative increases that are offset by provisions with relatively large decreases in their scores ( Table 3 , Figure 3 ). In the Senate bill, while none of the titles' cumulative increases and decreases are as large in magnitude as the changes to nutrition and conservation programs in the House bill, the section-by-section scores of the Senate bill nonetheless show both increases and decreases from the baseline. Titles such as rural development, horticulture, and research have larger scores in the Senate bill than in the House bill ( Table 4 , Figure 4 ). For several of a subset of programs in the 2014 farm bill that received mandatory funding but do not have a baseline beyond the end of FY2018, both the House and Senate bills would provide continuing funding and, in some cases, permanent baseline. In the House bill, certain trade title programs would receive $470 million and permanent baseline. A food insecurity program in the nutrition title would receive $472 million in mandatory funding and permanent baseline. Other affected programs that receive mandatory funding, but not permanent baseline, include organic research and beginning farmer programs in the research title ($250 million), two organic programs in the horticulture title ($10 million), and outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers and the wool and cotton trust funds in the miscellaneous title ($150 million). In the conservation title, small watershed rehabilitation, wetlands mitigation, voluntary public access, and grassroots source water protection programs receive over $500 million of mandatory funding. In the Senate bill, organic research would receive $450 million in mandatory funds and permanent baseline. The beginning farmer program would be combined with other outreach programs to receive $466 million and permanent baseline. Trade title programs would receive $515 million and permanent baseline. Farmers market and value-added promotion programs are combined to receive $558 million and permanent baseline. A food insecurity program in the nutrition title would receive $401 million in mandatory funding and permanent baseline. Other affected programs that receive mandatory funding, but not permanent baseline, include an agricultural research foundation ($200 million); various bioenergy programs ($375 million); three other horticulture programs ($68 million); and Pima cotton, wool, and citrus programs in the miscellaneous title ($336 million). Title I commodity programs of both the House- and Senate-passed farm bills authorize support programs for dairy, sugar, and covered commodities—including major grain, oilseed, and pulse crops—as well as agricultural disaster assistance. Major field-crop programs include the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programs and the Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) program (see Table 5 ). The dairy program involves protecting a portion of the margin between milk and feed prices. The sugar program provides a combination of price support, border protection, and producer production allotments. Four disaster assistance programs that focus primarily on livestock and tree crops were permanently authorized in the 2014 farm bill. These disaster assistance programs provide federal assistance to help farmers recover financially from natural disasters, including drought and floods. Title I also includes several administrative provisions that suspend permanent farm law from 1938 and 1949; assign payment limits for individuals, joint ventures or partnerships, and corporations; specify the adjusted gross income (AGI) threshold for program payment eligibility; and identify other details regarding payment attribution and eligibility. Both bills extend authority for most current commodity programs but with some modifications to programs for covered commodities and dairy as well as agricultural disaster assistance. The Senate bill eliminates the transition assistance for producers of upland cotton. Under both bills, the sugar program is extended but is otherwise unchanged. In general, program changes affecting covered commodities under the House farm bill make PLC a more attractive option for producers than ARC. In particular, the House farm bill includes an escalator provision that would raise a covered commodity's effective reference price (used in the PLC payment formula) by as much as 115% of the statutory PLC reference price based on 85% of the five-year Olympic average of farm prices. In addition, producers participating in PLC that experienced at least 20 consecutive weeks of severe drought during 2008-2012 would be allowed to update their program yields (used in the PLC payment formula). Producers enrolled in the county-level ARC program (or the stacked income protection plan for cotton) would be ineligible for crop insurance coverage under an area yield and loss basis or the supplemental coverage option. Furthermore, the individual, farm-level ARC program is eliminated. In contrast, the Senate farm bill leaves the PLC program unchanged but proposes changes to ARC that make it a more attractive option: ARC would use a trend-adjusted yield and would increase the yield floor (available to producers under certain conditions) to 75% of the transitional county yield (up from 70%) when calculating the benchmark county revenue guarantee. In addition, ARC would become the default option when a producer fails to choose between ARC and PLC at signup. The Senate farm bill also specifies that the county in which a farm is located be used for the benchmark and actual ARC revenue calculations, and it instructs USDA to use a single data source for county yield estimates to avoid the disparity in ARC payments that some neighboring counties experienced in recent years. The Senate farm bill would also require USDA to publish ARC and PLC payment rates within 30 days after the end of the crop marketing year and would obligate USDA to review and report on the establishment, calculation, reallocation, adjustment, and reduction of base acres. With respect to payment limits and the AGI limit, the Senate farm bill would leave payment limits unchanged but tighten the AGI limit to $700,000 (down from $900,000 under current law). In contrast, the House farm bill proposes to expand the list of producer exemptions from payment and income limits under certain conditions. First, MAL program benefits would be exempted from inclusion under both payment limits and the AGI limit. Second, payment limits would be affected by the House farm bill's treatment of eligible payment entities. Under current law, partnerships and joint ventures are treated as collections of individuals, each with their own payment limits, whereas a corporation is treated as a single individual subject to a single payment limit. The House bill would alter the treatment of certain corporations by defining qualified pass - through entity (QTPE) as including partnerships, joint ventures, limited liability corporations, and S corporations. This would allow each separate owner of a QTPE (meeting all program eligibility criteria) to have an individual payment limit. Also, the House bill would redefine family farm to include first cousins, nieces, and nephews, thus increasing the potential pool of individuals eligible for individual payment limits on family farming operations. Both the House and the Senate bills amend the permanent agricultural disaster assistance programs, but there is no overlap between the amendments. The House bill amends the limits on payments received under select disaster assistance programs and waives the AGI requirement if more than 75% of the producer's income comes from farming, ranching, or silviculture. The House bill also expands payments for livestock losses caused by disease, whereas the Senate bill expands payments for losses of unweaned livestock that occur before vaccination. The Senate bill also expands the definition of an eligible producer to include Indian tribes or tribal organizations and increases replanting and rehabilitation payment rates for beginning and veteran orchardists. Both the House and the Senate bills would rename the current dairy Margin Protection Program (MPP)—Dairy Risk Management Program (DRMP) under the House bill and Dairy Risk Coverage (DRC) by the Senate. Like MPP, both the DRMP and DRC would pay participating dairy producers the difference (when positive) between a producer-selected margin and the national milk margin (calculated as the all-milk price minus an average feed cost ration). Both bills would lower the catastrophic margin protection level. Under current law, for a $100 administrative fee, participating dairy producers automatically receive payments on 90% of their first 5 million pounds or less of milk production when the milk margin falls below $5.00 per hundredweight (cwt.). Under both DRMP and DRC, the catastrophic margin is lowered to $4.00/cwt. Both bills would also expand coverage choices for milk producers. Under current law, premiums paid by producers vary with coverage levels selected across two production tiers: Tier I is the first 5 million pounds of milk production; Tier II is milk production above 5 million pounds. Currently, dairy producers select a percent coverage ranging from 25% to 90% of the farm's historical milk production. Both DRMP and DRC propose extending the percent coverage range to 5% to 90% of a farm's milk production history. Both DRMP and DRC would reinstate premiums for the $4.50/cwt. and $5.00/cwt. margins and add margin levels of $8.50/cwt. and $9.00/cwt. under Tier I. DRMP would substantially reduce premiums for the other Tier I margins ranging from $5.50/cwt. to $8.00/cwt., while premiums for Tier II would be left unchanged. In contrast, DRC