U.S. Farm Income Outlook: November 2019 Forecast

Summary: This report uses the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) farm income projections (as of November 27, 2019) and agricultural trade outlook update (as of November 25, 2019) to describe the U.S. farm economic outlook for 2019. According to USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm incomeâa key indicator of U.S. farm well-beingâis forecast at $92.5 billion in 2019, up $8.5 billion (+10.2%) from last year. The forecast rise in 2019 net farm income is largely the result of a 64.0% increase in government payments to the agricultural sector, with a projected total value of $22.4Â billion (highest since 2005).

Summary: USDA's forecast of outlays for farm support for 2019 includes $14.3 billion in direct payments made under trade assistance programs intended to help offset foreign trade retaliation against U.S. agricultural products, as well as over $8 billion in payments from other farm programs, including the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP). Without this federal support, net farm income would be lower, primarily due to continued weak prices for most major crops. Commodity prices are under pressure from large carry-in stocks from a record soybean and near-record corn harvest in 2018, and diminished export prospects due to the ongoing trade dispute with China. Should these conditions persist into 2020, they would signal the potential for continued dependence on federal programs to sustain farm incomes in 2020.

Summary: Since 2008, U.S. agricultural exports have accounted for a 20% share of U.S. farm and manufactured or processed agricultural sales. In 2018, total agricultural exports were estimated at $143.4 billion (the second-highest export value on record). However, strong competition from major foreign competitors and the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute are expected to shift trade patterns and lower U.S. agricultural export prospects significantly (-5.5%) to a projected $135.5 billion in 2019.

Summary: Farm asset value in 2019 is projected up from 2018 at $3.1 trillion (+2.3%). Farm asset values reflect farm investors' and lenders' expectations about long-term profitability of farm sector investments. U.S. farmland values are projected to rise 2.1% in 2019, slightly higher than the 1.6% in 2018 but below the 3.0% of 2017. Because they comprise 83% of the U.S. farm sector's asset base, change in farmland values is a critical barometer of the farm sector's financial performance. However, another critical measure of the farm sector's well-being is aggregate farm debt, which is projected to be at a record $415.5 billion in 2019âup 3.5% from 2018. Both the debt-to-asset and the debt-to-equity ratios have risen for seven consecutive years, suggesting a weakening of the U.S. farm sector's financial situation.

Summary: At the farm household level, average farm household incomes have been well above average U.S. household incomes since the late 1990s. However, this advantage derives primarily from off-farm income as a share of farm household total income. Since 2014, over half of U.S. farm operations have had negative income from their agricultural operations. Furthermore, the farm household income advantage over the average U.S. household has narrowed in recent years. In 2014, the average farm household income (including off-farm income sources) was about 77% higher than the average U.S. household income. In 2018 (the last year with comparable data), that advantage was expected to decline to 25%.

The U.S. farm sector is vast and varied. It encompasses production activities related to traditional field crops (such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton) and livestock and poultry products (including meat, dairy, and eggs), as well as fruits, tree nuts, and vegetables. In addition, U.S. agricultural output includes greenhouse and nursery products, forest products, custom work, machine hire, and other farm-related activities. The intensity and economic importance of each of these activities, as well as their underlying market structure and production processes, vary regionally based on the agro-climatic setting, market conditions, and other factors. As a result, farm income and rural economic conditions may vary substantially across the United States.

Annual U.S. net farm income is the single most watched indicator of farm sector well-being, as it captures and reflects the entirety of economic activity across the range of production processes, input expenses, and marketing conditions that have prevailed during a specific time period. When national net farm income is reported together with a measure of the national farm debt-to-asset ratio, the two summary statistics provide a quick and widely referenced indicator of the economic well-being of the national farm economy.

USDA's November 2019 Farm Income Forecast

In the third of three official U.S. farm income outlook releases scheduled for 2019 (see shaded box below), ERS projects that U.S. net farm income will rise 10.2% in 2019 to $92.5 billion, up $8.5 billion from last year. Net cash income (calculated on a cash-flow basis) is also projected higher in 2019 (+15.0%) at $119.0 billion. The November forecast of $92.5 billion is 6.3% above the 10-year average of $87.0 billion but is well below 2013's record high of $123.7 billion.

The November 2019 net farm income forecast represents an increase from both USDA's preliminary March 2019 forecast of $69.4 billion, and the August 2019 forecast of $88.0 billion ( Table A-1 ). The initial March forecast did not anticipate the second round of MFP payments (valued at up to $14.5 billion). The increase in government support in 2019, projected at $22.4 billion and up 64.0% from 2018, is the principal driver behind the rise in net farm incomeâboth year-to-year and from the previous two forecasts. Support from traditional farm programs is expected to be bolstered by large direct government payments in response to trade retaliation under the trade war with China. Direct government payments of $22.4 billion in 2019, if realized, would represent 24.2% of net farm incomeâthe largest share since a 27.6% share in 2006.

For historical perspective, both net cash income and net farm income achieved record highs in 2013 but fell to recent lows in 2016 ( Figure 1 ) before trending higher in each of the past three years (2017, 2018, and 2019). When adjusted for inflation and represented in 2019 dollars ( Figure 2 ), the net farm income for 2019 is projected to be on par with the average of $86.8 billion for net farm income since 1940. Global demand for U.S. agricultural exports ( Figure 18 ) is projected at $134.5 billion in 2019, down from 2018 (-6.2%), due largely to a decline in sales to China. Farm asset values and debt levels are projected to reach record levels in 2019âasset values at $3.1 trillion (+2.1%) and farm debt at $415.5 billion (+3.4%)âpushing the projected debt-to-asset ratio up to 13.5%, the highest level since 2003 ( Figure 23 ). For 2019, USDA forecasts that prices for most major commoditiesâbarley, soybeans, sorghum, oats, rice, hogs, and milkâwill be up slightly from 2018, while cotton, wheat, choice steers, broilers, and eggs are expected to be lower ( Table A-4 ). However, these projections are subject to substantial uncertainty associated with international commodity markets.

Three Major Factors Dominate the 2019 Farm Income Outlook

Abundant domestic and international supplies of grains and oilseeds contributed to a fifth straight year of relatively weak commodity prices in 2019 ( Figure A-1 through Figure A-4 , and Table A-4 ). Furthermore, prospects for market conditions heading into 2020 remain uncertain. Three major factors have dominated U.S. agricultural markets during 2019, and have contributed to uncertainty over both supply and demand prospects, as well as market prices, heading into 2020.

First, large domestic supplies of corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton were carried over into 2019 ( Figure 3 ). Large corn and soybean stocks have kept pressure on commodity prices throughout the grain and feed complex in 2019.

Second, adverse weather conditions during the spring planting and fall harvesting periods have contributed to market uncertainty regarding the size of the 2019 corn and soybean crops.

Third, the U.S.-China trade dispute has led to declines in U.S. exports to Chinaâa major market for U.S. agricultural productsâand added to market uncertainty. In particular, the United States lost its dominant role in the world's preeminent market for soybeansâChina. It is unclear how soon, if at all, the United States may resolve its trade dispute with China or how international demand may evolve heading into 2020.

Large Corn and Soybean Stocks Continue to Dominate Commodity Markets

Corn and soybeans are the two largest U.S. commercial crops in terms of both value and acreage. For the past several years, U.S. corn and soybean crops have experienced strong growth in both productivity and output, thus helping to build stockpiles at the end of the marketing year.

In 2018, U.S. farmers produced a record U.S. soybean harvest of 4.5 billion bushels and record ending stocks (913 million bushels or a 23.0% stocks-to-use ratio) that year ( Figure 3 ). The record soybean harvest in 2018, combined with the sudden loss of the Chinese soybean market (as discussed in the " Agricultural Trade Outlook " section of this report), kept downward pressure on U.S. soybean prices. A smaller crop and lower stocks are projected for 2019; however, the reduction in volume of U.S. soybean exports to China has prevented a major price recovery.

Similarly, several consecutive years of bumper U.S. corn crops have built domestic corn supplies. U.S. corn ending stocks in 2019 are projected to approach or surpass 2 billion bushels for the fourth consecutive year. U.S. wheat and cotton supplies are also projected to remain high relative to use, thus keeping downward pressure on farm prices.

