House Ag Committee

Will 2026 Finally Be the Year for Immigration and Ag Labor Reform?

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 21:44:57 GMT

Talk to any farm group across the country, and they will tell you that the agricultural labor shortage is one of the most limiting factors in the industry right now next to low grain profitability.

The Time is Now
The debate over immigration and ag labor reform has been a political hot potato for decades, which has led to inaction by Congress. However, there are some indications from the leadership of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees that 2026 might be the year a long- or short-term fix could finally be passed.

The chairs and ranking members of both committees joined American Farm Bureau president Zippy Duvall at their annual convention in Anaheim, Calif., this week to talk about a variety of ag topics, but the focus quickly turned to ag labor. There was consensus among all four that solving this crisis was a priority for 2026.

Senate Ag Committee Leadership Making Ag Labor a Priority
Senate Ag Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., says the H-2A program is not working and there is pressure to find a solution.

“And I just think the time has come to get this done,” she says. “Michael Bennett has a bill that I am a co-sponsor of that would fix the H-2A visa program and make sure that we have year-round visas, that we are doing something on wage certainty protecting the existing workforce.”

Klobuchar says she has worked on immigration and agricultural labor reform over the course of several administrations, only to hit a brick wall in the end. However, she believes the need has become too great in the U.S. among industries like agriculture to ignore. To get this across the finish line farm groups like the American Farm Bureau will need to appeal to lawmakers about how refusing to solve this crisis could put more farmers out of business.

“You’ve got to make that economic case about how we want to feed the world,” she says. “We want to have strong businesses, and to do that we need a smart immigration system that allows for workers.”

Why is 2026 Different?
One change that has improved the political climate is the Trump administration’s beefed up efforts to protect the U.S. southern border says Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark.

“We said we could not do reform because the border was not secure, and it wasn’t secure; it was just the opposite of that,” he says. “We’ve worked hard; it is secure now, then through Visa programs you control the flow, but it’s time to do that.”

Boozman adds that another important change is the consensus in agriculture about the importance of reforming immigration and ag labor.

“Every farm group I talk to say this is a top priority,” he says. “We need massive reform, and the good news is on both sides of the aisle, I think, that we are getting that message because of your hard work lobbying.”

House Ag Committee Leadership Has Already Laid the Groundwork
House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson, R-Pa., agrees it is time to break the grid lock on ag labor reform in place since the 1980s.

“Because if you don’t have a work force you have food insecurity; if you have food insecurity you have national insecurity,” he says.

In the 118^th Congress Thompson laid the groundwork for legislation by assembling a 16-member bipartisan task force on ag labor that included a cross section of farmers and processors. He says the result was a thoughtful action plan that provided 21 recommendations for reform.

“Fifteen of those were unanimous, and so we have taken those to legislative council,” he says. “We’d probably be a little further ahead if we didn’t have that goofy shutdown. We are looking forward here in this first quarter of this year of getting that introduced.”

House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig, D-Minn., says it’s a good first step but warns the challenge for immigration reform is the ongoing ICE actions carried out by Homeland Security. She had heard from dairy farmers in her home state about the chilling effect its having on the work force.

“Whether they were legal immigrants or not, they don’t want to come to work because they fear this environment right now,” she says.

Craig says at times the administration has given the impression that they do not want immigrant labor in the U.S., and so that needs to change to be able to build enough support in Congress to pass this legislation.

Will Congressional Inaction Force Farmers to Choose Between Health Insurance and Their Farm Budget?

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:11:13 GMT

Healthcare insurance plans for some U.S. farmers could double in 2026, as enhanced federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are scheduled to expire.

The impending cost surge could affect thousands of U.S. farmers who currently rely on the ACA marketplace for their health insurance, according to the non-partisan KFF (formerly Kaiser Family Foundation), a health policy organization.

KFF estimated in 2023 that 27% of “farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture managers” relied on individual ACA market coverage. Nationally, more than 22 million Americans rely on the ACA marketplace for insurance options.

Farmers ‘Don’t Have Many Options’
Iowa farmer Aaron Lehman, who testified before Congress last week, highlighted the severity of the potential cost increase on his family. He said he expects to pay double to purchase an insurance plan for 2026 that would be comparable to what his family had this year.

“That is an incredible cost for our family budget and for our farm budget,” Lehman stated. The fifth-generation farmer and president of the Iowa Farmers Union described how rising healthcare costs are colliding with already harsh economic realities in agriculture.

“Farmers right now are trying to make all sorts of decisions because commodity prices are low, because of the chaotic trade situation that we’re in and higher input prices. All these things have made a real crisis for a lot of our farmers,” said Lehman.

“Finding ways to deal with that, we just don’t have too many options. Farmers will buy less equipment or not make the necessary upgrades and equipment that they need to,” he added. “They’ll look at their input suppliers, and they’ll decide, ‘what can we do to get through just this year … to get a plan to put the crop in the ground?’”

Read the testimony of Aaron Lehman here. A portion of his testimony and discussion is also featured on a posting to YouTube .

Signup Deadlines For Coverage
The challenge for farmers trying to decide on what insurance policy to purchase is compounded by the deadline to enroll in ACA marketplace plans: People needed to choose their ACA plan by Monday for coverage to begin Jan. 1. Open enrollment continues in most states until Jan. 15 for coverage beginning Feb. 1.

Despite broad public support for an extension to the ACA tax credits — a KFF poll said 74% of Americans favor continuing the enhanced credits — a congressional standoff has so far failed to produce a solution:

Failed Votes: Both a Democratic plan to extend the enhanced tax credits for three years and a Republican proposal to replace them with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) failed to pass the Senate last week.
Impending Crisis: Nearly six in 10 enrollees (across all categories) told KFF they could not afford even a $300 annual increase in 2026 without significantly disrupting household finances.
Political Fallout: The issue of healthcare costs and expiring subsidies is highly polarizing, with some Republicans warning that a failure to address the problem could cost them legislative majorities in next year’s mid-term elections.

As the deadline for open enrollment closes and the Dec. 31 subsidy expiration date approaches, farmers must prepare for substantially higher health insurance costs in 2026 unless Congress acts to reach a last-minute agreement.