would slightly raise premiums for the other Tier I margins ranging from $5.50/cwt. to $7.50/cwt., while the $8.00/cwt. margin would be lowered slightly. DRC would raise the premiums for all Tier II margins. DRC would partially offset higher premiums by providing premium discounts for small- and medium-sized participating dairy operations: Discounts of 50% are available on Tier I and Tier II premiums for milk production history of 2 million pounds or less, and premium discounts of 25% are available on milk production history over 2 million pounds but not greater than 10 million pounds. Finally, DRC requires USDA to repay any calendar-year positive net premiums (i.e., premiums paid minus both margin-payments received and MPP program costs) to dairy operations that participated in MPP during 2015-2017. Under DRC, as under current law, dairy producers would make annual elections of a margin coverage level and a percentage of milk production to cover. Under DRMP, dairy producers would make a single one-time election, which would last the duration of the farm bill. Both the House and the Senate bills would extend through FY2023 the Dairy Forward Pricing Program, the Dairy Indemnity Program, and the Dairy Promotion and Research Program. The House bill would eliminate the provision prohibiting dairy producers from participating in both the DRMP and the Livestock Gross Margin-Dairy insurance program, although dual coverage cannot be on the same milk production. The Senate bill would retain the current law prohibition on joint participation in both margin programs. Both bills would amend the formula for the Class I skim milk price used for calculating the Class I price under Federal Milk Marketing Orders. Finally, the House bill, but not the Senate bill, would require USDA to conduct studies on whether the feed cost ration is representative of actual feed costs used in the margin calculation and on the cost of corn silage versus the feed cost of corn. The bill also directs USDA to report alfalfa hay prices in the top five milk-producing states. USDA administers a number of agricultural conservation programs that assist private landowners with natural resource concerns. These can be broadly grouped into working lands programs, land retirement and easement programs, watershed programs, emergency programs, technical assistance, and other programs. Both the House and the Senate bills amend portions of programs in all of these categories (see Table 6 ). However, the general focus is on the larger working lands, land retirement, and easement programs. The House and the Senate bills reauthorize all current conservation programs with the exception of the largest—the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)—which the House bill would repeal. The House bill would increase funding for conservation by $656 million in the short term (in the first five years) but overall reduce funding by nearly $800 million in the long term (over 10-years). The Senate bill would increase funding for conservation programs by $185 million over the first five years of authorization but would be budget neutral over 10 years. Generally, the House bill would eventually shift funding out of the conservation title, while the Senate bill would reallocate funding within the title among the larger programs. In general, working lands programs provide technical and financial assistance to help farmers improve land management practices. The two largest working lands programs—Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and CSP—account for more than half of all conservation program funding. Overall funding for both programs is reduced under the House and Senate bills, compared with current law, but in different ways and to different degrees. The House bill repeals CSP, whereas the Senate bill reauthorizes CSP and reduces program enrollment. CSP provides financial and technical assistance to producers to maintain and improve existing conservation systems and to adopt additional conservation activities in a comprehensive manner on a producer's entire operation. Currently more than 70 million acres is enrolled in CSP. The House bill provides a more limited version of the CSP stewardship contract within EQIP with the proviso that no more than 50% of EQIP funding may be used for these contracts. Repealing CSP is the primary driver behind the projected decline in spending under the conservation title of the House bill, since CSP contracts would all expire by FY2023. The House bill provides an overall increase in annual funding for EQIP, providing for annual incremental increases through FY2023 to $3 billion from $1.75 billion in FY2018. This increase in funding for EQIP would be less than the savings that would result from repealing CSP. The Senate bill reduces EQIP funding from the current level of $1.75 billion in FY2018 to $1.5 billion in FY2019 while providing for annual incremental increases to $1.6 billion in FY2023. The Senate bill also reduces CSP enrollment to 8.8 million acres annually, down from the current 10 million acres annually. The Senate bill amends CSP in a number of ways that are aimed at achieving increased environmental benefits. The House bill makes fewer changes to EQIP, when compared to the Senate bill, among which the House adds a stewardship contract, removes the allocation requirement that 60% of payments relate to livestock production, and expands options for irrigation and drainage entities. The Senate bill contains a number of amendments that focus on water quality and quantity-related practices and wildlife habitat improvement. The Senate bill also retains and reduces the allocation for livestock-related practices to 50% and increases the allocation for wildlife-related practices from 5% to 10%. Both bills amend Conservation Innovation Grants, a subprogram under EQIP. The House bill limits funding for program, while the Senate bill adds to the types of projects that may be carried out under the program. Land retirement and easement programs provide federal payments to private agricultural landowners for accepting permanent or long-term land-use restrictions. Both bills reauthorize and amend the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the largest land retirement program. CRP provides annual rental payments to producers to replace crops on highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land with long-term resource-conserving plantings. Both bills would increase CRP enrollment from the current limit of 24 million acres in FY2018, with the House bill providing for annual incremental increases to a maximum of 29 million acres in FY2023, whereas the Senate bill would allow enrollment to increase to 25 million through FY2023. In order to offset this increased enrollment level, both bills would reduce payments to participants. The House bill would limit annual rental payments to 80% of the rental rate (less for reenrollment), allow for a one-time early termination of select CRP contracts without penalty in FY2019, reduce incentives for continuous contracts, and limit cost-share assistance. The Senate bill would limit annual rental payments to 88.5% of the rental rate, delete the early termination provision, codify the existing continuous contract initiatives, create an easement program, and expand the transition option for new and limited resource producers. Both bills make a number of other changes that would further expand grazing and commercial uses on CRP acres but through different approaches. Both bills also reauthorize and amend the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). ACEP provides financial and technical assistance through two types of easements: (1) agricultural land easements that limit nonagricultural uses on productive farm or grasslands and (2) wetland reserve easements that protect and restore wetlands. In both bills, most of the changes to ACEP focus on the agricultural land easements in which USDA enters into partnership agreements with eligible entities to purchase agricultural land easements from willing landowners. Both bills would provide additional flexibilities to ACEP-eligible entities, including amendments to the non-federal cost share requirements, consideration of geographical differences, terms and conditions of easements, and certification criteria of eligible entities. Differences between the two bills center on planning requirements, eligible land criteria, eligible activities, AGI requirements, and total funding for the program. The House bill would increase overall funding to $500 million annually through FY2023 from $250 million in FY2018, whereas the Senate bill would increase funding incrementally to $450 million by FY2023. The 2014 farm bill created the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), which enrolls land through existing conservation programs in partnership with eligible partners. Under RCPP, partners define the scope and location of the project, provide 50% or more of the project cost, and work with eligible landowners to enroll in existing conservation programs. Both the House and Senate bills amend RCPP and increase annual funding—to $250 million and $200 million, respectively—from the current level of $100 million annually. Both bills also expand the set of conservation programs covered under the program and include the ability to renew partnership agreements. The Senate bill includes a number of other amendments that provide additional funding and flexibilities to partners. Both bills include amendments to conservation programs and provisions with authorities both inside and outside of omnibus farm bill legislation, including various watershed and emergency conservation programs. Both bills also require reports related to natural