Poor Weather for Planting, Harvesting U.S. Corn and Soybean Crops

U.S. agricultural production activity got off to a late start in 2019 due to prolonged cool, wet conditions throughout the major growing regions, particularly in states across the eastern Corn Belt and the Dakotas. This resulted in record large "prevented plant" acres (reported at 19.6 million acres by the Farm Service Agency) and delays in the planting of the corn and soybean crops, especially in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and North and South Dakota.

Traditionally, 96% of the U.S. corn crop is planted by June 2, but in 2019 67% of the crop had been planted by that date. Similarly, the U.S. soybean crop was planted with substantial delays. By June 16, 77% of the U.S. soybean crop was planted, whereas an average of 93% of the crop has been planted by that date during the past five years. These planting delays have significant implications for crop development because they push both crops' growing cycle into hotter, drier periods of the summer than usual and increase the risk of plant growth being shut off by an early freeze, thus preventing the plants from achieving their maximum yield potential.

Then, in the fall, early bouts of cold, wet conditions delayed corn and soybean harvests in the Western Corn Belt and produced high-moisture crops, requiring costly drying prior to storage. Many farmers left crops in the field unharvested due to wet fields or the lack of access to sufficient propane to dry wet crops. As of December 2, 2019, nearly 11% of the corn crop remained unharvested.

Diminished Trade Prospects Contribute to Market Uncertainty

The United States is traditionally one of the world's leading exporters of corn, soybeans, and soybean productsâvegetable oil and meal. During the recent five-year period from marketing year 2013/2014 to 2017/2018, the United States exported 49% of its soybean production and 15% of its corn crop. Thus, the export outlook for both of these crops is critical to farm sector profitability and regional economic activity across large swaths of the United States as well as in international markets. However, the tariff-related trade dispute between the United States and China (as well as several other major trading partners) has resulted in lower purchases of U.S. agricultural products by China in calendar years 2018 and 2019, and has cast uncertainty over the outlook for the U.S. agricultural sector, including the corn and soybean markets.

Because the livestock sectors (particularly dairy and cattle, but hogs and poultry to a lesser degree) have longer biological lags and often require large capital investments up front, they are slower to adjust to changing market conditions than is the crop sector. As a result, USDA projects livestock and dairy production and prices an extra year into the future (compared with the crop sector) through 2020, and market participants consider this expanded outlook when deciding their market interactionsâbuy, sell, invest, etc.

Background on the U.S. Cattle-Beef Sector

During the 2007-2014 period, high feed and forage prices plus widespread drought in the Southern Plainsâthe largest U.S. cattle production regionâresulted in an 8% contraction of the U.S. cattle inventory. Reduced beef supplies led to higher producer and consumer prices and record profitability among cow-calf producers in 2014. This was coupled with then-improved forage conditions, all of which helped to trigger the slow rebuilding phase in the cattle cycle that started in 2014 ( Figure 4 ).

The expansion continued through 2018, despite weakening profitability, primarily due to the lag in the biological response to the strong market price signals of late 2014. The cattle expansion appears to have levelled off in 2019, with the estimated cattle and calf population unchanged from a year earlier at 103 million. Another factor working against continued expansion in cattle numbers is that producers are now producing more beef with fewer cattle as a result of heavier weights for marketed cattle.

Robust Production Growth Projected Across the Livestock Sector

Similar to the cattle sector, U.S. hog and poultry flocks have been growing in recent years and are expected to continue to expand in 2019. For 2019, USDA projects production of beef (+0.6%), pork (+5.0%), broilers (+2.7%), and eggs (+2.5%) to expand robustly heading into 2020. This growth in protein production is expected to be followed by continued positive growth rates in 2020: beef (+1.9%), pork (+3.8%), broilers (+1.8%), and eggs (+0.8%). A key uncertainty for the meat-producing sector is whether demand will expand rapidly enough to absorb the continued growth in output or whether surplus production will begin to pressure prices lower. USDA projects that combined domestic and export demand for 2019 will continue to grow for red meat (+6.2%)âdriven primarily by demand for pork productsâbut flatten for poultry (+0.0%).

Livestock-Price-to-Feed-Cost Ratios Signal Profitability Outlook

The changing conditions for the U.S. livestock sector may be tracked by the evolution of the ratios of livestock output prices to feed costs ( Figure 5 ). A higher ratio suggests greater profitability for producers. The cattle-, hog-, and broiler-to-feed margins have all exhibited significant volatility during the 2017-2019 period. The hog, broiler, and cattle feed ratios have trended downward during 2018 and 2019, suggesting eroding profitability. The milk-to-feed price ratio has trended upward from mid-2018 into 2019. While this result varies widely across the United States, many small or marginally profitable cattle, hog, broiler, and milk producers face continued financial difficulties.

Continued production growth of between 1% and 4% for red meat and poultry suggests that prices are vulnerable to weakness in demand. However, USDA projects that the price outlook for cattle, hogs, and poultry is expected to turn upward in 2020 ( Table A-4 ). Similarly, U.S. milk production is projected to continue growing in 2019 (+0.5%) and 2020 (+1.7%). Despite this growth, USDA projects U.S. milk prices up in both 2019 (+14.4%) and 2020 (1.3%).

Projected farm-sector revenue sources in 2019 include crop revenues (46% of sector revenues), livestock receipts (41%), government payments (5%), and other farm-related income (8%), including crop insurance indemnities, machine hire, and custom work. Total farm sector gross cash income for 2019 is projected to be up (+3.9%) to $431.0 billion, driven by increases in both direct government payments (+64.0%) and other farm-related income (+18.1%). Cash receipts from crop receipts (+1.0%) and livestock product (+0.1%) are up (+0.6%) in the aggregate ( Figure 6 ).

Total crop sales peaked in 2012 at $231.6 billion when a nationwide drought pushed commodity prices to record or near-record levels. In 2019, crop sales are projected at $197.4 billion, up 1.0% from 2018 ( Figure 7 ). Projections for 2019 and percentage changes from 2018 include

Feed cropsâcorn, barley, oats, sorghum, and hay: $59.6 billion (+4.5%); Oil cropsâsoybeans, peanuts, and other oilseeds: $37.6 billion (-5.2%); Fruits and nuts: $29.4 billion (+1.3%); Vegetables and melons: $20.4 billion (+10.0%); Food grainsâwheat and rice: $11.3 billion (-7.2%); Cotton: $7.4 billion (-8.5%); and Other crops including tobacco, sugar, greenhouse, and nursery: $31.3 billion (+3.4%).

The livestock sector includes cattle, hogs, sheep, poultry and eggs, dairy, and other minor activities. Cash receipts for the livestock sector grew steadily from 2009 to 2014, when it peaked at a record $212.3 billion. However, the sector turned downward in 2015 (-10.7%) and again in 2016 (-14.1%), driven largely by projected year-over-year price declines across major livestock categories ( Table A-4 and Figure 9 ).

In 2017, livestock sector cash receipts recovered with year-to-year growth of 8.1% to $175.6 billion. In 2018, cash receipts increased slightly (+0.6%). In 2019, cash receipts are projected up slightly (+0.1%) for the sector at $176.8 billion as increased hog and dairy sales offset declines in poultry and cattle. Projections for 2019 (and percentage changes from 2018) include

Cattle and calf sales: $66.5 billion (-0.9%); Poultry and egg sales: $40.0 billion (-13.6%); Dairy sales: valued at $39.9 billion (+13.2%); Hog sales: $23.5 billion (+11.2%); and Miscellaneous livestock: valued at $7.0 billion (+2.1%).

Historically, government payments have included

Direct payments (decoupled payments based on historical planted acres), Price-contingent payments (program outlays linked to market conditions), Conservation payments (including the Conservation Reserve Program and other environmental-based outlays), Ad hoc and emergency disaster assistance payments (including emergency supplemental crop and livestock disaster payments and market loss assistance payments for relief of low commodity prices), and Other miscellaneous outlays (including market facilitation payments, cotton ginning cost-share, biomass crop assistance program, peanut quota buyout, milk income loss, tobacco transition, and other miscellaneous payments).