Young Farmers Need Better Options
During his testimony and ensuing discussion, Lehman stressed that healthcare isn’t just a personal household issue; it’s central to the future of American farming. With the average age of an Iowa farmer at 57, he said the sector desperately needs young and beginning farmers to return to the land. But without affordable, reliable health coverage, inviting the next generation back onto the farm becomes a far riskier proposition.

“You have to be very smart to figure out the plan that can bring the next generation on the farm,” he said, adding that many talented, innovative young people want to farm, but face daunting financial barriers — healthcare high among them. He noted that one of his sons works with him on their family operation, which is based in Polk County, Iowa.

Lehman framed affordable healthcare for farm families as an investment, not a handout: a way to make it possible for young farmers to feed their communities, support local and regional food systems, or continue larger family commodity operations.

“Extending the federal support for lowering the cost of health insurance is a true win for farmers and for all of rural America,” he said.

New House Bill Pushes For Fertilizer Price Transparency

Thu, 20 Nov 2025 19:40:04 GMT

A companion bill to the Fertilizer Research Act has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House version, sponsored by U.S. Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (R-IA), echoes the same goal as the Senate’s Fertilizer Research Act of 2025 (S.2808) – to provide U.S. farmers with more clarity and certainty regarding fertilizer costs and supply.

“America’s farmers are being squeezed by high fertilizer costs and low commodity prices, making it incredibly difficult to afford the inputs needed to maintain strong yields,” Hinson said in a statement on Thursday, noting that farmers tell her they need greater fertilizer price transparency and stability.

The legislation, if passed, would require the USDA to conduct a study on the competition and trends in the fertilizer market and their subsequent impact on fertilizer prices and then provide a comprehensive report of the agency’s findings.

The study would examine market competition and trends, the impact of these trends on fertilizer prices, the size and value of the U.S. market over the past 25 years, and the impact of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on retail fertilizer prices. It would also assess market concentration and the regulatory environment.

Within one year of the bill’s passage, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Economic Research Service, would be required to issue a report on USDA’s website regarding the U.S. fertilizer industry.

Mark Mueller , an Iowa farmer and president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, had said during a Senate hearing last month that increases in fertilizer costs are “crushing corn growers” in Iowa and other states.

“We need to assess the fertilizer industry to better understand pricing practices, tariffs and the exertion of market power by companies within the industry,” Mueller added. “The continued commitment to highlighting the impact of fertilizer prices on corn farmers does not go unnoticed by Iowa’s corn growers.”

Co-sponsors of the bipartisan House bill included Republican Randy Feenstra of Iowa, and Democrats Nikki Budzinski of Illinois and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.

Budzinski noted, “Fertilizer is an essential tool for farmers to maximize their crop yields, but they often lack insight into how fertilizer prices are determined – making it harder to balance their books. I’m proud to introduce this common-sense, bipartisan legislation to give our farmers more transparency and ensure that farm inputs are priced fairly.”

Hinson said that the House bill is supported by the American Soybean Association, the National Farmers Union, the Iowa Farmers Union, the Iowa Farm Bureau, the Iowa Corn Growers Association, and the Iowa Soybean Association.

Your next read: Fertilizer Prices Under Fire: Monopoly or Markets to Blame?

Farmers Say They Shoulder The Cost Of Mergers In Seed, Fertilizer Industries

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 21:41:09 GMT

Testimony from farmers, economists and legislators during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday painted a stark picture of the challenges row crop growers are up against to stay in business as input prices continue to climb and profit margins are severely squeezed.

The hearing exposed a critical challenge for U.S. production agriculture: as a handful of corporations controls more of the agricultural supply chain for seed and fertilizer, farmers say they are left with fewer choices, higher costs and diminishing control over their own operations.

Noah Coppess, a fifth-generation farmer based in Cedar County, Iowa, shared his personal observations on the industry’s transformation over the past few decades.

“The reality in farming today is we’re price takers rather than price makers,” he said, highlighting how farmers have lost bargaining power as agricultural manufacturers and suppliers have become increasingly concentrated.

“It’s further complicated by lack of price transparency, with farmers forced to operate at the liberty of the market at the front and back end,” Coppess added. “I have concerns with our input and equipment supply chains and their ability to manipulate our costs.”

‘The Cost Of Fertilizer Is Crushing Growers’

Coppess also told the committee how farmers are routinely asked to prepay for fertilizer three to six months prior to a needed application, and up to 14 months before their crop will be harvested.

“Many of the contracts are written with a narrow window to get the products applied, or the contract expires and the input is repriced at a higher value, or monthly fees can be applied to extend the contract,” he said.

Coppess noted that phosphate has become “a bare minimum usage fertilizer” on his farm due to the rising cost. “We have invested significant capital and time trying to find other ways to manage our phosphorus needs, as the cost of this input is at a point of negative return,” he said.

Mark Mueller, an Iowa farmer and president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, gave written testimony for the committee, saying the massive increase in the cost of fertilizer is “crushing corn growers” in Iowa and other states.

“Growers across the country are facing an impossible decision: buy fertilizer or stay solvent. This is not sustainable, and it is well past time to stop ignoring the role of the fertilizer monopolies that dominate critical input markets,” Mueller said. “Right now, the price of our most essential input, fertilizer, is squeezing the life out of the American farmer like a vise. We must take action and return competition to our ag economy.”

Mueller discussed his report to the judiciary committee in more detail during a conversation on AgriTalk on Wednesday, which is available here:

Testimony from Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, highlighted how the seed and fertilizer industries are dominated by only a handful of companies. She referenced a USDA study that shows two seed companies accounted for 72% of planted corn acres and 66% of planted soybean acres. In addition, Moss said the fertilizer industry is equally consolidated, with four firms controlling 77% of nitrogen production and 100% of potash and phosphate markets.

John Latham, president of Latham Hi-Tech Seeds, an independent seed company based in Alexander, Iowa, weighed in with his perspective on consolidation within the seed industry.