resources but do not overlap in the specific reports required. Similarly, both bills create new conservation programs that do not overlap. The trade title—Title III under both House and Senate bills—addresses statutes concerning U.S. international food aid and agricultural export programs (see Table 7 ). Under the farm bill authority, U.S. international food assistance is distributed through three main programs: (1) Food for Peace (emergency and nonemergency food aid), (2) Food for Progress (agricultural development programs), and (3) the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program (school lunch and feeding programs). The largest of these, the Food for Peace (FFP) program, receives about $1.5 billion in annual appropriations. Traditionally, these three programs have relied on donated U.S. agricultural commodities as the basis for their activities. However, recent farm bills have increasingly added flexibility to purchase food in local markets or to directly transfer cash or vouchers to needy recipients. FFP is administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development, while the other two programs are administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service of USDA. Both the House and Senate farm bills would reauthorize all of the international food aid programs along with certain operational details such as prepositioning and micronutrient fortification. The House bill would specifically require that food vouchers, cash transfers, and local and regional procurement of non-U.S. foods avoid market disruption in the recipient country. Both bills would amend FFP to remove a minimum monetization requirement of 15% of FFP funds and to raise the minimum requirement used for nonemergency programs to $365 million (up from $350 million) or not more than 30% of FFP funding. Also, both House and Senate bills would extend authority for several other related international programs including the Farmer-to-Farmer program, Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and Global Crop Diversity Trust, as well as two associated fellowship programs: Cochran Fellowships and Borlaug Fellowships. Current U.S. export promotion programs include the Market Access Program (MAP), the Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP), the Emerging Markets Program (EMP), and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC). These programs are administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service. Both the House and Senate farm bills would reauthorize these four programs. Under the House bill, all four export programs—MAP, FMDP, EMP, and TASC—are combined into a single program named the International Market Development Program (IMDP) while maintaining existing activities and eligibility requirements. IMDP would be authorized to receive $255 million in annual mandatory Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds for FY2019-FY2023. The House bill further creates the Biotechnology and Agricultural Trade Program in Title III to assist with the removal of non-tariff and other trade barriers to U.S. agricultural products produced with biotechnology and other agricultural technologies. The Senate bill would maintain the separate export promotion programs but adds to them the Priority Trade Fund, which gives the Secretary of Agriculture $6 million annually to further promote U.S. agricultural exports or to expand and maintain markets. The Senate bill would also allow for MAP and FMDP money to be spent on projects in Cuba (but subject to restrictions specified in a National Security Presidential Memorandum of June 16, 2017 ) and would require the Secretary to include tribal agricultural and food products on trade missions. The Senate bill would authorize $260 million in annual mandatory CCC funds for these trade programs for FY2019-FY2023. Both the House and Senate farm bills would require that no less than $200 million be spent on promotional activities for both generic and branded U.S. agricultural products, no less than $35 million on promotional activities for generic commodities, no more than $9 million for technical assistance to specialty crop groups looking to export their crops, and no more than $10 million on promoting U.S. agricultural goods to emerging markets. These funding levels reflect current authorization levels across MAP, FMDP, TASC, and EMP. Finally, both the House and Senate farm bills would reauthorize direct credits or export credit guarantees for the promotion of agricultural exports to emerging markets of not less than $1 billion in each fiscal year through 2023. The Nutrition titles of House- and Senate-passed farm bills differ in their approach to eligibility and benefit calculation rules but include some similar policies in other topic areas (see Both bills would reauthorize SNAP and related programs for five years through the end of FY2023. When CBO's 10-year estimates of the policies are totaled, the Nutrition titles of the Senate- and House-passed bills are about $1 billion apart. This difference obscures larger differences in terms of the scale and scope of policies proposed. For the House-passed bill, CBO estimates that the Nutrition title would reduce spending by approximately $1.4 billion over 10 years (FY2019-FY2028) but would also increase revenues by $465 million. This overall estimate includes (1) over $22.0 billion in savings (primarily from changes that would restrict eligibility and benefit amounts); (2) approximately $20.6 billion in increased spending (some from policies estimated to increase benefit amounts, most from funds for related grants and costs associated with administering SNAP); and (3) $465 million in revenues (from a policy that would collect fees from states). For the Senate-passed bill, CBO estimates that the Nutrition title would increase spending by $94 million over 10 years (FY2019-2028). The Senate bill's overall estimate includes (1) over $1 billion in savings (primarily from changes to integrity policies) and (2) over $1.1 billion in increased spending (from one eligibility change and increased funding for related grants and costs associated with administering SNAP). SNAP Eligibility and Benefit Calculation. The House-passed bill includes multiple policies that would affect who is eligible for SNAP and how their benefits are calculated. Some of the most prominent are limits to categorical eligibility, changes to work-related rules (subjecting a greater share of the caseload to a 20-hour work requirement and requiring states to offer employment and training opportunities), and limits to how utilities may be calculated in benefit calculation (these are described in greater detail below). The proposal would increase asset limits and change how vehicles and savings accounts are counted. It also amends the way certain income is counted or excluded and requires households' cooperation with child support enforcement. On the other hand, the Senate-passed bill would largely maintain current law in these areas, though it would increase certification periods for certain households and make some changes to existing work-related rules, including additional employment and training pilot programs. SNAP Fraud, Errors , and Related State Administration. Both bills propose policies intended to improve detection of errors and fraud. Often, the bills' policies are similar, but they are never identical. Both bills would establish or expand a data system to identify concurrent enrollment in multiple states, make changes to the Quality Control system, and increase USDA's oversight of state performance. The House bill repeals funding for performance bonuses, while the Senate bill reduces funding and limits them to application timeliness. The House bill alone would also allow states to contract out eligibility determination functions. Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) and Retailers. Both bills propose a number of policies for SNAP's EBT system and benefit redemption. Few of the policies are in both bills. They both place new limits on the fees the processors may charge. Both bills would increase USDA oversight authority for the system, but only the House bill would establish a "national gateway" for routing transactions. The House bill alone would make multivitamins and dietary supplements eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. Other SNAP-Related Grants. In addition to making changes to SNAP Employment and Training, both bills make changes to, and in some cases increase, existing grant programs' funding, with the House bill providing greater increases. Both bills would expand SNAP bonus incentives for fruit and vegetable purchases and authorize the addition of milk for certain incentive pilot programs (one with mandatory funding in the House bill, one with discretionary funding in the Senate bill). Both bills reauthorize the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) grant program, renaming it Gus Schumacher FINI and providing for evaluation, training, and technical assistance. The House bill increases FINI funding by $472 million over 10 years; the Senate bill increases funding by $401 million over two years. On nutrition education, the House bill moves SNAP's nutrition education component from SNAP state agencies to land-grant universities and increases program funding. The Senate bill makes some policy changes but does not change funding. The Senate bill also creates a new grant program that would receive $4 million in mandatory funding each year to fund produce prescription programs serving low-income individuals with diet-related diseases. Food Distribution Programs. Both bills would expand certification periods for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program in