On June 18, 2008, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-246 , the 2008 farm bill) became law when the House and Senate voted to override President Bush's veto of H.R. 6124 . Enactment of the new law suspends the provisions of permanent law that would have taken effect without a new law. For more details on the legislative history of the 2008 farm bill, see CRS Report RL34696, The 2008 Farm Bill: Major Provisions and Legislative Action , coordinated by [author name scrubbed] (pdf). A side-by-side summary of the provisions and changes in the 2008 farm bill is presented in CRS Report RL34696, The 2008 Farm Bill: Major Provisions and Legislative Action , coordinated by [author name scrubbed] (pdf). What were the consequences of Congress not having enacted a new farm bill before the end of FY2007, the commonly reported expiration date of many of the provisions of the 2002 farm bill? What might have happened if a new farm bill were not enacted in early 2008? Would programs authorized by the expiring legislation have ceased to operate, or would they have continued under non-expiring provisions of permanent law? Where there is permanent law, would the design and funding have changed? The 2002 omnibus farm bill ( P.L. 107-171 ) included a wide range of program authorities, some of which were mandatory and others discretionary. Mandatory, in this context, means that the authority to spend necessary funds is provided by statute. This mandatory category includes the commodity support programs, export programs, some conservation programs, and food stamps. Discretionary programs are authorized, but annual funding is subject to congressionally approved appropriations. Discretionary programs in the farm bill include some conservation programs, federal farm loan programs, rural development programs, agricultural research, and some foreign food aid, among others. In nearly all cases, a farm bill supersedes permanent authorizing law for a period of four to six years. The farm bill is important because it may substantially change program design from what is in the permanent law, as is the case with commodity support programs. Typically, with regard to appropriated programs, the farm bill sets policy parameters and upper limits on program activity levels and appropriations authority. Without an extension, most appropriated programs (also referred to as discretionary programs) in the 2002 farm bill and some mandatory programs, such as food stamps, would have faced the prospect of not having statutory authority for the appropriations committees to provide funding in FY2008 and subsequent years. The lack of authority to appropriate funds for authorized programs (and even for some programs not authorized) has not been a barrier for appropriations in past Congresses. FY2007 came to a close on September 30, 2007, without either a new farm bill or an FY2008 appropriations act. Hence, Congress adopted several continuing resolutions ( P.L. 110-92 , P.L. 110-116 , P.L. 110-137 , and P.L. 110-149 ) last fall that provided stopgap funding for most non-defense discretionary spending until the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-161 ) was enacted on December 26, 2007. For the farm bill specifically, six temporary extensions were enacted. The first extension was in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. It extended the authority for many expiring farm bill programs for nearly three months until March 15, 2008 ( P.L. 110-161 , Division A, Sec. 751). The second extension in P.L. 110-196 lasted for about one month until April 18, 2008. Then, P.L. 110-200 continued the extension for one week until April 25, 2008, and P.L. 110-205 for another week until May 2, 2008. The fifth extension in P.L. 110-208 lasted for two weeks until May 16, 2008. The sixth extension in P.L. 110-231 continued for one week until the earlier of May 23, 2008 or the date the 2008 farm bill was enacted. All but one title of the 2008 farm bill, except the trade title (which was mistakenly missing from the enrolled version), were enacted on May 22 when the House and Senate overrode the presidential veto of H.R. 2419 , and the 2008 farm bill became P.L. 110-234 . Because no further temporary extension was passed, the trade provisions in Title III of the 2002 farm bill expired. To deal with the omission of Title III, both chambers repassed the farm bill conference agreement (including the trade title) as H.R. 6124 . The President vetoed the measure on June 18, 2008, and both chambers again overrode the veto, which made H.R. 6124 law as P.L. 110-246 , superseding P.L. 110-234 . While the 2008 farm bill was being completed in Congress, the temporary extensions stated that, unless otherwise excepted, 2002 farm bill provisions in effect on September 30, 2007, shall continue until the new expiration date. The extensions funded three conservation programs at specific levels (Farmland Protection Program