Projected government payments of $22.4 billion in 2019 would be up 64.0% from 2018 and would be the largest taxpayer transfer to the agriculture sector (in absolute dollars) since 2005 ( Figure 11 and Table A-1 ). The projected surge in federal subsidies is driven by large "trade-damage" payments made under the MFP initiated by USDA in response to the U.S.-China trade dispute. MFP payments (reported to be $14.3 billion) in 2019 include outlays from the 2018 MFP program that were not received by producers until 2019, as well as expected payments under the first and second tranches of the 2019 MFP program.

USDA ad hoc disaster assistance is projected higher year-over-year at $1.7 billion (+90.7%). Most of the $1.7 billion comes from a new, temporary program, the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+) enacted through the Disaster Relief Act of 2019 ( P.L. 116-20 ). Payments under the Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs are projected lower (-19.0%) in 2019 at a combined $2.6 billion compared with an estimated $3.2 billion in 2018 (see "Price Contingent" in Figure 11 ).

Conservation programs include all conservation programs operated by USDA's Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service that provide direct payments to producers. Estimated conservation payments of $3.5 billion are forecast for 2019, down (-11.3%) from $4.0 billion in 2018.

Total government payments of $22.4 billion represents a 5% share of projected gross cash income of $425.3 billion in 2019 ( Figure 6 ). In contrast, government payments are expected to represent 24% of the projected net farm income of $92.5 billion. If realized, this would be the largest share since 2006 ( Figure 12 ). The government share of net farm income reached a peak of 65.2% in 1984 during the height of the farm crisis of the 1980s. The importance of government payments as a percentage of net farm income varies nationally by crop and livestock sector and by region.

The 2018 farm bill ( P.L. 115-334 ) made several changes to the previous Margin Protection Program (MPP), including a new nameâthe Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) programâand expanded margin coverage choices from the original range of $4.00-$8.00 per hundredweight (cwt.). Under the 2018 farm bill, milk producers have the option of covering the milk-to-feed margin up to a threshold of $9.50/cwt. on the first 5 million pounds of milk coverage.

The DMC margin differs from the USDA-reported milk-to-feed ratio (shown in Figure 5 ), but reflects the same market forces. As of October 2019, the formula-based milk-to-feed margin used to determine government payments had risen to $10.88/cwt., above the newly instituted $9.50/cwt. payment threshold ( Figure 13 ), thus decreasing the likelihood that DMC payments might be available in the second half of 2019. In total, the DMC program is expected to make $214 million in payments in 2019, down from $250 million under the previous MPP in 2018.

Total production expenses for 2019 for the U.S. agricultural sector are projected to be up slightly (+0.2%) from 2018 in nominal dollars at $344.6 billion ( Figure 14 ). Production expenses peaked in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars in 2014, then declined for five consecutive years in inflation-adjusted dollars. However, in nominal dollars production expenses are projected to turn upward in 2019.

Production expenses affect crop and livestock farms differently. The principal expenses for livestock farms are feed costs, purchases of feeder animals and poultry, and hired labor. Feed costs, labor expenses, and property taxes are all projected up in 2019 ( Figure 15 ). In contrast, fuel, seed, pesticides, interest, and fertilizer costsâall major crop production expensesâare projected lower.

But how have production expenses moved relative to revenues? A comparison of the indexes of prices paid (an indicator of expenses) versus prices received (an indicator of revenues) reveals that the prices received index generally declined from 2014 through 2016, rebounded in 2017, then declined again in 2019 ( Figure 16 ). Farm input prices (as reflected by the prices paid index) showed a similar pattern but with a smaller decline from their 2014 peak and have climbed steadily since mid-2016, suggesting that farm sector profit margins have been squeezed since 2016.

Renting or leasing land is a way for young or beginning farmers to enter agriculture without incurring debt associated with land purchases. It is also a means for existing farm operations to adjust production more quickly in response to changing market and production conditions while avoiding risks associated with land ownership. The share of rented farmland varies widely by region and production activity. However, for some farms it constitutes an important component of farm operating expenses. Since 2002, about 39% of agricultural land used in U.S. farming operations has been rented.

The majority of rented land in farms is rented from nonoperating landlords. Nationally in 2017, 29% of all land in farms was rented from someone other than a farm operator. Some farmland is rented from other farm operationsânationally about 8% of all land in farms in 2017 (the most recent year for which data are available)âand thus constitutes a source of income for some operator landlords. Total net rent to nonoperator landlords is projected to be down (-1.2%) to $12.7 billion in 2019.

Average cash rental rates for 2019 were up (+1.4%) year-over-year ($140 per acre versus $138 in 2018). Farm rental rates are generally set during the preceding fall or in early spring prior to field work. National average rental rates dipped in 2016, but continue to reflect the high crop prices and large net returns of the preceding several years, especially the 2011-2014 period ( Figure 17 ). The national rental rate for cropland peaked at $144 per acre in 2015.

U.S. agricultural exports have been a major contributor to farm income, especially since 2005. As a result, the financial success of the U.S. agricultural sector is strongly linked to international demand for U.S. products. Because of this strong linkage, the downturn in U.S. agricultural exports that started in 2015 ( Figure 18 ) deepened the downturn in farm income that ran from 2013 through 2016 ( Figure 1 ). Since 2018, the U.S. agricultural sector's trade outlook has been vulnerable to several international trade disputes, particularly the ongoing dispute between the United States and China. A return to market-based farm income growth for the U.S. agricultural sector would likely need improved international trade prospects.

USDA projects U.S. agricultural exports at $135.5 billion in FY2019, down (-5.5%) from $143.4 billion in FY2018. Export data include processed and unprocessed agricultural products. This aggregate downturn masks larger country-level changes that have occurred as a result of ongoing trade disputes (discussed below). In FY2019, U.S. agricultural imports are projected up at $113.0 billion (+2.7%), and the resultant agricultural trade surplus of $7.0 billion would be the lowest since 2006.

A substantial portion of the surge in U.S. agricultural exports that occurred between 2010 and 2014 was due to higher-priced grain and feed shipments, including record oilseed exports to China and growing animal product exports to East Asia. As commodity prices have leveled off, so too have export values (see the commodity price indexes in Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 ). In FY2017, the top three markets for U.S. agricultural exports were China, Canada, and Mexico, in that order. Together, these three countries accounted for 47% of total U.S. agricultural exports during the five-year period FY2013-FY2017 ( Figure 19 ). However, in FY2019 the combined share of U.S. exports taken by China, Canada, and Mexico is projected down to 40% largely due to lower exports to China. The ordering of the top markets in 2019 is projected to be Canada, Mexico, the European Union (EU), Japan, and China, as China is projected to decline as a destination for U.S. agricultural exports. From FY2013 through FY2017, China imported an average of $26.4 billion of U.S. agricultural products. However, USDA reported that China's imports of U.S. agricultural products declined to $20.5 billion in FY2018, and are projected to decline further to $13.6 billion in FY2019 as a result of the U.S.-China trade dispute. The fourth- and fifth-largest U.S. export markets have traditionally been the EU and Japan, which accounted for a combined 17% of U.S. agricultural exports during the FY2014 to FY2018 period. These two markets have shown limited growth in recent years when compared with the rest of the world. However, their combined share is projected to grow slightly to 18% in FY2019 ( Figure 19 ). The "Rest of World" (ROW) component of U.S. agricultural tradeâSouth and Central America, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asiaâhas shown strong import growth in recent years. ROW is expected to account for 42% of U.S. agricultural exports in FY2019. ROW import growth is being driven in part by both population and GDP growth but also from shifting trade patterns as some U.S. products previously targeting China have been diverted to new ROW markets. Over the past four decades, U.S. agricultural exports have experienced fairly steady growth in shipments of high-value productsâincluding horticultural products, livestock, poultry, and dairy. High-valued exports are forecast at $100.1 billion for a 73.8% share of U.S. agricultural exports in FY2019 ( Figure 20 ). In contrast, bulk commodity shipments (primarily wheat, rice, feed grains, soybeans, cotton, and unmanufactured tobacco) are forecast at a record low 26.2% share of total U.S. agricultural exports in FY2019 at $35.5 billion. This compares with an average share of over 60% during the 1970s and into the 1980s. As grain and oilseed prices decline, so will the bulk value share of U.S. exports.