similar but not identical ways. Both bills increase mandatory funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) foods, the House (+$45 million per year) to a greater extent than the Senate bill does (+$8 million in FY2019, +$20 million each year FY2020-FY2023). Both bills authorize new aspects of TEFAP, taking similar but not identical approaches, seeking to include new donated foods and reduce food waste. Both bills would make changes to the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. The House changes are minor compared to the Senate's changes, which would increase federal funding for administrative costs and create a demonstration project for tribes to purchase their own commodities. Other Nutrition Programs and Policies. Both bills reauthorize the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and its funding. The House bill alone would amend the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to include all forms of these foods (e.g., canned, dried, frozen). The House bill alone would require USDA to review its regulations on National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program nutrition standards, both the updated standards for meals and the standards for foods served outside the meal programs. More D etails on Selected House E ligibility and B enefit C alculation C hanges. The House bill proposes a number of changes to the determination of households' financial and nonfinancial eligibility for SNAP benefits. Three of these policies were debated throughout House consideration of the bill and are described below. CBO published its cost estimates for the House-passed changes but did not publish its participation estimates for the House-passed changes. The text below includes the CBO participation estimates based on the House- reported bill. This text is in italics. 1. Broad-based categorical eligibility. The bill proposes to place additional limits on households that are eligible for SNAP based on their receipt of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. CBO estimates that the House-passed changes would reduce SNAP spending by approximately $4 billion over the 10-year window. Regarding participation, CBO estimated, for the House-reported bill, that in an average year, about 400,000 households would lose SNAP eligibility. As SNAP recipients are also eligible for free school meals, CBO estimated that in an average year, 265,000 children would lose access to free meals, though many would still be eligible for reduced-price meals. 2. Work-related requirements. The bill proposes to replace SNAP's general work requirements and time limit for able-bodied adults without dependents with a work requirement for all states. Beginning in FY2021, the proposal would require a minimum of 20 hours of work per week for nonexempt able-bodied adults. Unlike the current law time limit, which applies to 18- to 49-year-olds who do not have children, the proposed requirement would apply to 18- to 59-year-olds and would not exempt parents or caretakers of children age six or older. The proposal continues to give states authority to exempt a portion of the caseload and to request geographic waivers based on labor-market measures, with some amendments to current law. Unlike the current law time limit, the proposal requires states to offer employment or training opportunities to those individuals subject to the requirements. The bill increases SNAP Employment and Training funding for the states, increasing mandatory funding in a formula grant for states from $110 million in current law to $270 million in FY2020 and to $1 billion in FY2021 and each year thereafter. CBO estimates that the House-passed work-related changes would reduce spending on SNAP benefits by approximately $14.1 billion over 10 years and would increase spending on program administration by approximately $7.3 billion—a net reduction of $6.8 billion. CBO estimated for the House-reported bill that, in FY2028, in an average month, approximately 1.2 million recipients would no longer receive benefits, with each recipient losing an average annual SNAP benefit amount of $1,816. 3. Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ( LIHEAP ) and benefit calculation. Under current law, an eligible household's receipt of a LIHEAP payment over $20 has the potential to increase monthly benefit amounts, because this payment allows the household to have their benefits calculated using a standard utility allowance. Under this bill, for households without elderly or disabled members, LIHEAP would no longer confer this advantage regardless of the amount provided. CBO estimated that the House-reported provision would reduce 560,000 households' SNAP benefits by an average of $84 per month. Both the House- and Senate-passed farm bills would reauthorize and make several changes to provisions in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act that governs the USDA farm loan programs. They would also modify the Farm Credit Act that governs the Farm Credit System and reauthorize the State Agricultural Loan Mediation Program (see Table 9 ). For the USDA farm loan programs, the House and Senate bills would add specific conditions that the Secretary may use to reduce the requirement for three years of farming experience in order for beginning farmers to qualify for loans (e.g., coursework, military service, mentoring). Both bills raise the maximum loan size for guaranteed farm ownership loans and guaranteed farm operating loans from a statutory base of $700,000 in FY1996 ($1.4 million in FY2018 after adjusting for inflation) to a higher base of $1.75 million per borrower, which inflation adjusts to an effective maximum guaranteed loan amount of about $3.5 million in FY2019. The House bill would make this change permanently going forward. The Senate bill would change it for FY2019-FY2023. For direct loans, the Senate bill would increase the farm ownership loan limit to $600,000 and the farm operating loan limit to $400,000, both from $300,000 currently. For beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, the Senate bill would exempt them from guarantee fees and raise the guarantee percentage to 95%. For the State Agricultural Loan Mediation Program, both the House and Senate bill reauthorize the program to FY2023 so that it may continue to provide matching grants for mediation of credit and certain other agricultural disputes. The Senate bill also expands the range of issues covered by the program. For the government-chartered, cooperative Farm Credit System (FCS), both bills would eliminate a host of obsolete references to outdated names and transition periods from the 1980s and 1990s. Both bills add clarification that FCS entities may share privileged information with the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) for regulatory purposes without altering the privileged status elsewhere. Both bills expand FCA's jurisdiction to hold accountable "institution-affiliated parties" (including agents and independent contractors) and makes the scope retroactive for a six-year period. The Senate bill adds the category of socially disadvantaged farmers to the reporting requirement for young, beginning, and small farms. The House bill would delete the compensation limit for FCS bank boards of directors. For the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (FarmerMac), the House bill increases the acreage exception from 1,000 acres to 2,000 acres for the dollar limit to remain a qualified loan, subject to a study by FCA. The House bill also directs FCA to study the risks and capitalization of loans in the FCS and FarmerMac portfolios. For the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC), which insures repayment of certain FCS debt obligations, the Senate bill would provide greater statutory guidance regarding the powers and duties of the FCSIC when acting as a conservator or receiver of a troubled FCS institution and the rights and duties of parties affected by an FCS institution being placed into a conservatorship or receivership. The new conservatorship/receivership authorities would be largely modeled after the existing conservatorship/receivership statutory regime that is applicable to depository institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Programs and policies that address rural development are addressed in both the House and Senate bills (see Table 10 ). In the House bill, the Rural Infrastructure and Economic Development title amends the Rural Development Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-419) to propose a new Subtitle A, Improving Health Outcomes in Rural Communities. The four sections of the proposed subtitle would permit the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with public health figures, to announce a temporary reprioritization of certain rural development loans and grants to assist rural communities in responding to a specific rural health emergency. The announced emergency would expire either when the Secretary has determined that the emergency has ended or 360 days after the announcement, whichever date is earlier. While the emergency is in effect, 10% of the funds available for the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program would be made available to identify and treat individuals affected by the emergency. Under the Community Facilities program, priority would be given to entities providing prevention, treatment, and recovery services to those affected by the emergency. The subtitle would also reauthorize the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network and authorize a new loan and grant program to help establish group health plans offered by agricultural associations. Subtitle B of the House bill makes changes to the