Roughly every five years, Congress debates legislation governing federal farm and food policy. The 2002 farm bill ( P.L. 107-171 ) covered a wide range of programs including commodity price and income support, farm credit, agricultural conservation, research, rural development, and foreign and domestic food programs, among others. In 2007, both the House and Senate completed committee and floor action on their respective versions of the new farm bill. However, conference negotiations were initially delayed because of differences between committee leadership and the Administration's position, largely over tax-related provisions needed to offset new spending in the bill. Many provisions of the 2002 farm bill expired in September 2007, but were continued under a series of temporary extensions to allow more time to resolve differences between the House- and Senate-passed bills. On May 8, 2008, House and Senate farm bill conferees announced the details of a completed conference agreement ( H.R. 2419 , the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008). The following week, both chambers completed floor action and approved the final conference agreement on the 2008 farm bill. The Bush Administration vetoed the legislation, but both the House and Senate voted to override the veto. On May 22, the 2008 farm bill was enacted into law ( P.L. 110-234 ). However, the newly enacted law contained only 14 of the 15 farm bill titles because an enrolling error resulted in one title of the bill being omitted from the version that was sent to the White House. To resolve this issue, both the House and Senate passed a version of the 2008 farm bill with all 15 original bill titles ( H.R. 6124 ). The President vetoed H.R. 6124 on June 18. That same day, both the House and Senate voted to override the veto and the bill became law ( P.L. 110-246 ), replacing P.L. 110-234 . The 2007/2008 farm bill debate differed from the 2002 debate in some important ways. First, the 2008 farm bill faced potentially significant budgetary and spending constraints, while the 2002 farm bill was crafted during a period of budget surplus. Second, the 2008 farm bill debate was set against a backdrop of an ongoing multilateral negotiation, which targeted farm subsidies and challenged U.S. support and legal programs under existing trade rules. Third, the Bush Administration submitted its own detailed proposal for the new farm bill, whereas for other recent farm bills the Administration had not issued specific recommendations. Fourth, many other groups, including both traditional and non-agricultural interests, also submitted specific recommendations that ranged from maintaining the status quo to making dramatic policy changes. As with all federal programs, the farm bill debate was influenced by budgetary constraints imposed by Congress. Recent federal deficits raised concerns with respect to reauthorization or expansion of current farm programs. Prior to congressional consideration of a new farm bill, budget projections showed a lower baseline budget for agriculture programs, mainly because high commodity prices had caused projections of future farm program spending to fall sharply below previous projections. The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) March 2007 baseline budget served as the official benchmark for the FY2008 budget resolution and for scoring the budgetary impacts of the new farm bill. The CBO baseline assumed continuation of current farm bill policies under expected economic conditions. The budget resolution set the actual spending constraints for the agriculture committees as they drafted a new farm bill. In May 2007, Congress approved the FY2008 budget resolution, which adopted the baseline budget as the fiscal parameter for the next farm bill. It also included a $20 billion reserve fund (above baseline) for new farm bill spending over five years. However, any new spending was required to be deficit-neutral, meaning that it would have to be offset with equivalent reductions in other federal spending for existing mandatory programs, or by raising revenues. Large increases in the market prices of corn and other commodities since the summer of 2006 contributed to a lower March 2007 baseline for farm program spending. For example, the March 2007 baseline projected spending for commodity support payments under current law to be $42.4 billion for the FY2008-FY2013 period, about $30 billion lower than actual spending in the previous six years ( Table 1 ). Baseline estimates for mandatory conservation and nutrition programs for the next six years were higher compared to the previous six years. The farm bill debate was also influenced by obligations concerning the design and size of farm subsidies under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture, as well as by the U.S. position in the Doha Round of multilateral negotiations. Agreement in the Doha Round was expected to converge in 2007 with the expiration of the 2002 farm bill, and to occur well before the June 30, 2007, expiration of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which provides for expedited congressional consideration of trade agreements. Some policymakers wanted a Doha Round agreement so that the next farm bill could be made consistent with new farm trade rules; others argued that the United States should not unilaterally change its own subsidy programs ahead of any multilateral trade agreement. Progress on the Doha Round stalled in 