The U.S. farm income and asset-value situation and outlook suggest a slowly eroding financial situation heading into 2019 for the agriculture sector as a whole. Considerable uncertainty clouds the economic outlook for the sector, reflecting the downward outlook for prices and market conditions, an increasing dependency on international markets to absorb domestic surpluses, and an increasing dependency on federal support to offset lost trade opportunities due to ongoing trade disputes.

Farm asset valuesâwhich reflect farm investors' and lenders' expectations about long-term profitability of farm sector investmentsâare projected to be up 2.3% in 2019 to a nominal $3.1 trillion ( Table A-3 ). In inflation-adjusted terms (using 2018 dollars), farm asset values peaked in 2014 ( Figure 21 ). Nominally higher farm asset values are expected in 2019 due to increases in both real estate values (+2.1%) and nonreal-estate values (+3.4%). Real estate is projected to account for 83% of total farm sector asset value. Crop land values are closely linked to commodity prices. The leveling off of crop land values since 2015 reflects stagnant commodity prices ( Figure 22 ).

Total farm debt is forecast to rise to a record $415.5 billion in 2019 (+3.4%) ( Table A-3 ). Farm equityâor net worth, defined as asset value minus debtâis projected to be up slightly (+2.2%) at $2.7 trillion in 2019 ( Table A-3 ). The farm debt-to-asset ratio is forecast up in 2019 at 13.4%, the highest level since 2003 but still relatively low by historical standards ( Figure 23 ). If realized, this would be the seventh consecutive year of increase in the debt-to-asset ratio.

A farm can have both an on-farm and an off-farm component to its income statement and balance sheet of assets and debt. Thus, the well-being of farm operator households is not equivalent to the financial performance of the farm sector or of farm businesses because of the inclusion of nonfarm investments, jobs, and other links to the nonfarm economy.

Average farm household income (sum of on- and off-farm income) is projected at $120,082 in 2019 ( Table A-2 ), up 7.0% from 2018 but 10.5% below the record of $134,165 in 2014. About 20% ($24,106) of total farm household income in 2019 is projected to be from farm production activities, and the remaining 80% ($95,976) is earned off the farm (including financial investments). The share of farm income derived from off-farm sources had increased steadily for decades but peaked at about 95% in 2000 ( Figure 24 ). Since 2014, over half of U.S. farm operations have had negative income from their agricultural operations.

Since the late 1990s, farm household incomes have surged ahead of average U.S. household incomes ( Figure 25 ). In 2018 (the last year for which comparable data were available), the average farm household income of $112,211 was about 25% higher than the average U.S. household income of $90,021 ( Table A-2 ).

Figure A-1 to Figure A-4 present USDA data on monthly farm prices received for several major farm commoditiesâcorn, soybeans, wheat, upland cotton, rice, milk, cattle, hogs, and chickens. The data are presented in an indexed format where monthly price data for year 2010 = 100 to facilitate comparisons.

Table A-1 to Table A-3 present aggregate farm income variables that summarize the financial situation of U.S. agriculture. In addition, Table A-4 presents the annual average farm price received for several major commodities, including the USDA forecast for the 2019-2020 marketing year.


Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related Legislation

Summary: On June 4, 2019, the House passed the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 ( H.R. 6 ) on a vote of 237 to 187. Title I of the bill, the Dream Act of 2019, would establish a process for certain unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States as children (known as unauthorized childhood arrivals) to obtain lawful permanent immigration status. This vote on H.R. 6 was the latest in a line of House and Senate floor votes on legislation to grant some type of immigration relief to unauthorized childhood arrivals.

Summary: As commonly used, the term "unauthorized childhood arrivals" encompasses both individuals who entered the United States unlawfully, and individuals who entered legally but then lost legal status by violating the terms of a temporary visa. There is no single set of requirements that defines an unauthorized childhood arrival. Individual bills include their own criteria.

Summary: Legislation on unauthorized childhood arrivals dates to 2001. The earliest bills, which received Senate committee action in the 107 th and 108 th Congresses, only addressed unauthorized childhood arrivals. More recent proposals receiving legislative action have combined provisions on unauthorized childhood arrivals with other immigration provisionsâin some cases, these have been major bills to reform the immigration system, such as Senate-passed S. 744 in the 113 th Congress. None of these bills have been enacted into law.

Summary: Most measures on unauthorized childhood arrivals that have seen legislative action have proposed mechanisms for eligible individuals to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs), typically through a two-stage process. Criteria to obtain a conditional or temporary status (stage 1) commonly include continuous presence in the United States for a minimum number of years prior to the date of the bill's enactment, initial entry into the United States as a minor, and satisfaction of specified educational requirements. Criteria to become a full-fledged LPR (stage 2) typically include satisfaction of additional educational requirements or service in the Armed Forces, or, in some cases, employment. Proposals to grant legal immigration status to unauthorized childhood arrivals also require applicants to clear criminal and security-related ineligibility criteria.

Summary: In June 2012, following unsuccessful efforts in the 111 th Congress to enact legislation to grant LPR status to unauthorized childhood arrivals, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. Under this initiative, eligible unauthorized childhood arrivals could receive renewable two-year protection from removal and work authorization. The eligibility criteria for an initial grant of DACA were broadly similar to those in earlier bills on unauthorized childhood arrivals and included continuous residence in the Unite d States since June 2007 , initial U.S. entry before age 16 , and satisfaction of educational requirements or service in the Armed Forces.

Summary: In September 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that DACA was being terminated. Due to court rulings to date, however, past recipients continue to be able to request DACA. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the DACA rescission on November 12, 2019.

Summary: According to USCIS data, there were approximately 669,080 active DACA recipients as of April 30, 2019, and the total number of individuals who had ever been granted DACA was 822,063 as of July 31, 2019. These DACA recipient numbers can be compared to estimates of the DACA-eligible population. The Migration Policy Institute has estimated that as of 2018, 1,302,000 individuals met the original DACA eligibility requirements and an additional 356,000 met the age, residence, and immigration status criteria but not the educational requirements.

Summary: It remains to be seen whether H.R. 6 , as passed by the House, or another measure to grant legal status to unauthorized childhood arrivals will be enacted into law.

On June 4, 2019, the House passed the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 ( H.R. 6 ) on a vote of 237 to 187. Title I of the bill, the Dream Act of 2019, would establish a process for certain unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States as children (known as unauthorized childhood arrivals) to obtain lawful permanent immigration status. This vote on H.R. 6 was one of several House and Senate floor votes since 2018âand the only successful oneâon legislation to grant some type of immigration relief to unauthorized childhood arrivals.

As commonly used, the term "unauthorized childhood arrivals" encompasses both individuals who entered the United States unlawfully and individuals who entered legally but then lost legal status, by, for example, overstaying an authorized temporary period of stay. There is no single set of requirements that defines an unauthorized childhood arrival. Individual bills include their own criteria.

This report considers House and Senate measures on unauthorized childhood arrivals that have seen legislative action since 2001, focusing in particular on legislation considered in the 115 th and 116 th Congresses. It also discusses the related Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative and DACA-related data. The material is presented chronologically to trace the development of legislative proposals on unauthorized childhood arrivals and highlight the interplay between legislative action on these measures and developments related to the DACA initiative.

Original Dream Acts in the 107th and 108th Congresses

Legislation on unauthorized childhood arrivals dates to 2001. That year, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act ( S. 1291 ) was introduced in the 107 th Congress to provide a pathway to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status for eligible individuals. LPRs can live and work in the United States permanently and can become U.S. citizens through the naturalization provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In most cases, LPRs must reside in the United States for five years before they can naturalize.

S. 1291 sought to provide immigration relief to unauthorized childhood arrivals who, like the larger unauthorized population, were typically unable to work legally and were subject to removal from the United States. Many policymakers viewed this subset of the unauthorized population more sympathetically than unauthorized immigrants on the whole because unauthorized childhood arrivals had arrived in the United States as children and were thus not generally seen as being responsible for their unlawful status.

Although not all subsequent bills to grant LPR status to unauthorized childhood arrivals were entitled the "DREAM Act" and no subsequent bill included exactly the same provisions as S. 1291 , such legislation came to be known generally as the "Dream Act" and its intended beneficiaries as "Dreamers."