Enhancing Broadband Telecommunications Services in the Rural Areas Program. Provisions under this subtitle would establish minimum acceptable standards of broadband service of 25 megabits per second downstream transmission capacity and 3 megabits per second upstream transmission capacity and direct that projections of broadband service be developed five, 10, 15, 20, and 30 years into the future. Other provisions would require broadband infrastructure loan guarantees, provide incentives to reach more isolated rural areas by establishing a residential density measure for loan guarantee applicants, permit the Rural Utility Service to obligate but not disburse broadband funding support, and give priority to applicants who would provide broadband service to areas not predominantly for business. Other provisions would authorize loans for middle-mile broadband infrastructure, modify build-out requirements for loan applicants from three to five years, reduce reporting requirements for borrowers, and establish a task force in the Federal Communications Commission for reviewing the connectivity and technology needs of precision agriculture. Subtitle C of the bill concerns provisions for rural communities, business development, and rural infrastructure. Its provisions would prioritize project applications that support implementation of strategic plans on a multi-jurisdictional basis and reserve a portion of funds for such projects, raise the maximum loan amount for water and waste water projects, increase funding for water and waste water technical assistance, and reauthorize a range of rural development programs authorized under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Three provisions in Subtitle C would change the population eligibility criteria in defining rural and rural area . Under current law, water and waste disposal loan and grants are limited to communities of 10,000 or fewer. A new provision would exclude loan guarantees from that 10,000-head threshold. A second provision would exclude incarcerated individuals in determining whether an area is rural. A third provision would similarly exclude the first 1,500 military personnel living in on-base housing in determining whether an area is rural. Subtitle D of the House bill reauthorizes programs under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (P.L. 74-605), including expanding 911 access in rural areas and extending the rural economic development loan and grant program. Subtitle E amends and reauthorizes all of the agricultural energy programs in the 2014 farm bill that were previously in a separate title, extending most through FY2023. The House bill also modifies the type of funding available for these programs. In prior farm bills, many of these programs were provided with mandatory funding, whereas the House bill authorizes only discretionary funding. Subtitle F reauthorizes the Value-Added Grants program and increases its discretionary funding authorization. The regional development commissions established in the 2008 farm bill are also reauthorized, and the current definition of rural area for the Rural Housing Service's programs is retained until the 2030 decennial census. Subtitle G repeals several unfunded programs, including the Rural Telephone Bank, the Rural Collaborative Investment Program, and the Delta Region Agricultural Development Grants Program. Subtitle H makes technical corrections to certain provisions of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (P.L. 92-419) and the Rural Electrification Act. Similar to the House bill, the Rural Development title in the Senate bill makes significant changes to the Access to Broadband Telecommunications Services in Rural Areas. The bill establishes priorities for awarding loans and grants for broadband projects in rural communities. Unserved rural communities with no residential broadband and applications that offer the maximum level of broadband service to the greatest proportion of rural households in the proposed service area would get top priority. Within those priority categories, the highest priority would go to rural communities with a population of 10,000 or fewer, those experiencing outmigration that have adopted a strategic community investment plan, communities with high percentages of low-income residents, and those rural communities more isolated from population centers. Other broadband-related provisions would limit grant support to 50% of development costs and 75% of costs where the proposed project would occur in one of the priority communities. A new provision would also permit the Secretary to use up to 5% of appropriated broadband funds for technical training and assistance in developing broadband projects and preparing applications. The Senate bill makes changes to the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program by amending its source of funding, the "cushion-of-credit" account. The bill would terminate further deposits into the cushion-of-credit accounts in FY2019 and modify the interest rate structure that borrowers receive on their cushion-of-credit accounts. The provision also provides new mandatory and discretionary spending authorization of $5 million each in FY2022 and FY2023. The Senate bill also amends the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to establish a new grant program for the purpose of providing technical assistance and training to support funding applications for programs carried out under the Rural Business-Cooperative Service. The grants could be used to assist communities in identifying and planning for business and economic development needs, to prepare applications for financial assistance for small and emerging businesses, and to prepare reports and surveys necessary to request financial assistance for businesses in rural communities. In reauthorizing the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program and the Community Facilities Program, the Senate bill reserves 20% of the appropriation for each program to finance assistance for substance abuse disorder prevention and treatment services. In further addressing substance abuse disorder treatment and prevention, the Senate bill would amend rural health and safety education programs to add a new grant program on substance abuse and disorder education and prevention. USDA is authorized under four major laws to conduct agricultural research at the federal level and to provide support for cooperative research, extension, and postsecondary agricultural education programs in the states through formula funds and competitive grants to land-grant universities (see Table 11 ). The House bill reauthorizes funding for these activities through FY2023, subject to annual appropriations. With respect to the land-grant entities, the House bill authorizes a new scholarship program for the 1890 land-grant institutions. A provision in the bill would also prohibit any further entities from being designated as eligible to receive formula funding under the Hatch Act (24 Stat. 440), Smith-Lever Act (P.L. 63-95), and McIntire-Stennis Act (P.L. 87-788). Permissible indirect cost recovery for federal funding of agricultural research and extension would increase to 30% from 22% of funding. Under the House bill, several new research areas in the High Priority Research and Extension program are designated as high priorities: macadamia tree health, national turfgrass research, fertilizer management, cattle fever ticks, and laying hen and turkey research. The bill also reauthorizes the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative and increases mandatory funding levels to $30 million annually for FY2019-FY2023. The Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) would be reauthorized through FY2023 and continues to include carve-out funding for the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension Program. SCRI also expands program eligibility to include "size-controlling rootstock systems for perennial crops" and "emerging and invasive species," among other production practices and technologies. The Senate bill would provide new programs for the 1890 land-grant institutions and 1994 tribal colleges of agriculture, authorize new support for urban and indoor agricultural production, authorize new funding for industrial hemp research and development, and authorize an initiative supporting advanced agricultural research. Other provisions reauthorize and extend national genetic resources programs, the Organic Agriculture and Extension Initiative, and SCRI. The research title also makes changes to the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research and reauthorizes several programs relating to agricultural biosecurity. The Senate bill would create a new scholarship program for students attending 1890 universities. Authorized grants are for young African American students who commit to pursuing a career in the food and agricultural sciences. Another provision of the bill would also establish at least three Centers of Excellence, each to be led by an 1890 institution. The centers would concentrate research and extension activities in one or more defined areas, including nutrition, wellness and health, farming systems and rural prosperity, global food security and defense, natural resources, energy and the environment, and emerging technologies. A similar program, New Beginnings for Tribal Students, would offer competitive grants to 1994 tribal agriculture colleges to support recruiting, tuition, experiential learning, student services, counseling, and academic advising to increase the retention and graduation rates of tribal students at 1994 land-grant colleges. Another provision would also make 1994 tribal colleges that offer an associate's degree or