at $97 million/year, Ground and Surface Water Conservation at $60 million/year, and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program at $85 million/year). For the commodity title, the dairy and sugar programs were included in the extension, as were price support loan programs for wool and mohair. Programs that specifically were not extended included the direct, counter-cyclical, and marketing loan programs for the 2008 crop year for all other supported commodities (e.g., feed grains, oilseeds, wheat, rice, cotton, and peanuts), peanut storage payments, agricultural management assistance for conservation, community food projects in the food stamp program, the rural broadband program, value-added market development grants, federal procurement of biobased products, the biodiesel fuel education program, and the renewable energy systems program. The mandatory commodity support programs authorized in the 2002 farm bill cover the 2007 crops. So, all subsidy obligations related to 2007 crop production are covered by the law, even if spending occurs in FY2008. For commodity support programs, there was little reason to enact a farm bill before the end of calendar year 2007. In fact, past farm bills generally have been enacted late in the year, after the end of the fiscal year. The 1981 and 1985 farm bills were enacted in late December, and the 1990 farm bill was enacted in late November. What was expected to be a 1995 farm bill was not enacted until April 4, 1996, another case of belated action. Even in that case, payments were made on the 1995 crops and farmers went ahead with planting operations for their 1996 crops. Policy officials and the agriculture community expected a 2007 farm bill to be enacted before the end of calendar year 2007. However, lack of new commodity support legislation before harvest in 2008 did little harm other than leaving producers of "covered commodities" uncertain about the size of payments they might receive. The uncertainty about future policy could have affected some farmers' ability to acquire production loans from commercial lenders. But even if Congress had deemed a one-or two-year extension necessary for the commodity support programs beyond the 2007 crop year, that action likely could have waited until June 2008, when winter wheat—the first of the 2008 crop year commodities—was harvested. If Congress had not enacted the 2008 farm bill before the beginning of the 2008 harvest, then the non-expiring provisions of primarily the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agriculture Act of 1949 would have taken effect. Provisions of these permanent laws are temporarily superseded by each farm bill. The commodity support provisions of permanent law are so radically different from current policy—and inconsistent with today's farming, marketing, and trade agreements, as well as potentially costly to the federal government—that Congress was unlikely to let permanent law take effect. Permanent law provides mandatory support for basic crops through nonrecourse loans, but without the option of settling the loan obligations at posted county prices or receiving loan deficiency payments. The only settlement options in permanent law are forfeiture of the commodities used as loan collateral or full repayment of the loans. Permanent law does not authorize counter-cyclical payments or decoupled direct payments. Also, nonrecourse loan rates could be as high as 90% of parity but not less than 50% of parity for corn, wheat, and rice, and 65% of parity for cotton. Acreage allotments and marketing quotas could be implemented for wheat and cotton. Milk support would be between 75% and 90% of parity. Support for soybeans, other oilseeds, and peanuts would not be mandatory. Other commodities now receiving mandatory support but not identified in permanent law are: sugar beets, sugar cane, wool, mohair, small chickpeas, dry peas, and lentils. For wheat and cotton, permanent law requires USDA to announce acreage allotments and marketing quotas during the prior crop year, and to hold producer referenda on whether to implement marketing quotas. A two-thirds or more affirmative producer vote for marketing quotas results in the highest levels of support, but also mandatory restrictions on planted acreage and therefore on the quantity eligible for support. For this analysis, it is assumed the Secretary announces no marketing quotas, and thus no producer referenda. Therefore, the only requirement is to announce wheat acreage allotments prior to the 2008 harvest. Table 1 summarizes the support estimates based on these assumptions. As shown in Table 1 , not all commodities currently receiving federal support would be covered by mandatory provisions in permanent law. The commodities losing mandatory support include peanuts, wool, mohair, sugar beats and sugar cane, soybeans and other oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, and small chick peas.