2006 and again in 2008, and criticisms and legal challenges by some WTO member countries of current U.S. farm programs have continued. In January 2007, the Bush Administration released its own detailed recommendations for the farm bill that aimed to substantially alter many aspects of the current commodity support system and other existing farm bill programs. The Administration's stated approach for designing its 2007 farm bill recommendations was to take a "reform-minded and fiscally responsible approach to making farm policy more equitable, predictable and protected from challenge." In part, this referred to the perceived need to more evenly distribute federal program spending and benefits across a larger share of the U.S. farm community, as well as the perceived need to modify current farm programs to better comply with WTO obligations and limit future legal challenges from other countries. Some of these same concerns were voiced in recommendations and proposals by other organizations and interest groups. The Administration's proposed changes would have also faced potential funding obstacles, given budget constraints for the 2008 farm bill. Nevertheless, President Bush repeatedly threatened to veto any legislation that included certain revenue and tax-related provisions being considered by Congress, as well as legislation that failed to implement certain policy changes, including cuts in farm income subsidies, among other policy issues and concerns. Also during the debate, the Administration recommended that Congress consider a one- or two-year extension of the current farm bill and take up a new farm bill in the next session. On May 21, President Bush vetoed the conference agreement on H.R. 2419 . A second bill containing all 15 original farm bill titles, H.R. 6124 , was again vetoed on June 18. Among the reasons cited by the Administration for the veto were Congress' inclusion of certain revenue and tax-related provisions in both bills. The Administration was also concerned that the legislation did not include certain policy reforms in farm income subsidies, and was concerned about possible incompatibility with U.S. obligations under the WTO, among other policy issues. Doha Round negotiations are continuing, however. If agreement is reached, then implementing legislation could require changes in some farm bill programs and limit spending on farm support. The 2007/2008 farm bill debate differed from the 2002 debate in the number and scope of proposals seeking a range of changes to existing programs, as well as the addition of new ones. Many of these recommendations gained support within and outside Congress. In addition to the Administration proposal, several organizations and interest groups released their own farm bill recommendations. These included state organizations, national farm groups, commodity associations, conservation and rural development organizations, nutrition program advocates, and several non-traditional interest groups. These policy recommendations represented diverse interests seeking objectives ranging from maintaining current programs to substantially altering or eliminating them. Some recommendations were incorporated into bills introduced by some Members of Congress during the debate, who sought to directly challenge the existing farm legislation and programs through comprehensive and broad-based proposed legislative changes. Others in Congress were reluctant to change current programs because they are strongly supported by the long-time beneficiaries. In anticipation of the 2007 farm bill, both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees conducted hearings in Washington DC and across the country during 2006, and continued to hold hearings early in 2007. Early in 2007, the chairmen of both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees indicated their intention to complete work on a new farm bill prior to the August 2007 recess, with full congressional action by September. The House Agriculture Committee conducted its markup of its version of the farm bill ( H.R. 2419 ) in mid-July, and completed House floor action on July 27, 2007. The Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version ( S. 2302 ) in October and, on December 14, the Senate completed floor action on its bill, which was offered as a substitute amendment to the House bill ( H.R. 2419 ). Conference negotiations were initially delayed because of differences between committee leadership and the Administration, and also differences between the House and Senate on how to resolve approaches to finance new spending above baseline using tax provisions not usually associated with farm bills. During this time, many provisions in the 2002 farm bill were set to expire in September 2007. Certain provisions were extended until March 15, 2008, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 ( P.L. 110-161 ). Following this extension, Congress approved a series of additional temporary extensions, including a one-month extension and four consecutive short-term extensions lasting through May 23, 2008. Conferees began official meetings in April 2008. On May 8, 2008, House and Senate farm bill conferees announced the details of a completed conference agreement ( H.R. 2419 , the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008). On May 14, 2008, the House passed the conference agreement on the 2008 farm bill by a vote of 318-106. On May 15, the Senate passed the same bill by a vote of 81-15.