“Independent seed companies can offer products better suited for specific geographies than the multinationals. Unfortunately, many independent companies are going out of business as these multinational companies have become more powerful and, frankly, predatory,” Latham said, noting that the seed corn industry is 90% controlled by two companies.

Seed Costs Have Soared

Moss noted that the average price farmers paid for seed rose by 270% between 1990-2020.

“For crops planted predominately with GM seed, such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, seed prices rose by an average of 463%,” she said. “These price increases compared with commodity price inflation of 56% over the same period.”

Moss also warned that farmers also have little price transparency due to the practice of rolling seed technology prices into the total price of GM crop seed, making it harder to compare seed costs over time. “Farmers also see lower quality as previous generations of technology begin to lose their effectiveness,” she added.

Latham noted that seed prices aren’t just increasing for the newest and latest seed technology, but also on older technologies that are going off patent, or soon to be off patent. One example Latham gave is NK603, a glyphosate-resistant corn product, which went off patent in 2022.

“Farmers are being charged the highest royalties ever for this off-patent technology. More than 90% of biotech-traited corn in the United States is glyphosate resistant, so farmers are paying billions of dollars for seed royalties on a trait that has been off patent for three years,” Latham said.

Along with that, seed royalties have increased significantly. Latham said about 70% of the cost of a bag of seed goes to royalties now, compared to 42% just five years ago.

Farmers Ask For Workable Solutions

Senators from both parties expressed concern during the committee hearing, suggesting potential legislative solutions including improved transparency, antitrust enforcement, and support for independent agricultural research.

Caleb Ragland, a Kentucky farmer and president of the American Soybean Association, said Congress and the Trump administration need to take immediate action to reduce farm production costs and prevent additional family farm closures. He outlined three urgent policy priorities to improve economic conditions for U.S. soybean farmers:

1. Provide tariff relief on critical agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, seed, pesticides, machinery, and parts.

2. Finalize biofuel policy, including RFS volume obligations and 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit guidance, to expand domestic markets for soy.

3. Deliver targeted farmer assistance to help producers manage severe market losses and negative basis impacts.

The complete committee meeting – Pressure Cooker: Competition Issues in the Seed & Fertilizer Industries – is available on YouTube.

Your next read: ‘The System Is Failing Us:' Why Real Change is Needed in U.S. Agriculture

250-Plus Ag Groups Ask Trump Administration To ‘Correct’ MAHA Commission’s ‘Activities’

Thu, 26 Jun 2025 20:34:56 GMT

Four weeks have passed since the Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment (MAHA report) was released. Since that time, the report has drawn criticism from farmers and various state and national agricultural groups that are focused on crop and livestock production.

One overarching concern the various groups and farmers cite, is what actions and practices will the MAHA Commission recommend in their follow-up report, which is due for release by Aug. 12, 2025.

Ag Groups Ask For A Course Correction

Concern about the MAHA report led 250-plus agriculture groups to ask the Trump administration to “correct” the direction of its Make America Healthy Again goals, in a letter dated June 13. The letter was addressed to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.’

Groups signing the letter included: American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

In the letter, the groups criticized the MAHA Commission’s “lack of transparency” in creating the report, adding it also did not allow any opportunity for public engagement.

“As a result, the report contained numerous errors and distortions that have created unfounded fears about the safety of our food supply,” the letter says. “Your leadership is greatly needed to correct the Commission’s activities, as well as create processes for greater transparency and input.”

In an article published by NOTUS, a digital news outlet, reporters noted the MAHA report contained a number of citation errors and “false claims” that could have been avoided with better industry input ahead of the commission’s report release.

Farmers Say ‘Use Some Common Sense’

The MAHA report, with regard to the use of crop protection products, specifically calls out atrazine, chlorpyrifos and glyphosate.

Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of Modern Ag Alliance, says the commission’s decision to call out specific chemistries, while no surprise, is concerning nonetheless.

“I think that’s something that every farmer, regardless of what part of agriculture you’re involved in, should be concerned about,” she told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Thursday.

Albert Lea, Minn., farmer, Brad Nelson, says he is concerned about the future of crop protection products but hopes “common sense” will prevail. He describes the finger-pointing at glyphosate, in particular, as bogus.

“We have used Roundup in the Midwest, myself personally, for 40-some years, and the retailers around me have done the same. And you know what, there’s no cancer,” Nelson says. “If it was a problem, it would be rampant. Hopefully common sense will rule the day, and the studies that have gone on for years and years and years will finally get believed.”

Burns-Thompson says she wonders whether the people involved in developing the MAHA report action plan understand how the chemistries in question have helped modernize farming practices – in some cases even helping reduce farmers’ reliance on pesticides and contributing to conservation farming efforts.

Her recommendation to other farmers at this point: talk with your local, state and federal government officials. Educate them on how the targeted chemistries support food production and consumers’ well-being.

“It’s important that we are reaching out to these individuals all the way up and down the political hierarchy, and inviting them out to our farms, talking to them about why we do things, and making it very practical, so that they understand not only the what, but the why and the how,” she says.

Where To From Here?

The 250 ag groups, in the June 13 letter to Kennedy, Rollins and Zeldin, have asked the Commission to hold a public comment period for all of its future reports and activities.

“… We urge the administration to formally include farmers, ranchers, and food producers in a collaborative stakeholder process throughout all future work of the Commission. We also advise the administration to create the opportunity for public comment on all future reports and activities of the Commission.”

For her part, Burns-Thompson wants more farmers at the table, able to share their perspective on what kind of practices the action plan should detail.

“What’s the voice of the farmer in all this? It needs to be part of this, right? It’s one thing to have the Department of Agriculture at the table, but I think there’s no such thing as too many farmer voices,” she says.

Catch the AgriTalk discussion with Burns-Thompson here:

Your next read: Is Food Inflation Heating Up July 4th Grills?

Breaking Down the Biggest Differences in the Big Beautiful Bill Proposals and Potential Impact on Agriculture

Fri, 20 Jun 2025 14:14:34 GMT

Senate republicans are racing against the clock to finish their version of President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. As the Senate continues to roll out its versions of the reconciliation bill, there are some differences between the House and Senate proposals when it come to agriculture.