In general, the potential beneficiaries of such bills did not have an avenue under the INA to become LPRs. The most common way for a foreign national to adjust status (become an LPR while in the United States) is through INA provisions that require the individual to be eligible for an immigrant visa and to have such a visa immediately available to him or her through the permanent immigration system. Individuals are most often eligible for immigrant visas based on a qualifying family relationship (to a U.S. citizen or LPR) or an employment tie. Among the other criteria to adjust status under these provisions, the individual must have been "inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States"; thus, individuals who entered the United States unlawfully are not eligible. In addition, with limited exceptions, an individual is not eligible for adjustment of status if he or she falls in a disqualified category, such as someone who engaged in unauthorized employment or "who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States."

S. 1291 in the 107 th Congress and a subsequent DREAM Act bill ( S. 1545 ) introduced in the 108 th Congress were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Neither bill saw further action.

S. 1545 , as reported in the 108 th Congress, contained the basic features of many later proposals to provide LPR status to unauthorized childhood arrivals. It applied to foreign nationals who were "inadmissible or deportable from the United States"âthis is how the bill described its target unauthorized population. The grounds of inadmissibility in the INA are the grounds on which a foreign national can be denied admission to the United States. The grounds of deportability are the grounds on which a foreign national can be removed from the United States.

S. 1545 , as reported, proposed a two-stage process for eligible individuals to become LPRs. Criteria to obtain conditional status (stage 1) included continuous presence in the United States for five years prior to the date of the bill's enactment, initial entry into the United States before age 16, and satisfaction of specified educational requirements. Criteria to become a full-fledged LPR (stage 2) included completion of at least two years in a bachelor's or higher degree program or in the Armed Forces, subject to a hardship exception. At either stage, an applicant could have been disqualified if he or she was inadmissible to or deportable from the United States under specified grounds in the INA.

S. 1545 would have granted qualifying childhood arrivals conditional LPR status. Describing that status, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations state, "Unless otherwise specified, the rights, privileges, responsibilities and duties which apply to all other lawful permanent residents apply equally to conditional permanent residents, including but not limited to the right to apply for naturalization (if otherwise eligible)." Regarding naturalization, S. 1545 provided that the time spent in conditional LPR status would have counted toward the LPR residence requirement for naturalization. At the same time, it stated that an individual could only apply to naturalize once the conditional basis of his or her status were removed (and he or she was a full-fledged LPR).

Other provisions in S. 1545 addressed eligibility for higher education benefits. The bill provided that individuals obtaining LPR status under its terms would only be eligible for certain forms of federal student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, namely federal student loans, federal Work-Study programs, and services. Unlike LPRs generally, they would seemingly not have been eligible for grant aid (e.g., federal Pell Grants). At the same time, S. 1545 proposed to eliminate a provision enacted in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) that restricts the ability of states to provide higher education benefits to certain unauthorized immigrants. Section 505 of IIRIRA reads:

an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

Legislative Activity in the 109th through the 111thÂ Congresses

Beginning in the 109 th Congress, proposals on unauthorized childhood arrivalsâwhich had received action in earlier Congresses as stand-alone billsâwere incorporated into larger measures. In the 109 th through the 111 th Congresses, several measures to grant LPR status to unauthorized childhood arrivals were considered on the Senate and the House floors.

In the 109 th Congress, the Senate passed a major immigration reform bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 ( S. 2611 ), with a DREAM Act subtitle. The Senate vote was 62 to 36. The House did not consider the bill.

The DREAM Act provisions in Senate-passed S. 2611 were similar to those in stand-alone S. 1545 , as reported in the 108 th Congress. Like the earlier bill, S. 2611 would have established a mechanism for an eligible unauthorized childhood arrival to become a conditional LPR and then, after meeting additional requirements, have the conditional basis of his or her status removed and become a full-fledged LPR. Applicants also would have had to clear inadmissibility and deportability criteria similar to those under S. 1545 . These DREAM Act provisions were separate from other legalization provisions in S. 2611 , and applicants under the DREAM Act provisions would not have been subject to the same requirements as applicants under the general legalization provisions. This more generous treatment of unauthorized childhood arrivals reflected a widely held belief that they were different and less responsible for their unlawful status than other unauthorized immigrants.

Although the DREAM Act provisions in Senate-passed S. 2611 and S. 1545 , as reported, were similar, there were some differences. For example, under S. 1545 , as noted, the noneducational route through which a conditional LPR could become a full-fledged LPR required service in the Armed Forces. The comparable route under Senate-passed S. 2611 encompassed service in the broader uniformed services.

In the 110 th Congress, there was an unsuccessful vote in the Senate to invoke cloture on a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform ( S. 1639 ) that included a DREAM Act subtitle among other legalization provisions. The vote was 46 to 53.

S. 1639 differed from earlier bills on unauthorized childhood arrivals in notable ways. For example, unlike S. 2611 , the immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in the 109 th Congress, S. 1639 's DREAM Act provisions were tied to other legalization provisions in the bill. Under S. 1639 , the first step to LPR status for an unauthorized childhood arrival was the same as for any unauthorized immigrant: to obtain temporary legal status under a new "Z" nonimmigrant category. Among the eligibility requirements for Z status were continuous presence in the United States since a specified date and clearance of inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria that were stricter than under S. 2611 . Other requirements for obtaining Z status under S. 1639 included submission of biometric data for security and law enforcement background checks and satisfaction of any applicable federal tax liabilities.

Z nonimmigrant status would have been granted for an initial period of four years and could have been extended in four-year increments. Applicants for extensions would have had to satisfy, among other criteria, escalating requirements concerning knowledge of the English language and U.S. civics, unless they qualified for an exception. These requirements were based on the English and civics requirements for naturalization.

S. 1639 would have established different pathways to LPR status for Z nonimmigrants. A DREAM Act pathway to LPR status, which would have been quicker than the standard pathway provided in the bill, would have been available to Z nonimmigrants who met an additional set of requirements. These included being under age 30 on the date of enactment, being under age 16 at the time of initial U.S. entry, and having completed at least two years in either a bachelor's or higher degree program or the uniformed services. The "under age 30" requirement was new; earlier bills receiving action did not include maximum age provisions. S. 1639 would have deemed individuals obtaining LPR status under its DREAM Act pathway to meet the LPR residence requirement for naturalization eight years after the date of enactment.

S. 1639 also addressed eligibility for higher education benefits. As under the earlier bills discussed above, individuals obtaining LPR status under S. 1639 's DREAM Act pathway would have been eligible for federal student loans, federal Work-Study programs, and services, but seemingly not grant aid. Unlike these other bills, S. 1639 would not have fully repealed the IIRIRA Section 505 restriction on state provision of post-secondary educational benefits, but would have rendered it ineffective for Z nonimmigrants.

Other legislation on unauthorized childhood arrivals considered in the 110 th Congress included another major immigration reform bill ( S. 1348 ). The Senate voted against invoking cloture on both S. 1348 and a substitute amendment to the bill. These votes occurred prior to the introduction of S. 1639 .

After the unsuccessful cloture vote on S. 1639 , the Senate considered a stand-alone DREAM Act bill ( S. 2205 ). It did not invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, by a vote of 52 to 44. This vote on S. 2205 brought to the fore competing views among supporters of providing LPR status to unauthorized childhood arrivals about the relationship between that issue and other components of immigration reform. Some supporters pressed for passage of the stand-alone bill arguing that the situation of unauthorized childhood arrivals was urgent. Another view held, however, that enacting a pathway to LPR status for unauthorized childhood arrivals in a narrow bill would hurt the prospects of achieving broader reform (including more controversial proposals for the legalization of other unauthorized immigrants).

In the 111 th Congress, the House approved a DREAM Act amendment to an unrelated bill, the Removal Clarification Act of 2010 ( H.R. 5281 ) on a vote of 216 to 198. The Senate rejected a motion to invoke cloture on a motion to agree to the House-passed DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281 , by a vote of 55 to 41.

This House-passed version of the DREAM Act would have established a three-stage process for individuals who were inadmissible or deportable from the United States to obtain LPR status. In stage 1, as in many previous bills, a successful applicant would have been granted conditional status. This proposal, however, would have granted conditional status in the form of conditional nonimmigrant status, which is not an existing status under immigration law. An individual would have applied in stage 2 to have his or her conditional nonimmigrant status extended, and in stage 3 to be granted LPR status. Under this DREAM Act amendment, an individual who became an LPR could naturalize after three years in LPR status.

The DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 5281 included eligibility requirements concerning continuous presence, age at entry, and educational attainment, as well as inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria. It also included some of the same types of requirements as S. 1639 in the 110 th Congressâpertaining to maximum age, submission of biometric data, satisfaction of any applicable federal tax liability, and knowledge of English and U.S. civicsâalthough the specific requirements were not necessarily the same, and did not necessarily apply at the same stage of the legalization process, in the two measures. Unlike earlier bills receiving action, the House-passed amendment would have established "surcharges" on applications for conditional status. While S. 1639 would have imposed penalty fees on applications for Z status, that bill would have made these fees inapplicable or refundable in the case of applicants who met its DREAM Act criteria.

Like the DREAM Act provisions in S. 1639 and earlier bills receiving action, the House-passed DREAM Act amendment would have made individuals who obtained conditional nonimmigrant or LPR status under its terms eligible for federal student aid in the form of federal student loans, federal Work-Study programs, and services, but seemingly not grant aid. Unlike earlier bills receiving action, the House-passed measure contained no IIRIRA Section 505 repeal language.

On June 15, 2012, DHS issued a memorandum announcing the DACA initiative. The memorandum stated that certain individuals who were brought to the United States as children and met other criteria would be considered for deferred action for two years, subject to renewal. DHS has described deferred action as "a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time."

In remarks delivered that same day, President Barack Obama called on Congress to pass DREAM Act legislation, citing in particular the House-passed bill in the 111 th Congress. He indicated that "in the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system," his Administration had tried "to focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places." He portrayed the DACA initiative as an extension of those efforts, stating that "[e]ffective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people." President Obama made clear that DACA relief was not a permanent solution. Instead, he characterized it as "a temporary stopgap measure."

The eligibility criteria for an initial two-year grant of DACA were broadly similar to those in earlie r DREAM Act bills. DHS's U.S. Citizenship a nd Immigration Services (USCIS), which administers DACA, published the eligibility criteria for an i ni tial DACA grant and a renewal on its website . The criteria for an initial DACA grant were (1) under age 31 on June 15, 2012; (2) under age 16 at time of entry into the United States; (3 ) continuous ly resident in the Unite d States since June 15, 20 07 ; (4 ) physically present in United S tates on June 15, 2012, and at the time of requesting DACA ; (5) no t in lawful status on June 15, 2012; (6) in school, graduated from high school or obtained general education development certificate, or honorably d ischarged from the Armed Forces; and (7 ) not convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and not otherwise a threat to national se curity or public safety . In addition, with specified exceptions, an individual had to be a t least age 15 to request DACA.

Individuals granted deferred action could receive employment authorization. According to USCIS, " Under existing regulations, an individual whose case has been deferred is eligible to receive employment authorization for the period of deferred action, prov ided he or she can demonstrate ' an ec onomic necessity for employment ' . " To request DACA from USCIS, an applicant had to submit Form I-821D, " Consideration of Deferre d Action for Childhood Arrivals " ; an application for employment authorization (Form I-765) and a related worksheet (Form I-765WS) ; and required fees.

Currently, as discussed later in this report, individuals who have never been granted DACA cannot submit initial requests. Individuals who have been granted DACA in the past, however, continue to be able to submit requests. To be considered for a two-year renewal, a DACA recipient must satisfy the following criteria: (1) did not depart from the United States on or after August 15, 2012, without first obtaining permission to travel, (2) has continuously resided in the United States since submitting his or her latest approved DACA request, and (3) has not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and is not a threat to national security or public safety. To request a renewal of DACA, an individual must submit the same forms and fees as for an initial request. As of the date of this report, these fees total $495.

Legislative Activity in the 113th Congresses

The next significant legislative developments related to unauthorized childhood arrivals occurred in the 113 th Congress when the Senate approved a major immigration reform bill with DREAM Act provisions. The bill, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ( S. 744 ), was passed on a 68-32 vote. The House did not consider S. 744 .

S. 744 proposed to establish a general legalization program for individuals in the United States who were not in nonimmigrant status or other specified lawful status and a special DREAM Act pathway to LPR status for certain aliens who had entered the country as children. Under S. 744 , unauthorized childhood arrivals, like other unauthorized immigrants, would first have applied for a newly created statusâregistered provisional immigrant (RPI) status. The requirements for RPI status included continuous presence in the United States since a specified date, satisfaction of any applicable federal tax liability, and submission of biometric and biographic data for national security and law enforcement clearances. RPI status would have been granted for an initial period of six years and could have been extended in six-year increments. Applicants for RPI status would have been subject to specified inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria.

Under S. 744 , DHS could have adopted streamlined RPI procedures for DACA recipients. It could have granted RPI status to a DACA recipient upon completion of renewed national security and law enforcement clearances unless the agency determined that the individual had engaged in conduct making him or her ineligible for RPI status.

S. 744 would have established a special DREAM Act pathway to LPR status for RPIs who had been in RPI status for at least five years, had initially entered the United States when they were under age 16, and, subject to a hardship exception, had completed either two years of higher education or four years of service in the uniformed services. Such individuals also would have had to submit biometric and biographic data for national security and law enforcement background checks and would have had to meet the English language and civics requirements for naturalization, unless exempted. S. 744 would have authorized DHS to adopt streamlined procedures for DACA recipients to obtain LPR status.

With respect to naturalization, an alien granted LPR status under the DREAM Act provisions in S. 744 would have been considered to be an LPR (and therefore accumulating time toward the residency requirement for naturalization) during the period in RPI status. In most cases, however, an alien could not have applied for naturalization while in RPI status.

S. 744 would have placed restrictions on federal student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act for RPIs who had entered the United States before age 16. This group would only have been eligible for federal student loans, federal Work-Study programs, and services. In addition, the bill would have repealed Section 505 of IIRIRA, which, as discussed, restricts the provision of postsecondary educational benefits for aliens who are not lawfully present.

On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that DACA was being terminated. A related memorandum released by DHS the same day rescinded the 2012 memorandum that established the initiative. As part of the rescission, DHS had planned to "execute a wind-down" of DACA, under which no new initial DACA requests would have been accepted after September 5, 2017, and no new renewal requests would have been accepted after October 5, 2017. This wind-down did not proceed as planned, however, because DACA recipients and others filed federal lawsuits challenging the legality of the rescission. Under rulings in these cases, to date, individuals who have been granted DACA in the past continue to be able to submit DACA requests. Individuals who have never been granted DACA cannot submit new initial requests. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the DACA rescission on November 12, 2019.

Individuals who have been granted DACA in the past and whose DACA grants have expired or been terminated are still able to apply for a renewal. As of August 1, 2019, USCIS has reinstated its past DACA "late renewal policy," under which an individual whose previous DACA grant expired more than one year ago or whose previous DACA grant was terminated must submit an initial DACA request rather than a renewal request.

According to USCIS data on the DACA population, there were approximately 689,000 active DACA recipients as of September 4, 2017, and approximately 669,080 active DACA recipients as of April 30, 2019. Regarding the latter group, about 80% were born in Mexico, 53% were female, and the median age was 25.

In notes accompanying the September 4, 2017, data tables, USCIS indicated that the total number of individuals who had ever been granted DACA as of that date was approximately 800,000. This number excluded individuals whose initial grants of DACA were later terminated. Of those 800,000 individuals, USCIS reported that about 40,000 had become LPRs and about 70,000 had either failed to apply to renew their DACA grants or had their renewal applications denied. As of July 31, 2019, according to USCIS data, the total number of individuals who had ever been granted DACA was 822,063. This number excluded individuals whose initial grants of DACA were later terminated. Of those 822,063 individuals, 73,043 had become LPRs and 4,448 had become citizens.

These data on DACA recipients can be compared with estimates of the DACA-eligible population. According to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), an estimated 1,307,000 unauthorized individuals were immediately eligible for DACA in 2016 based on the eligibility requirements for an initial DACA grant that MPI was able to model. In addition, an estimated 398,000 met the age, residence, and immigration status criteria but not the educational requirements.

MPI updated its estimates of the DACA-eligible population as of 2018 based on the original DACA eligibility requirements and subject to the same model limitations as the 2016 estimates. It estimated that, as of 2018, 1,302,000 individuals met the DACA eligibility requirements and an additional 356,000 met the age, residence, and immigration status criteria but not the educational requirements.