a baccalaureate eligible to participate in McIntire-Stennis forestry research support. Several provisions in the Senate bill authorize research and development funding for industrial hemp production. Under the Critical Agricultural Materials Act, hemp would be included as an industrial product eligible for support. Amending and expanding a provision in the 2014 farm bill (Section 7606, P.L. 113-79), the Senate bill would direct the Secretary to conduct a study of hemp production pilot programs to determine the economic viability of domestic production and sale of hemp. A new provision would also create a "Hemp Production" subtitle under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, expanding the existing statutory definition of hemp and expanding eligibility to other producers and groups, including tribes and territories. States or Indian tribes wanting primary regulatory authority over hemp production would be required to implement a plan with specific requirements to further monitor and regulate their production of hemp. Two provisions of the research title in the Senate bill would create new programs supporting advanced agricultural research and urban, indoor, and emerging agricultural production systems. The Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AGARDA) would be established as a component of the Office of the Chief Scientist to examine the applicability for advanced research and development in food and agriculture through a pilot program that targets long-term and high-risk research. Focal areas include acceleration of novel, early stage innovative agricultural research; prototype testing; and licensing and product approval under the Plant Protection Act and the Animal Health Protection Act, among other innovative research tools that might be used in the discovery, development, or manufacture of a food or agricultural product. The Secretary would develop and make publicly available a strategic plan setting forth the agenda that AGARDA would follow and provide for consultation with other federal research agencies; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and others. There are provisions to expedite contract and grant awards and the appointments of highly qualified scientists and research program managers without regard to certain statutes governing appointments in the competitive federal service. To support the agenda of the AGARDA, the Senate bill would establish in the U.S. Treasury the Agriculture Advanced Research Development Fund, to be administered by the Chief Scientist. The fund would have an authorized appropriation of $10 million each year FY2019-FY2023. The program would terminate in FY2023. The Senate bill would also authorize a new Urban, Indoor, and Emerging Agricultural Production, Research, Education, and Extension Initiative. The provision authorizes the Secretary to make competitive grants to facilitate development of urban and indoor agricultural production systems and emerging harvesting, packaging, and distribution systems and new markets. The grants could also support methods of remediating contaminated urban sites (e.g., brownfields); determining best practices in pest management; exploring new technologies to minimize energy, lighting systems, water, and other inputs for increased food production; and studying new crop varieties and agricultural products to connect to new markets. The provision provides mandatory and discretionary spending of $4 million and $10 million, respectively, for each year FY2019-FY2023. In addition, there is authorization of $14 million for a study of urban and indoor agriculture production under the 2017 Census of Agriculture, including data on community gardens, rooftop gardens, urban farms, and hydroponic and aquaponic farm facilities. The Agriculture Committees have jurisdiction over forestry issues generally as well as over some National Forest System (NFS) lands managed by the USDA Forest Service (FS). Previous farm bills have primarily addressed forestry research and programs to provide financial and technical assistance to nonfederal forest landowners, although more recent farm bills have also sometimes included provisions addressing management of federal forest land. The forestry title in both the House- and Senate-passed farm bills would establish, reauthorize, modify, and repeal several research and assistance programs (see Table 12 ). Both bills also contain several provisions that would address management of the NFS and the public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior. While both bills include some similar provisions, there is also considerable variation between the House and Senate forestry titles. Forestry assistance and research programs are primarily authorized under three main laws: the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Many forestry programs are permanently authorized to receive such sums as necessary in annual discretionary appropriations and thus do not require reauthorization in the farm bill. Some programs, however, are not permanently authorized and are set to expire in FY2018. The House bill would reauthorize, through FY2023, four assistance and research programs with authorizations expiring at the end of FY2018: Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP), Rural Revitalization Technology program, National Forest Foundation (NFF), and Statewide Forest Resource Assessments. The Senate bill would reauthorize two of the same programs (HFRP and NFF)—but does not address the other two—and would reauthorize an additional program not addressed in the House bill (Rapid Insect and Disease Assessments). The House bill would amend two other programs by replacing their permanent authority to receive annual appropriations with an authorization limit and a FY2023 expiration (Forest Legacy and Community Forest and Open Space Conservation). The Senate bill does not address either of those same programs but would amend a different permanently authorized program with a sunset date of FY2023, although the authorization limit would remain the same as current law (Semiarid Agroforestry Research Center). The Senate bill would also repeal two programs (Biomass Commercial Utilization Program and the Biomass Energy Demonstration Project). Both the House and Senate bills would establish some new assistance programs—generally by providing explicit statutory authorization and congressional direction for current programs that are operating under existing, but broad, authorizations. For example, both bills would establish a Landscape Scale Restoration program to provide financial assistance for large restoration projects that cross landownership boundaries, although the specifics of each proposal differ. The forestry title would also address issues related to the accumulation of biomass in many forests and the associated increased risk for uncharacteristic wildfires on both federal and nonfederal land. For example, both bills would provide various types of assistance for large hazardous fuel reduction projects that cross landownership boundaries. The Senate bill would authorize up to $20 million in annual appropriations to provide financial assistance to fund such projects. The House bill would encourage the Secretary of Agriculture to allocate existing funding and use existing authorities to provide assistance to encourage cross-boundary projects. Both the House and Senate bills would also establish, reauthorize, modify, and repeal research and assistance programs to promote wood innovation for energy use and building construction and to facilitate the removal of forest biomass, although the specifics of each proposal also differs. The House and Senate bills would also change how FS and BLM comply with the requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act for specified management activities. For example, the House bill would establish 10 categorical exclusions (CEs) that would not be subject to the requirements to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under NEPA. Six of the 10 apply to both FS and BLM actions, while four apply to just FS actions. The Senate bill would establish one CE for projects involving sage grouse mule deer habitat that is applicable to both FS and BLM. The House bill includes other related provisions, such as limiting the analysis requirements for specific projects and providing for expedited ESA consultations. The forestry title also contains several provisions specific to the management of NFS lands. Both bills would address the authority provided in the 2014 farm bill to designate insect and disease treatment areas on NFS lands and procedures intended to expedite the environmental analysis for specified priority projects within those areas. The House bill would expand the authorities in several ways, such as by adding hazardous fuels reduction as a priority project category and authorizing larger projects. The Senate bill would require FS to apply specific procedures when implementing the CE. In addition, both bills would also reauthorize the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program to receive appropriations through FY2023. The Senate bill would raise the authorized level, while the House bill would modify the terms of the program. In addition to other NFS management provisions, both bills would also authorize the conveyance of NFS land through lease, sale, or exchange. While both bills include conveyance provisions for specific parcels, the Senate bill would also reauthorize and establish other disposal authorities. The Senate bill would establish two watershed protection programs on NFS lands and would authorize the Secretary to accept cash or in-kind donations from specified nonfederal partners to implement projects