The main variations come down to changes in the tax provisions, but it’s key to note proposed changes to the farm safety net are similar in both the House and the Senate.

What’s Next?
The House and Senate will now need to work out their differences in the two versions of the Big Beautiful Bill. President Trump said he wants to sign the legislation on July 4, but many reports cast doubt Congress can meet that approaching deadline. Politico even reported this week the Senate GOP’s version of the bill is “facing major headwinds in the House.”

Read More: Big, Beautiful Bill: What’s in it for Agriculture?

Farm CPA Paul Neiffer believes the July 4 deadline isn’t likely as the debate heats up, but he still remains optimistic the bill is close to the finish line.

“I think July is the date, but not July 4,” Neiffer says. “They’ll get it done before the August recess. I think they’re actually pretty close. The media out there talks about how they’re really far apart on Medicaid and state and local taxes. But I think when push comes to shove, the president has a lot of clout, and they’ll come up a compromise. So, I’m pretty optimistic they’ll get it done.”

Weighing the Differences Between the Senate and the House
Neiffer says he would grade the Senate’s overall budget reconciliation proposal as a “B” for ag, which is slightly below how he rated the House’s proposal. One reason is what the Senate is proposing for Section 199A:

The Senate has a Section 199A deduction of 20%, while the House’s version is 23%.
Both the House and Senate are calling for 100% bonus depreciation, but the Senate’s would be permanent. The House’s version would expire at the end of 2029.

“With the Senate making that permanent, that’s a really good deal for ag,” Neiffer says. “They would now have some certainty all of the assets that a farmer purchases — combines, tractors, buildings and everything but land — they can deduct 100%.”

Neiffer says another difference is on state and local tax deductions.

The Senate is keeping the current $10,000 deduction and reducing the benefit of the pass-through entity tax deduction.
The deduction is at the $40,000 level in the House and retains the pass-through entity deduction in full for farmers.

Beefed Up Farm Safety Net
Under the Senate’s version, Neiffer says farmers would be paid the higher calculated payment rate under Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) during the 2025 crop year.

The Senate Ag Committee’s proposal also increases the reference price formula, and instead of having a floor based on 85% of the Olympic moving average marketing year price, the Senate is proposing an increase up to 88%.

“That actually results in a boost on the corn PLC price by about $0.15. And I think on soybeans, it’s about $0.35,” Neiffer says. “So, that’s very beneficial. Now, I was hoping they were going to boost the ceiling. Right now, the ceiling is 115% of the EFR. And they had talked last year about boosting it up to 120%. I think that was too much for the budget, so they kept it at 115%.”

The Differences on 45Z
When it comes to the 45Z Clean Fuels Production Tax Credit, there’s one major difference. The Senate allows foreign feedstocks to be eligible for the credit, just with a 20% “haircut.”

In the House’s version, only feedstocks produced or grown in the United States or Canada qualify for the tax credit. That change would help detour some of the used cooking oil imports from China.

“To me, a 20% haircut means there’s got to be some senators out there maybe pandering to somebody that I don’t know about. Because really, they should eliminate the whole foreign feedstock and just give you a credit based on domestic production,” Neiffer says.

The Bigger Issue with 45Z
Peter Meyer of Muddy Boots Ag says no matter what version of the 45Z tax credit makes the final cut, there’s a bigger issue at hand. The Trump administration needs to provide guidance and rules around 45Z — something the Biden administration failed to do during its time in office.

“We’re just clamoring for clarification, right? All I want is clarification. They can say all they want about extending this to 2030. That’s great. That’s a positive. But tell me what the rules are. We still don’t know the rules,” Meyer says.

Meyer knows there’s been so much talk about 45Z and sustainable aviation fuel, but little action in terms of demand. Meyer says the lack of action in terms of demand is largely because there’s no clarity around the tax credit.

“We need more demand for the ethanol they’re producing,” Meyer says. “Soybean oil can be converted to sustainable aviation fuel. But you just cannot produce sustainable aviation fuel without a credit. You can’t.”

EPA’s Proposed Rule A Potential ‘Game Changer’ for Farmers

Wed, 18 Jun 2025 21:29:34 GMT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for 2026 and 2027 have the potential to be a game changer for agriculture.

The EPA’s proposed rule, which comes under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) – and named the Set 2 Rule – would increase biomass-based diesel requirements, from 3.35 billion gallons in 2025 to 5.61 billion gallons in 2026, supporting American row-crop growers in the process.

“It creates a great opportunity to move from 3.35 to 5.61; it’s a massive increase,” says Caleb Ragland, a Kentucky farmer and president of the American Soybean Association (ASA).

“We have long lobbied for giving the American farmer a chance to sell American soybeans. Crush them here, use the oil to make American fuel and keep our economy going, ” Ragland told AgriTalk host Michelle Rook, on Wednesday.

Three Regulatory Takeaways

There are at least three key regulatory shifts that would accompany the volume increases:

1. Heightened quotas for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD), and advanced biofuels.

2. Prioritization of soybean oil and ethanol produced in the U.S. Imported biofuels would earn just 50% of the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) value compared to U.S.-based fuels.

3. Removal of renewable electricity (eRINs) as a qualifying fuel, reinforcing liquid biofuels as the Renewable Fuel Standard centerpiece.

In a press release, EPA said that these measures will cut U.S. oil import reliance by roughly 150,000 barrels per day across 2026 and 2027, backing domestic biofuel producers and strengthening rural economies.

“This [proposed rule by EPA] is not only good for farms, it’s good for rural communities. All of that trickles down and stays here in America. It’s a wonderful thing,” Ragland says.

An Update And Outlook On 45Z

The 45Z Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit was one of the few Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) incentives spared in the House’s proposed budget reconciliation bill. That’s likewise the case in the Senate. Both versions extend 45Z from 2027 to 2031.

“That’s a huge win … that certainly gives us a little bit of certainty in the world of uncertainty we’re living in right now,” Amy France, a Kansas farmer and chair of the National Sorghum Producers, said on AgriTalk.

Ragland agrees but noted ASA is concerned about some “last-minute” changes that are being proposed in the Senate version regarding the 45Z tax credit and foreign feedstocks.