Legislative Activity in the 115th and 116th Congresses

In the fall of 2017, following the DACA rescission announcement, President Donald Trump and several Members of Congress discussed a possible deal on unauthorized childhood arrivals. Initially, these talks focused on a package combining provisions to "enshrine the protections of DACA into law" with border security provisions. Other immigration issues were subsequently introduced into the discussion, and in January 2018 the White House released its "Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security." This proposal called for legal status for DACA-eligible individuals as well as enhancements to border security and interior immigration enforcement and changes to the permanent immigration system. In the 115 th and 116 th Congresses, the Senate and the House have considered measures containing provisions to grant legal status to DACA recipients and unauthorized childhood arrivals along with other immigration provisions.

In 2018, both the Senate and the House considered immigration legislation that contained language on unauthorized childhood arrivals. A greater number of proposals to provide immigration relief to this population received floor consideration in the 115 th Congress than in any prior Congress. Neither chamber passed any of these measures.

In February 2018, the Senate considered three immigration proposals with language on unauthorized childhood arrivals as floor amendments to an unrelated bill, the Broader Options for Americans Act ( H.R. 2579 ). The Senate rejected motions to invoke cloture on all three amendments.

The Senate considered provisions on unauthorized childhood arrivals as Subtitle A of S.Amdt. 1955 , the Uniting and Securing America (USA) Act of 2018. Subtitle A was substantively identical to Title I of two bills with the same USA Act name, as introduced in the 115 th Congressâ S. 2367 and H.R. 4796 .

S.Amdt. 1955 would have established a mechanism for certain childhood arrivals who were inadmissible to or deportable from the United States or were in temporary protected status (TPS) to become LPRsâin most cases through a two-stage process. Applicants would have been considered for conditional LPR status in stage 1. To receive such status, an applicant would have had to meet requirements including continuous presence in the United States since December 31, 2013; initial U.S. entry before age 18; no inadmissibility under specified grounds in the INA and no other specified ineligibilities; and either college admission, acquisition of a high school diploma or comparable credential, or enrollment in secondary school or a comparable educational program. S.Amdt. 1955 would have directed DHS to grant conditional LPR status to a DACA recipient unless the individual had subsequently engaged in conduct that would make him or her ineligible for DACA. Applicants also would have had to submit biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks. Conditional LPR status would have been valid for eight years.

In stage 2, a conditional LPR would have had to meet a second set of requirements to have the conditional basis of his or her status removed and become a full-fledged LPR. Among these requirements were achievement of one of the following, subject to a hardship exception: (1) attainment of a college degree, completion of at least two years in a bachelor's or higher degree program, or completion of at least two years in a postsecondary vocational program, (2) service in the uniformed services for the obligatory period, or (3) employment for at least three years and at least 80% of the time the alien had valid employment authorization. The other stage 2 requirements included submission of biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks, continued clearance of the inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria for conditional LPR status, and, unless subject to an exception due to a disability, satisfaction of the English language and U.S. civics requirements for naturalization.

Under S.Amdt. 1955 , a conditional LPR could have applied to have the condition on his or her status removed at any time after meeting the stage 2 requirements. The time spent in conditional status would have counted as time in LPR status for purposes of naturalization, but the individual could not have applied for naturalization while in conditional status. In addition, the bill would have provided that an applicant meeting all the stage 1 and stage 2 requirements at the time of submitting his or her initial application would have been granted full-fledged LPR status directly (without first being granted conditional status). Earlier bills receiving floor action did not include such a provision.

Regarding postsecondary education, S.Amdt. 1955 would have repealed Section 505 of IIRIRA. The measure did not include any language concerning federal student aid.

On February 15, 2018, the Senate voted (52 to 47) not to invoke cloture on S.Amdt. 1955 .

S.Amdt. 1958 , the Immigration Security and Opportunity Act, would have established a two-stage pathway to LPR status for certain childhood arrivals who were inadmissible to or deportable from the United States. It incorporated some eligibility requirements for applicants at both stages that were not included in S.Amdt. 1955 . Under S.Amdt. 1958 , to obtain conditional LPR status in stage 1 an individual would have had to either be a DACA recipient or meet a set of requirements. For a DACA recipient to qualify, he or she could not have engaged in any conduct since being granted DACA that would have made the individual ineligible for DACA protection.

Requirements applicable to a non-DACA recipient included continuous presence in the United States since June 15, 2012; initial U.S. entry before age 18; no inadmissibility under specified grounds in the INA and no other specified ineligibilities; and either satisfaction of educational requirements like those under S.Amdt. 1955 , or enlistment or service in the Armed Forces. In addition, a non-DACA recipient would have had to meet a maximum age requirementâhaving a birthdate after June 15, 1974âand to have satisfied any applicable federal tax liability.

All stage 1 applicants also would have had to submit biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks. Conditional LPR status under S.Amdt. 1958 would have been valid for seven years.

To have the conditional basis of his or her status removed and become a full-fledged LPR, a conditional LPR would have had to meet a second set of requirements. These stage 2 requirements included satisfaction of one of the following: (1) acquisition of a college degree or completion of at least two years in a program for a bachelor's or higher degree, (2) service in the uniformed services for at least two years, or (3) employment for at least three years and at least 75% of the time the alien had valid employment authorization. Other requirements included submission of biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks, continued clearance of the inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria for conditional LPR status, satisfaction of the English language and civics requirements for naturalization, and satisfaction of any applicable federal tax liability.

Under S.Amdt. 1958 , the time spent in conditional status would have counted as time in LPR status for purposes of naturalization. In general, however, beneficiaries could not have been naturalized until 12 years after they had received conditional status. This period could have been reduced by up to two years for DACA recipients.

S.Amdt. 1958 also would have limited the ability of the parents of its beneficiaries to obtain LPR status in the United States. Earlier measures receiving legislative action did not include such restrictions. S.Amdt. 1958 would have prevented a parent from obtaining LPR status based on an immigrant petition filed by a child who had received conditional permanent resident status under the bill if the parent had assisted in the child's unlawful entry into the United States. The amendment did not include any language on federal student aid or Section 505 of IIRIRA.

On February 15, 2018, the Senate voted (54 to 45) not to invoke cloture on S.Amdt. 1958 .

Provisions on unauthorized childhood arrivals comprised Title III of S.Amdt. 1959 , the SECURE and SUCCEED Act. Title III, named the SUCCEED Act, was broadly similar to a Senate bill of the same name ( S. 1852 ), as introduced in the 115 th Congress, despite differences between the two measures.

S.Amdt. 1959 would have established a three-stage process for unauthorized childhood arrivals to obtain LPR status. Applicants who met an initial set of requirements would have been granted conditional temporary resident status (rather than conditional LPR status, as under the other two Senate amendments). These requirements, which incorporated some of the initial criteria for DACA, included continuous presence in the United States since June 15, 2012; initial U.S. entry before age 16; a birthdate after June 15, 1981; not being in lawful status on June 15, 2012; no inadmissibility or deportability under specified grounds in the INA and no other specified ineligibilities; and educational or military requirements based on the applicant's age on the date of enactment. Those under age 18 would have had to be in school. Those age 18 and older would have had to have earned a high school diploma or comparable credential, been admitted to college, or served or enlisted in the Armed Forces.

As under one or both of the other amendments discussed, all stage 1 applicants would also have needed to submit biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks and to satisfy any applicable federal tax liability. In addition, S.Amdt. 1959 included some requirements to obtain conditional status that were not found in the other amendments. Among them, an applicant age 18 or older would have had to acknowledge being notified that if he or she violated a term of conditional temporary resident status, he or she would be ineligible for any immigration relief or benefits, with limited exceptions. Conditional temporary resident status would have been valid for an initial period of seven years or until the alien turned age 18, if longer.

Under S.Amdt. 1959 , an alien's initial period of conditional temporary residence would have been extended for five years if the alien met additional requirements. These included satisfying one of the following: (1) college graduation or college attendance for at least eight semesters, (2) service in the Armed Forces for at least three years, or (3) a combination of college attendance, military service, and/or employment, as specified, for at least four years.