associated with one of those programs. The Senate bill would also designate wilderness areas on NFS lands in Virginia and Tennessee. The bills would address miscellaneous federal and tribal forest management issues. For example, both bills would expand the availability of Good Neighbor Agreements (GNA) to include federally recognized Indian tribes and county governments. The Senate bill would make any revenue generated from GNA projects exempt from any revenue-sharing laws. The House bill, in contrast, does not include that provision and would remove a similar exemption to revenue derived from Stewardship Contracts. The House bill would also direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exempt unprocessed dead and dying trees on NFS lands in California from the export prohibition for 10 years and would amend provisions of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, a program that authorizes payments to counties containing NFS lands and certain BLM lands, among other provisions. Both the House and Senate bills (included within Title VI in the House bill and designated as Title IX in the Senate bill) modify the energy title. Both bills extend most of the energy title programs through FY2023. One of the key differences between the bills is that the House bill provides no mandatory funding, while the Senate bill retains mandatory funding (see Table 13 ). The House bill addresses energy programs in three key ways—it reauthorizes many of the programs, it changes the placement of the programs within the farm bill, and it modifies the type of funding available for the programs. The House bill extends most of these programs through FY2023. In prior farm bills, the energy programs were included in a separate title (e.g., Title IX of the 2014 farm bill). But the House-passed bill includes these programs within the title on Rural Development and Economic Development (i.e., Subtitile E of Title VI). In prior farm bills, many of these programs were provided with mandatory funding. For instance, the 2014 farm bill authorized a total of $694 million in mandatory funding and a total of $765 million in discretionary funding. In contrast, the House bill provides discretionary funding, but not mandatory funding, for the energy title programs. The Senate bill maintains a separate energy title (Title IX), amends certain programs, and establishes a new biogas research initiative and a new carbon utilization education program. The bill modifies the definitions for biobased product, biorefinery, and renewable energy systems. It extends most of the programs through FY2023. Additionally, it provides mandatory funding for seven programs—the Biobased Markets Program, the Biorefinery Assistance Program, the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, the Rural Energy for America Program, the Biomass Research and Development Initiative, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, and the newly established carbon utilization education program—amounting to approximately $640 million over five years. The two bills have similarities as well as differences. For instance, unlike the House bill, the Senate Agriculture Committee bill repeals the Repowering Assistance Program. Similar to the House bill, the Senate bill modifies the Biobased Markets Program to restrict federal agencies from placing certain limitations on the procurement of bio-based products. Additionally, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill expands the focus of the Biomass Research and Development Initiative to include carbon dioxide utilization and sequestration. The Senate bill would also establish a biogas research and adoption of biogas systems initiative and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to form an Interagency Biogas Opportunities Task Force and to partner with the National Renewable Laboratory to conduct a biogas study, among other things. The Senate bill also establishes a Carbon Utilization Education Program that provides competitive funding for eligible entities to provide education about the benefits of carbon utilization and sequestration. The House and Senate farm bills reauthorize many of the existing farm bill provisions supporting farming operations in the specialty crop, certified organic agriculture, and local foods sectors. These provisions (Title IX in the House bill and Title X in the Senate bill) cover several programs and provisions benefitting these sectors, including block grants to states, support for farmers markets, data and information collection, education on food safety and biotechnology, and organic certification, among other market development and promotion provisions (see Table 14 ). The Senate bill includes a number of provisions regarding industrial hemp within the bill's Horticulture title but also includes hemp-specific provision in the Research, Crop Insurance, and Miscellaneous titles of the bill. The House bill does not include comparable hemp provisions, but it would amend certain regulatory requirements under some federal statutes that are not contained in the Senate bill. The House and Senate bills make changes both to farmers markets and local foods promotion programs but in fundamentally different ways. The House bill eliminates mandatory CCC funding for the Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP) and Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP) while reauthorizing discretionary appropriations for these programs of $30 million annually for FY2019-FY2023. The Senate bill combines and expands the existing FMPP and LFPP, along with the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants program, to create a new "Local Agriculture Market Program" with expanded mission and mandatory funding of $60 million for FY2019 and each year thereafter, plus authorized appropriations. The Senate bill also includes several provisions from S. 3005 (Urban Agriculture Act of 2018) supporting urban agriculture development (including new programs and funding in the Miscellaneous, Research, Conservation, and Crop Insurance titles). The two bills differ in addressing funding for USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) and related programs. Both bills address concerns about organic import integrity by including provisions that strengthen the tracking, data collection, and investigation of organic product imports, including certain provisions in H.R. 3871 (Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act of 2017). Both bills also amend the eligibility and consultation requirements of the National Organic Standards Board, among other changes. Both bills reauthorize NOP appropriations above current levels while reauthorizing current funding for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives and for technology upgrades to improve tracking and verification of organic imports. The Senate bill also reauthorizes current mandatory funding for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, which the House bill does not reauthorize (although the program remains authorized). The Senate bill includes a number of provisions from the introduced versions of the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 ( S. 2667 ; H.R. 5485 ) that are intended to facilitate the possible commercial cultivation of hemp in the United States. Chief among these provisions is one that would amend the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) to exclude from the statutory definition of marijuana industrial hemp, as defined in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, §7606), as containing no more than a 0.3% concentration of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol—marijuana's primary psychoactive chemical. The Senate farm bill also creates a new hemp program under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. §1621 et seq. ) expanding the existing statutory definition of hemp and also expanding eligibility to other producers and groups, including tribes and territories. States or Indian tribes that seek primary regulatory authority over hemp production would be required to implement a "plan" to further monitor and regulate hemp production. Other provisions in the bill's Crop Insurance title would make hemp producers eligible to participate in federal crop insurance programs, while provisions in the Research title of the bill would make hemp production eligible for certain USDA research and development programs. The House bill includes several exemptions from certain regulatory requirements, amending existing provisions in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. ), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. ), the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ), and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ). The House bill amends FIFRA to clarify federal and state roles in the regulation of pesticides to exempt certain pesticide discharges from point source discharge permitting requirements and to expressly state that the Environmental Protection Agency is not required to consult with other federal agencies regarding pesticide registrations and their potential impact on endangered species. It would also enact into law the House-passed H.R. 1029 , the Pesticide Registration Improvement Enhancement Act of 2017, which would amend FIFRA to extend the authority to collect pesticide fees, among other purposes. Finally, the House bill amends the Plant Protection Act regarding the use of methyl bromide in response to an emergency event and also amends the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to exempt agricultural retailers from process safety management requirements. These provisions are not included in the Senate bill. Provisions affecting the specialty