While the House version modifies 45Z to prevent the use of certain foreign feedstocks outside of North America, such as used cooking oil, the Senate committee’s proposal allows use of feedstocks outside the U.S. but cuts the tax credit by 20%.

“We want to encourage that to get reversed … there’s no reason to give American dollars as tax credits to foreign entities that are bringing in foreign used cooking oil,” Ragland says. “We need to get that ironed out, and hopefully we will, but, but overall, there’s great opportunity here.”

France says she is encouraged by the extension granted 45Z. “We were thrilled to hear EPA specifically calling out sorghum as a dependable, low-cost biofuel feedstock. It just goes to show that recognition for sorghum and the realm we’re playing in today.”

Ragland and France weigh in on a variety of additional topics – from trade to state of current crops across the country to the need for a new Farm Bill – on this segment of AgriTalk. Listen to it here:

Farmers Brace for Impact: What the MAHA Report Could Mean for Agriculture

Wed, 21 May 2025 21:34:34 GMT

With less than 24 hours to go before the specifics are expected to be unveiled in the Make America Healthy Again report, some members of the agricultural community wonder if they can take Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at his word.

Specifically, Kennedy, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, has said the report will not disparage the herbicide glyphosate, which many farmers across the country rely on for weed control.

“[In] the drafts that I’ve seen, there is not a single word in them that should worry the American farmer,” Kennedy said on Tuesday before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee.

“Tell that to a sugar producer who heard him say a few weeks ago, ‘sugar is poison,’” responded Jim Wiesemeyer, Washington policy analyst.

Wiesemeyer added that Kennedy’s previous statements, as well as his work as an environmental lawyer, have contributed to farmers’ ongoing angst over what will happen to glyphosate.

“[Kennedy has an impact on food, dietary guidelines, but he doesn’t have the jurisdiction over on the chemical side, so his reach is only so far,” Wiesemeyer said, during a conversation with AgriTalk host Chip Flory.

Get the complete details here:

Farmers Highlight Their Concerns
A number of farm groups have voiced concerns collectively and individually this week, leading up to the report’s release, which is the first report of the MAHA Commission President Donald Trump formed in February.

“We do anticipate, unfortunately, that pesticides will be a key piece of that report, and that much of it may be guided not by science but on a misinformation that exists across the countryside,” said Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of Modern Ag Alliance. The organization describes itself as a coalition of more than 100 agricultural organizations across the U.S.

“We are here today hoping to bring not only a concerted voice forward, but also making sure that the voice of farmers – those farmers that are actually out in the countryside using these products, depending upon these products – are brought to the forefront,” added Burns-Thompson during a media briefing hosted by her organization with two farmers sharing perspectives.

One of those farmers, Blake Hurst, said he considers glyphosate one of the most valuable crop production tools in his farming toolbox.

“I’ve read a number of news reports over the last few days saying that crop production products, and glyphosate in particular, may be targeted in the upcoming MAHA commission report. If that’s the case, it will be a terrible development for American agriculture,” said Hurst, who farms in northwest Missouri.

He estimates U.S. farmers lose about 40% of their crops to weeds and diseases annually, and that without the help of crop protection products, such as glyphosate, that number would double.

“As a corn and soybean farmer, I use [glyphosate] to control weeds, keep my yields up and my costs down,” Hurst said. “It’s reliable, affordable and effective. Without it, I’d be stuck using alternatives that don’t work as well and might not be as safe.”

Policy Decisions Impact Farmers And Consumers
Iowa farmer Scott Henry said he is concerned that if the MAHA Commission’s report drives future policy decisions, food prices will likely increase. “Instead of making America healthy again, we’ll be making America hungry again,” Henry shared during the Alliance media briefing.

Henry referenced how U.S. farmers are under financial pressure this year from low commodity prices, high input costs and trade uncertainty and must also contend with misinformation that some activists spread about food production practices.

“To have anti-ag activists who have never stepped foot on a farm or taken our perspective or the science into [consideration] … they’re getting away with impacting both farmers and consumers, and the impacts of that could be severe. Bottom line is this, without glyphosate, yields will drop, costs will rise, and higher prices will get passed on to the consumer,” Henry said.

More than 10 farm groups echoed Henry’s concerns in a joint statement earlier this week, calling for the Trump administration to consider the consequences of the MAHA report before it is finalized.

“…We have heard disturbing accounts that the commission report may suggest U.S. farmers are harming Americans through their production practices and ‘creating foods that [are] destroying our microbiome and bodies—leading directly to our chronic disease crisis.’ Nothing could be further from the truth,” the joint statement said.

It added, “Nutrition matters, health matters, and the confidence of consumers in the food supply matters tremendously. Such a conclusion would run counter to the scientific evidence and decades of findings from the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Participants in the joint statement included the American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers and the International Fresh Produce Association

Illinois farmer Steve Pitstick is more wary than worried about what the report will reveal. It is expected to be unveiled Thursday. He is planning for the worst and hoping for the best.

“I find it a stretch to believe it’s not going to impact us somehow,” Pitstick said during the AgriTalk Farmer Forum on Thursday. “But we’ll deal with it as it comes and try to do our best to talk up what we do in agriculture every day to the best of our ability for consumers, ourselves and our families.”

Hear more from Pitstick and ASA President Caleb Ragland, as they weigh in with their thoughts on MAHA:

Your next read: GOP Farm Bill Criticized by Tester

Q&A With A Washington Insider: 4 Insights For Farmers

Mon, 24 Feb 2025 20:36:14 GMT

Growing up on a corn and soybean farm in central Illinois, Tara Smith is no stranger to agriculture. Now the executive vice president of Torrey Advisory Group, Smith helps teach members of Congress about the issues in front of the ag industry.

“We represent people from the farm gate - dairy farmers, soybean farmers, corn farmers, retailers like Wegmans and everything in between, whether it’s ag inputs, processors or ingredient companies,” Smith says. “We do lobbying for them, general issues management, light communications, and association management as well.”

Smith joined the Top Producer podcast with host Paul Neiffer and shared four insights about lobbying in Washington D.C.

