CRS publishes comparison of farm bills
July 26, 2013 | 02:00 PM
The Congressional Research Service has published and made available to Congress a side-by-side comparison of the provisions of the farm bills that have passed the Senate and the House Agriculture Committee and how they differ from current policy.
The Hagstrom Report obtained a copy of the report. (See link below)
Although the House has not passed a nutrition title, the CRS report includes for comparison purposes the nutrition provisions of the House farm bill that was defeated on June 20.
The report, which was completed on July 19, also includes the latest figures on the cost estimates of the bills prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.
The report notes that CBO projects that the mandatory programs of the 2008 farm bill, if they were to continue, would cost $973 billion over the next 10 years (fiscal years 2014-2023).
This amount consists of $764 billion for nutrition programs, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and $208 billion for non-nutrition agriculture-related programs in the rest of the bill.
This “baseline” has been reduced by $6.4 billion to reflect the effects of sequestration over the 10-year baseline, all of which has come from the agriculture-related portion, since SNAP is generally exempt from sequestration.
Although the Senate bill is generally viewed as cutting the farm bill by $24 billion, CBO said the post-sequestration Senate-passed farm bill (S. 954), would reduce spending by $17.9 billion (–1.8 percent ) over 10 years.
Because the House-passed bill does not address nutrition, the Senate reduction that is comparable to the House bill is an agriculture-related reduction of $13.9 billion (–6.7 percent), CBO said.
The House-passed bill (H.R. 2642), which does not have a nutrition title, would reduce the agriculture-related baseline by $12.9 billion (–6.2 percent), according to CBO. The earlier House Agriculture Committee-reported bill, H.R. 1947, which failed on the House floor, would have reduced the nutrition title baseline by $20.5 billion over 10 years, more than the $4 billion nutrition reduction in S. 954.
If sequestration were repealed and the baseline were increased by the $6.4 billion adjustment that has been taken (restoring the baseline to what would have been $979 billion), then the farm bill proposals would reduce spending by $24 billion (Senate) and $19 billion (House) over the next 10 years, CBO said.
The net spending by the farm bill proposals over the next 10 years, if the bills were enacted, would be the same whether one quotes pre- or post-sequestration estimates, according to the report.
The Senate bill would spend an estimated $955 billion, of which $195 billion is for the agriculture-related portion; the House bill would spend $196 billion for the agriculture-related portion.
The Hagstrom Report obtained a copy of the report. (See link below)
Although the House has not passed a nutrition title, the CRS report includes for comparison purposes the nutrition provisions of the House farm bill that was defeated on June 20.
The report, which was completed on July 19, also includes the latest figures on the cost estimates of the bills prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.
The report notes that CBO projects that the mandatory programs of the 2008 farm bill, if they were to continue, would cost $973 billion over the next 10 years (fiscal years 2014-2023).
This amount consists of $764 billion for nutrition programs, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and $208 billion for non-nutrition agriculture-related programs in the rest of the bill.
This “baseline” has been reduced by $6.4 billion to reflect the effects of sequestration over the 10-year baseline, all of which has come from the agriculture-related portion, since SNAP is generally exempt from sequestration.
Although the Senate bill is generally viewed as cutting the farm bill by $24 billion, CBO said the post-sequestration Senate-passed farm bill (S. 954), would reduce spending by $17.9 billion (–1.8 percent ) over 10 years.
Because the House-passed bill does not address nutrition, the Senate reduction that is comparable to the House bill is an agriculture-related reduction of $13.9 billion (–6.7 percent), CBO said.
The House-passed bill (H.R. 2642), which does not have a nutrition title, would reduce the agriculture-related baseline by $12.9 billion (–6.2 percent), according to CBO. The earlier House Agriculture Committee-reported bill, H.R. 1947, which failed on the House floor, would have reduced the nutrition title baseline by $20.5 billion over 10 years, more than the $4 billion nutrition reduction in S. 954.
If sequestration were repealed and the baseline were increased by the $6.4 billion adjustment that has been taken (restoring the baseline to what would have been $979 billion), then the farm bill proposals would reduce spending by $24 billion (Senate) and $19 billion (House) over the next 10 years, CBO said.
The net spending by the farm bill proposals over the next 10 years, if the bills were enacted, would be the same whether one quotes pre- or post-sequestration estimates, according to the report.
The Senate bill would spend an estimated $955 billion, of which $195 billion is for the agriculture-related portion; the House bill would spend $196 billion for the agriculture-related portion.