After seven years in conditional temporary resident status, an alien could have applied for LPR status subject to another set of requirements. These requirements included continued compliance with the requirements for conditional temporary resident status, submission of biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks, satisfaction of the English language and civics requirements for naturalization (unless exempt due to a disability), and payment of any applicable federal tax liability.

Like S.Amdt. 1958 , S.Amdt. 1959 would have placed limitations on the ability of its beneficiaries to naturalize and the ability of the family members of its beneficiaries to obtain lawful immigration status under existing law. The provisions in S.Amdt. 1959 , however, were more restrictive than those in S.Amdt. 1958 . An individual would have had to wait at least seven years after being granted LPR status to apply for naturalization. S.Amdt. 1959 would also have provided that a parent or other family member of an alien granted conditional temporary resident status or LPR status could not have gained any status under the immigration laws based on a parental or other family relationship. The amendment did not include any language on federal student aid or Section 505 of IIRIRA.

On February 15, 2018, the Senate voted (39 to 60) not to invoke cloture on S.Amdt. 1959 .

In June 2018, the House considered two major immigration reform bills with provisions on unauthorized childhood arrivals. Notably, unlike the Senate amendments discussed above and the bills considered in prior Congresses, these bills would not have established new mechanisms for unauthorized childhood arrivals to apply for LPR status on their own behalf. One bill ( H.R. 4760 ), which would have applied only to DACA recipients, would have provided eligible individuals with a renewable temporary status. The other ( H.R. 6136 ) would have enabled eligible individuals to adjust to LPR status in the United States if they were otherwise eligible for immigrant visas. Neither bill passed.

The Securing America's Future Act of 2018 ( H.R. 4760 ) would have established a process for certain unauthorized childhood arrivals to obtain a new temporary immigration statusâcontingent nonimmigrant (CNI) status. To be eligible for CNI status, individuals would have had to have on the bill's date of enactment valid work authorization that was issued pursuant to the DACA initiative (thus, they would have needed to be current DACA recipients).

Among the other eligibility criteria for CNI status, individuals would have had to be enrolled in and attending an educational institution full-time, or to have earned a high school diploma, General Educational Development certificate, or high school equivalency certificate. Applicants for CNI status also would have had to submit biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement checks and clear specified INA inadmissibility and deportability criteria and other specified ineligibilities. The latter ineligibilities were stricter than those under the Senate amendments considered in the 115 th Congress and earlier bills on unauthorized childhood arrivals. Applicants also would have had to pay a border security fee.

CNI status would have been granted for a period of three years and could have been extended in three-year increments. Contingent nonimmigrants would have been eligible for employment authorization and could have traveled outside the United States and been permitted to return. H.R. 4760 would not have provided a pathway to LPR status.

On June 21, 2018, the House voted (193 to 231) not to pass H.R. 4760 .

Like H.R. 4760 , the related Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018 ( H.R. 6136 ) would have established a process for certain unauthorized childhood arrivals to obtain CNI status. This bill included many of the same eligibility and ineligibility criteria for CNI status as H.R. 4760 , but it would not have been as restrictive. For example, it would not have been limited to individuals who had DACA. Among other, specific differences between the criteria in the two bills, H.R. 4760 would have required applicants for CNI status to be under age 31 on June 15, 2012, which is a requirement for DACA, and also to be under age 31 at the time of filing the CNI application. H.R. 6136 would have required applicants to meet the former age requirement but not the latter.

Under H.R. 6136 , CNI status would have been granted for a period of six years and could have been extended in six-year increments. Contingent nonimmigrants would have been eligible for employment authorization and could have traveled outside the United States and been permitted to return.

In a key difference from H.R. 4760 , H.R. 6136 would have created a means for CNIs who met certain criteria to become LPRs through the INA adjustment of status provisions. As mentioned in the earlier discussion of the original Dream Act proposals, foreign nationals in the United States who have immigrant visas immediately available to them (based, for example, on an immigrant visa petition filed by a qualified family member) and meet other criteria can become LPRs without having to leave the country. However, in order to adjust to LPR status through these provisions, individuals (except for certain battered immigrants) must have been "inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States." They also must be admissible to the United States for permanent residence under the grounds enumerated in the INA. In addition, with limited exceptions, these adjustment of status provisions are inapplicable to an individual who has engaged in unauthorized employment or "who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States."

H.R. 6136 would have provided that in applying the INA adjustment provisions to a CNI who has been in that status for five years, the CNI would have been considered to be inspected and admitted into the United States. It also would have provided that in making determinations about the CNI's admissibility to the United States, specified grounds of inadmissibility, including grounds related to unlawful presence and lack of proper documentation, would not have applied. The bill, however, did not explicitly address other disqualifications under the adjustment of status provisions, such as for unauthorized employment. The limited permanent immigration relief offered by H.R. 6136 can be seen as occupying a middle ground between H.R. 4760 's renewable temporary status and the special pathways to permanent resident status proposed under the Senate amendments.

On June 27, 2018, the House voted (121 to 301) not to pass H.R. 6136 .

As of the date of this report, legislative activity in the 116 th Congress on unauthorized childhood arrivals has occurred in the House in connection with the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019 ( H.R. 6 ). This bill contains a Title I (Dream Act) on unauthorized childhood arrivals and a Title II (American Promise Act) on nationals of certain countries designated for TPS or deferred enforced departure (DED). Unlike other bills on unauthorized childhood arrivals that have seen floor action in recent Congresses H.R. 6 does not address an array of immigration issues. The House passed H.R. 6 on June 4, 2019, by a vote of 237 to 187.

The Dream Act title of H.R. 6 would establish a mechanism for certain childhood arrivals who are inadmissible or deportable from the United States or who have TPS or are covered by a grant of DED to become LPRsâin most cases through a two-stage process.

To obtain conditional LPR status in stage 1, an individual would need to meet a set of requirements, including continuous presence in the United States for at least four years since the date of enactment, initial U.S. entry before age 18, no inadmissibility under specified grounds in the INA and no other specified ineligibilities, and satisfaction of educational requirements. These educational requirements could be satisfied in various ways, including, as in some earlier bills, by attainment of a high school diploma or comparable credential or by enrollment in secondary school or a program to obtain a high school diploma or comparable credential. They also could be satisfied by obtaining a credential from a career and technical education school that provides education at the secondary level. DACA recipients who meet the requirements for a DACA renewal, as in effect in January 2017, would be subject to streamlined application procedures to be established by DHS. All applicants would need to submit biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks. Conditional LPR status would be valid for 10 years.

In stage 2, a conditional LPR would have to meet a second set of requirements to have the conditional basis of his or her status removed and become a full-fledged LPR. Among these requirements are achievement of one of the following, subject to a hardship exception: (1) attainment of a college degree, completion of at least two years in a program for a bachelor's or higher degree, or acquisition of a recognized postsecondary credential from an area career and technical education school; (2) service in the uniformed services for at least two years; or (3) earned income for at least three years and at least 75% of the time the alien had valid employment authorization. The other stage 2 requirements include submission of biometric and biographic data for security and law enforcement background checks, continued clearance of the inadmissibility and ineligibility criteria for conditional LPR status, and satisfaction of the English language and U.S. civics requirements for naturalization, subject to an exception due to disability.

Under H.R. 6 , a conditional LPR could apply to have the condition on his or her status removed at any time after meeting the stage 2 requirements. The time spent in conditional status would count as time in LPR status for purposes of naturalization, but the individual could not apply for naturalization while in conditional status. In addition, like S.Amdt. 1955 in the 115 th Congress, the bill would provide that an applicant meeting all the stage 1 and stage 2 requirements at the time of submitting his or her initial application would be granted full-fledged LPR status directly (without first being granted conditional status).

Regarding postsecondary education, H.R. 6 would not place any restrictions on its beneficiaries' eligibility for federal student aid and would not repeal Section 505 of IIRIRA.

The Trump Administration's efforts to end the DACA program have focused renewed attention on the issue of unauthorized childhood arrivals. Passage of H.R. 6 in the House in the 116 th Congress can be seen as a result of this renewed attention. This bill is the latest of several measures to grant LPR status to unauthorized childhood arrivals, and the first in more than five years, to have passed one chamber. The question remains, however, if this bill or another measure to grant legal status to DACA recipients or unauthorized childhood arrivals will be enacted into law.