Q: When lobbying on the Hill, do you primarily meet with staff, representatives or senators?
A: A lot of folks come to town for their Fly Ins to lobby on an issue, and they get really disappointed where they don’t get to meet with a member. But I would say those staff are really important. They are the gatekeepers of information to their bosses, particularly if their boss doesn’t know agriculture particularly well, or doesn’t know your issue particularly well. Build that relationship with the staff so when that staffer has a question about a certain policy issue or a bill, you’re the resource and the person they call to ask a question. That’s invaluable. Meeting with members is great and very important, but I wouldn’t undersell that time with staffers.

Q: Many people have the assumption there’s a great deal of hurry to get a farm bill done. But there’s no deadline until either Sept. 30 or Dec. 30. What’s your take?
A: Congress works best under pressure and with deadlines. The intent might be there to try to move something quickly, but my guess is that there is a laundry list of other issues that are really going to take the oxygen out of the room in D.C. for the first several months this year. It’s hard to see where a farm bill fits in at all this year. And I think it would be really amazing work on the part of the leadership of the ag committee to have something ready to go in September.

Catch up on episodes of the Top Producer podcast

Q: What have you heard about reference prices in the next farm bill?
A: It’s hard with the farm economy where it is right now, pre-tariffs and let alone post-tariffs, to envision us a farm bill without some sort of increase in reference price prices or beefing up of Title One. If you’ve looked at the numbers getting a crop like soybeans, for example, to a decent reference price level where they would actually trigger in really bad situations - like a trade war with China - is going to require a really significant increase on a lot of acres, and that means it gets really expensive, really fast. I think it’s really hard to envision us getting a farm bill across the finish line without some of that funding.

Q: You lobby on behalf of the crop insurance industry. Why is crop insurance so important?
A: It’s one of the most important programs we have coming out of USDA. When we start talking about all of these different disasters that are coming at farmers - tariffs or increased input prices or weather disasters - the first money on the ground from USDA is crop insurance money. You look at Title One or ad hoc disaster assistance, you’re looking at a full year, maybe two, before you see a dollar in the farmer’s pocket. There’s a lot of confidence in crop insurance being able to meet those needs and being able to be a guarantee.

Your Next Read: Find Out The ‘Best Buy’ In Crop Insurance This Year

House Republicans Unveil Budget Resolution, Calling for $230 Billion in Ag-Related Cuts Over 10 Years

Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:50:52 GMT

House Republicans released a budget resolution to begin the reconciliation process. The resolution allocates $4.5 trillion to the House Ways and Means Committee for tax cuts, falling short of what tax writers say is needed for the president’s tax priorities.

It also includes a $4 trillion debt limit increase and outlines $1.4 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. The plan also calls for $300 billion in new spending, likely for immigration enforcement and defense.

Dozens of current GOP lawmakers are opposed to raising the debt ceiling on principle and have never voted to support an increase to the nation’s borrowing limit. Previous increases have required bipartisan support.

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) budget plan is at risk due to ongoing Republican infighting and a slim House majority. Any two Republicans joining with Democrats could derail the plan.

Johnson wants the Budget Committee to approve the plan on Thursday, Feb. 13. A full House vote is expected at the end of the month. If passed by both chambers, a bill aligning with the budget must be crafted to enact tax cuts and a debt ceiling increase.

GOP members also disagree on how much deficit increase is acceptable to facilitate tax cuts.

House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) advocates for deficit flexibility to prioritize Trump-era goals like ending the tax on tipped wages. Coastal Republicans (N.Y., N.J., Calif.) want to end the cap on state and local tax deductions, benefiting property owners in their states.

Impact on Ag

The House budget resolution does not provide specific details on the $230 billion in agriculture-related cuts. The resolution directs the Agriculture Committee to find $230 billion in spending reductions over 10 years. However, the exact breakdown of these cuts is not specified in the resolution itself. Key points about the proposed agriculture cuts:

The $230 billion figure is a target for the Agriculture Committee to meet through spending reductions.
While specific details are not provided, it is likely that a significant portion of these cuts would come from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/food stamps). Republicans have stated that any SNAP-related changes would focus on reducing waste and fraud rather than cutting existing benefits for participants. Some potential areas for cuts being considered include updating work requirements and limiting future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, which is used to calculate SNAP benefits.
The $230 billion figure is not necessarily all from SNAP.

Largest Cuts From Energy and Commerce Committee

On the spending side, the largest cuts would be at least $880 billion from the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income people. Republicans have talked about several Medicaid changes, including work requirements for able-bodied beneficiaries and revisions to funding formulas for the federal-state program. Other possible spending-cut targets include student-loan programs.

Proposed cuts

(Bloomberg )

Of note:
This budget resolution is a blueprint for a later reconciliation bill, and the specific details of the cuts will need to be worked out by the Agriculture Committee and negotiated with the Senate. The final numbers and policy changes may differ from what is currently proposed in the resolution.

Senate’s Alternative Plan.

Frustrated by House delays, Senate Republicans are proposing a scaled-back plan. Defense and border security funding would be offset by unspecified spending cuts. Tax cuts are postponed for now.

Democrats argue that the GOP’s plan prioritizes tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of social programs that help low-income Americans.

Republicans are using the process known as budget reconciliation to advance Trump’s priorities. That approach lets them push a bill through the Senate with a simple majority, avoiding the 60-vote filibuster threshold and the need for Democratic votes.

Without congressional action, the 2017 tax cuts — such as lower individual tax rates and business-related tax breaks— will expire at the end of 2025.

Congress Approves CR, Includes $31 Billion in Farmer, Disaster Aid and Farm Bill Extension

Sat, 21 Dec 2024 16:16:06 GMT

With little if any drama like the House, the Senate easily cleared the 118-page continuing resolution (CR) early Saturday morning with a vote of 85-11 (four members did not vote). The measure funds the government through March 14. The CR includes nearly $110 billion in disaster and farmer aid ($21 billion ag disaster and $10 billion in farmer aid), and a one-year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Senate vote came hours after the House passed the measure on a 366-34 vote, well above the two-thirds majority threshold required under that chamber’s suspension of the rules procedure, with no Democrats voting no along with 34 Republicans. Texas Dem Rep. Jasmine Crockett voted “present”.