crop and certified organic sectors are not limited to the Horticulture title but are contained within several other titles. Among these are programs in the Research, Nutrition, and Trade titles, among others. Related programs outside the Horticulture title include the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and Section 32 purchases for fruits and vegetables under the Nutrition title, among other farm bill programs. Crop insurance is designed to cover economic losses from a variety of natural causes as well as certain adverse market developments. The federal crop insurance program makes available subsidized crop insurance to producers who purchase policies to protect against losses in yield, crop revenue, margin, whole farm revenue, and other losses. The House- and Senate-passed versions of the Crop Insurance title of H.R. 2 (Title X in the House bill and Title XI in the Senate bill) largely modify different provisions of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, the underlying statute that permanently authorizes the federal crop insurance program (see Table 15 ). Section 508(d) of the act (7 U.S.C. §1508(d))—which authorizes the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) to provide performance-based premium discounts to producers with "good insurance or production experience relative to other producers" of the same crop in the same area—is modified by both the House- and Senate-passed versions but in different ways. The House-passed farm bill repeals Section 508(d) in its entirety, effectively removing authority for performance-based discounts for producers. In contrast, the Senate-passed farm bill expands FCIC's authority to offer discounts for practices that can be demonstrated to reduce risk relative to other practices. For the 2020 reinsurance year, under the Senate-passed farm bill, FCIC would have to specifically consider providing discounts for precision irrigation or fertilization, crop rotations, and cover crops. The Crop Insurance title of the House-passed farm bill makes several modifications to the existing federal crop insurance program. According to CBO, it would decrease authorized spending for crop insurance relative to baseline levels by $70 million during the FY2019-FY2023 period by eliminating the crop insurance education and information program for targeted states carried out by the Risk Management Agency and the Agricultural Management Assistance program. Additional savings would be achieved by increasing the administrative fee for catastrophic risk protection from $300 per crop per county to $500 and from provisions that would eliminate several past research and development (R&D) priorities, discontinue R&D partnerships, and reduce CCC funding for R&D contracting from $12.5 million to no more than $8 million annually. Among other adjustments, the House farm bill expands coverage for forage and grazing by allowing separate crop insurance policies to be purchased for crops that can be both grazed and mechanically harvested on the same acres during the same growing season. Such separate policies can be independently indemnified for each intended use. Also, beginning farmer or rancher is redefined as an individual having actively operated and managed a farm or ranch for less than 10 years, thus making these individuals eligible for federal subsidy benefits available for the purposes of research, development, and implementation of whole-farm insurance plans. Crops for which the producer has elected ARC or that are enrolled in stacked income protection would be ineligible for coverage based on an area yield and loss basis or for the supplemental coverage option. The House farm bill also clarifies requirements for FCIC approval of reimbursement for the development of private submissions for modifying old plans of insurance or creating new ones. The Miscellaneous title of House-passed H.R. 2 contains seven subtitles: Livestock; Beginning, Socially Disadvantaged, and Veteran Producers; Textiles; United States Grain Standards Act; Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program; Protect Interstate Commerce; and Other Matters. The Senate-passed H.R. 2, as amended, contains six subtitles: Livestock; Agriculture and Food Defense; Historically Underserved Producers; Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Amendments; Other Miscellaneous Provisions; and General Provisions. The provisions in the title—38 in the House bill and 82 in the Senate bill—cover a wide array of issues, with some overlapping provisions (see Table 16 ). Both bills would establish an animal disease preparedness program and a vaccine bank that prioritizes the acquisition of foot-and-mouth disease vaccine. A key difference in the bills is funding. The House-passed bill would provide a combined $250 million in mandatory funding for the preparedness program and vaccine bank in FY2019, and $50 million for FY2020-2023. It also authorizes appropriations of $15 million for the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) each year FY2019-FY2023. The Senate-passed bill authorizes appropriations only for such sums as necessary for the preparedness and vaccine programs and authorizes appropriations of $30 million per year FY2019-FY2023 for the NAHLN. The provisions in the House- and Senate-passed bills would expand USDA activities for beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers. Both the House and the Senate bills would prioritize youth agricultural employment and volunteer programs and promote the role of youth-serving organizations and school-based agricultural education programs. The House bill would create a Commission on Farm Transition to study issues affecting the transition of farm operations from established farmers and ranchers to the next generation. The Senate bill would establish a Tribal Advisory Committee to advise USDA on tribal and Indian affairs. The House-passed bill provides $43 million (FY2019-FY2023) for the Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Producers program, and the Senate-passed bill provides $216 million (FY2019-FY2023) for the Farming Opportunities and Outreach Training program. Both the House-passed and Senate-passed bills amend parts of current law to account for USDA reorganizational changes that created the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, the Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation, and the Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development. However, the Senate bill requires USDA to re-establish the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development that USDA abolished and replaced with an Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development in its May 2017 reorganization. The Senate bill would also prohibit USDA from closing Natural Resource Conservation Service field offices without notifying the House and Senate agricultural committees. Both bills would amend parts of NAP. The House bill would amend NAP crop eligibility to include crops that may be covered by crop insurance but only under whole farm policies. It would raise the service fees and reauthorize buy-up coverage through crop year 2023. The Senate bill would add data collection and coordination requirements, raise the service fee, and delete the sunset provision for buy-up coverage. The House-passed bill would repeal the trust funds for the Pima Agriculture Cotton and Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers. It would also repeal the Wool Research and Promotion grant funding program. In place of these funds, the House-passed bill would establish the Textile Trust Fund to reduce injury for domestic users of imported pima cotton and wool fabric in the event that tariffs on those products exceed the tariffs on certain finished imported pima cotton and wool apparel. Instead of establishing a new Textile Trust Fund, the Senate-passed bill would reauthorize the existing Pima and Wool trust funds and reauthorize the Wool Research and Promotion grant funding. Both bills include animal welfare provisions on importing dogs and on the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption. The House bill would extend provisions banning animal fighting to U.S. territories. Both bills would establish a Century Farms Program under the Secretary that recognizes farms in continuous operation for at least 100 years and add South Carolina to the Virginia/Carolina region of the Peanut Standards Board. The Protect Interstate Commerce provisions in the House-passed bill would prohibit a state or local government from setting standards or conditions on agricultural commodities produced in another state if the commodities are produced or manufactured in accordance with federal or state laws and regulations. The bill provides that producers, consumers, trade associations, governments, and other agents may bring an action against the standard or condition in the appropriate court. The Senate-passed bill does not include these provisions.

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. On 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. In terms of cost, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of July 24, 2018, of the programs in both bills with mandatory spending—such as nutrition programs, commodity support programs, major conservation programs, and crop insurance—over 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's 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. Both 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. The 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. Within 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's 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. The 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.