Debt Ceiling

GOP leaders dropped a two-year suspension of the statutory debt ceiling that was in a previous CR version and that helped push the bill through both chambers. Democrats opposed inclusion of the debt limit provision, arguing it would make it easier on Republicans next year to cut taxes and ram through other partisan priorities. Cutting the debt limit language was enough to convince Democrats to go along with the stripped-down bill, even though it excluded their priorities contained in an i nitial 1,547-page bipartisan measure .

One ag sector lobbyist said, “Ag groups need to start playing the game… those who always vote no on everything… why not actively oppose them… they don’t support farm bills anyhow.”

Breaking Down the Votes

Here is the list of House Republicans who voted no on the CR that contained $31 billion in ag sector assistance:

House no votes on CR

(House of Representatives)

Some notable representatives who voted against the CR include Nancy Mace (South Carolina), Thomas Massie (Kentucky), and Chip Roy (Texas). The reasons for voting against the CR varied among representatives, with some citing concerns about high levels of spending, lack of reforms, or opposition to giving the current administration additional funding.

Here is the list of Senate Democrats who voted no:

Senate no votes on CR

(U.S. Senate)

Farmer Aid in the CR

This is a breakdown of the $31 billion in farmer assistance via the CR:

Farmer aid breakdown

(House Ag Committee)

Possible Payment Amounts to Farmers

The farmer aid should be available 90 days after the legislation’s enactment. Farm CPA Paul Neiffer estimated per acre payment amounts via the Economic Loss Assistance program based on his knowledge of the provisions.

Possible payments as calculated by Farm CPA Paul Neiffer

(Lindsey Pound )

While USDA will make the final calculations, based on Neiffer’s estimates, producer payments look like this per acre, using the following calculation: (USDA’s Projected Cost of the Crop – National Projected Returns) x Eligible Acres x 26% = Total Payment.

Corn: $43.80
Soybeans: $30.61
Wheat: $31.80
Cotton: $84.70
Rice: $69.66

Neiffer says there is a payment limit of $125,000 dollars, which is down from the $175,00 originally proposed in the FARM Act. He says it’s also key to note with the updated relief, if 75% of your total gross income comes from farming, which includes wages and interest and dividends, then you qualify for the double payment.

Related Story: Poll Results: 71% of Farmers Say Congress Should Approve Economic Aid Before Year-End

House Ag Committee Fact Sheet Details Payments

The House Ag Committee released a fact sheet on the farmer economic assistance that is provided in the current Continuing Resolution (CR), modeled off of Rep. Trent Kelly’s (R-Miss.) FARM Act (HR 10045). There is a list of eligible commodities, a payment formula, administrative provisions, and estimated payment rates.

House Ag panel staffers say please keep in mind that the payment rates in this document are estimates and “almost certain to change slightly once implemented. These rates are the best approximation based on the data cited in text. This does incorporate the minimum payment rate provision. You’ll see that those crops receiving payments via the minimum payment provision have an asterisk.”

The House Ag panel had the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M analyze the impact of the economic assistance provided through this provision. Their findings suggest that the funds will improve ending cash position on their Representative Farm system by nearly 20% by the end of 2025.

Farmer aid

(House Ag Committee)

Your Next Reads:

Poll Results: 71% of Farmers Say Congress Should Approve Economic Aid Before Year-End

Ag Gets Potential Christmas Gift from Congress: Continuing Resolution Includes $31 Billion in Aid for Producers

Ag Sector Could Score Big in Stopgap Spending

Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:02:33 GMT

The House of Representatives released its Continuing Resolution (CR) text today, which includes:

A one-year extension of the 2018 farm bill
Around $10 billion in farmer economic aid
$21 billion in ag disaster funding for 2023 and 2024, which is part of the $100.4 billion to help the hurricane-stricken Southeast
Year-round E15 sales, which is a major victory for the corn and ethanol industries

The plan will offer credits to small refiners that petitioned for exemptions from the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates (2016 to 2018 compliance years) but were denied or had pending petitions as of Dec. 1, 2022. The RFS requires refiners to blend biofuels such as ethanol into gasoline or purchase compliance credits.

The provision would override a previous U.S. government decision allowing year-round E15 sales only in eight Midwestern states (set to begin in 2025).

Extension of Orphan Programs in 2018 Farm Bill
There also appears to be an extension of orphan programs in the 2018 farm bill extension and a permanent 1890s scholarship program. The icing on the cake is a four-year extension of SNAP fraud via the skimming reimbursement language.

Orphan programs are ones that were authorized in the 2018 farm bill but did not have funding beyond a specified year. The extension provides $177 million of new mandatory funding for programs that did not have a budget baseline. This ensures these programs can continue to operate during the extension period.

The 1890s scholarship program provides scholarships for students attending 1890 land-grant universities, which are historically Black colleges and universities that were established under the Second Morrill Act of 1890.

The SNAP Fraud Reimbursement extension is the continuation of reimbursements for stolen Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. This provision protects SNAP recipients from losses due to benefit theft via card skimming, cloning and other similar methods. States will continue to be required to replace stolen benefits under this measure.

One source said, “Good policy would be emphasizing the need for states to transition to more secure measures for SNAP recipients, including stronger identity verification practices.”

Of Note
Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) did not get her wish to move conservation/climate funding into a one-year extension of the 2018 farm bill. That discussion will occur next year.

Economic Aid and Disaster Funding
Disaster aid for crop losses due to natural disasters for 2023 and 2024 will total $21 billion.

The discussions for economic aid centered on a $10 billion package to help farmers cope with price declines and rising input costs. House Agriculture Chairman GT Thompson (R-Pa.) indicated that $10 billion is the minimum he would accept. He mentioned Republican support for reallocating conservation program funds from the 2022 legislation into the farm bill baseline, but that Republicans are disputing the “guardrails” that require funds to support “climate-smart” projects.

Thompson also noted concerns that some critics want to ensure President-elect Donald Trump would have access to funds to compensate farmers for potential retaliation stemming from new Trump import tariffs.

Year-Round E-15
Year-round sales of E15 ethanol has been a long-standing goal for corn growers and ethanol producers, particularly in states such as Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota where a significant portion of corn production goes into ethanol.

Currently, E15 is available at more than 3,200 gas stations in the U.S., indicating room for growth (there are more than 196,000 fuel stations in the U.S.). About 95% of model year 2024 vehicles are explicitly approved for E15 use by manufacturers.

The actual increase in ethanol usage would likely be gradual as E15 adoption expands. While the theoretical maximum ethanol usage through year-round E15 sales could reach 20,586 million gallons annually, the actual increase would depend on factors such as consumer adoption and infrastructure development — separate fuel handling and storage for E15.

Now What?
A vote in the House won’t happen until at least Thursday night if House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sticks to his plan to honor the rule giving members 72 hours to review the bill.

Other House Happenings
House Democrats removed Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) as their senior Agriculture Committee leader after he received just 5 votes in Monday’s influential steering panel vote. Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) emerged as the frontrunner with 34 votes, while Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) trailed with 22 votes. Craig now heads into Tuesday’s full caucus vote, seeking additional support. Craig plans to rally House colleagues for the final vote. Meanwhile, Costa vowed to keep pushing and will try to supplant Craig in the full caucus. Lawmakers had anticipated Scott’s ouster amid growing skepticism of his leadership — Scott has dropped out of the race.

Craig indicated part of her pitch to the panel was that there are no other Ranking Members for Democrats from the U.S. Midwest.

“There’s not a single ranking member from the middle of the country right now, and that was certainly part of my pitch to my colleagues, is that if we want to represent this whole country, then we need ranking members and leaders in the Democratic Party who are from the whole country,” she stated.

Craig came into Congress in 2019 while Costa and Scott were elected in the early 2000s.

GOP Eyes Strategic Appointment to Boost House Majority
Republicans may have found a way to temporarily expand their narrow House majority: appointing a Democrat to the Trump administration. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) is reportedly being considered to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) next year. The move would leave Democrats short a vote for weeks, bolster the GOP’s edge, and possibly help Republicans flip Moskowitz’s seat. Moskowitz, who previously served as Florida’s emergency management director under Gov. Ron DeSantis, could gain significant recognition if he pursues a 2026 gubernatorial bid. While his office and House Democratic leadership declined to comment, the appointment’s political ramifications are being closely watched ahead of Monday’s internal party elections.

Take our Poll: Do you think Congress should pass emergency relief for farmers in the CR? You can voice your opinion in our AgWeb poll.

Odds Are Improving for Lawmakers to Pass Several Critical Farmer Support Programs

Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:01:42 GMT

Farmers are currently focusing on three major priorities:
1. Disaster relief for 2023 and 2024 losses, exacerbated by severe hurricanes in the Southeast
2. Economic assistance for the 2024 crop year
3. Completion of a new farm bill to provide greater certainty for the future

The second priority is gaining momentum with the introduction of the “FARM Act” by Rep. Trent Kelly (R-Miss).

Details about the FARM Act. The Farmer Assistance and Revenue Mitigation Act (FARM Act) aims to provide emergency assistance to producers of eligible commodities for the 2024 crop year. Key features include:
• Eligibility: Crops such as barley, corn, cotton, dry peas, grain sorghum, lentils, chickpeas, oats, peanuts, rice, soybeans, other oilseeds, and wheat. (Some combination of purchases, block grants, or per acre payments for non-PLC/ARC eligible crops.)
• Payment formula: (Projected Cost - Projected Returns) x Eligible Acres x 60% = Total Payment.
Administrative Provisions:
• Payment limitations based on income derived from farming, ranching, or forestry
• $175,000 limit for those deriving less than 75% of income from these activities
• $350,000 limit for those deriving 75% or more of income from these activities

The FARM Act has garnered endorsements from various agricultural organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Cotton Council. Rep. Kelly is currently seeking cosponsors for the measure, with a deadline of 9 a.m. ET, Friday, Oct. 25, for original co-sponsorship.

Disaster relief and farm bill progress. Lawmakers are also considering an ad hoc relief package for 2023 and 2024 production losses, aiming to improve upon the implementation of the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) for 2022. As for a new farm bill, despite challenges, there is still opportunity to pass a five-year omnibus bill that strengthens the farm safety net, particularly under the commodity title and crop insurance.

Expert Shares What Could Spark Progress On The Farm Bill

Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:59:29 GMT

John Newton, former Senate Ag Committee economist and now executive head at Terrain, shares what will move the Farm Bill out of the Senate Ag Committee and toward finalization.

“Chairwoman Stabenow could release bill text whenever she’d like. On the Republican side, I was happy to be part of that team and we released our framework earlier this year,” Newton says. The ball is obviously in the chairwoman’s court to do something on the Senate side.”

In addition to no bill text on the senate side, there’s no floor vote scheduled in the house. But Newton highlights three priorities and a time frame for a final farm bill:

More “Farm” in the Farm Bill: “I was part of a team that put together a Republican Farm Bill framework based on feedback we have received from over 23 states that Senator Bozeman visited. And in every single one of those states, what farmers and ranchers said is we need more farm in the Farm Bill,” Newton says.
Improved Safety Net: “There are real needs in agriculture to make safety net tools better,” Newton says. He sees the need to enhance crop insurance and cites how many reference prices are more than a decade old.
Bipartisan effort: “I would hope that there would be a bipartisan agreement in the Senate to move a farm bill that recognizes the challenges farmers and ranchers are facing right now. Net farm income is down over $50 billion over the last two years, net cash farm income is seeing the steepest two years’ decline of all time,” he says.

As for when the farm bill could make progress, Newton expects next month’s campaign trips home to help with some momentum.

“Folks are going to go home during October, and they’re going to hear from farmers and ranchers on what their needs are,” he says. “I think they’ll come back motivated to get something done, whether that’s a short term bridge or whether that’s a full five-year farm bill over the finish line. I think members can be motivated to do that when they get back in November.”

Hear more from Newton on ARC and PLC programs as well as the nutrition and conservation titles in this AgriTalk segment:

Your next read: Ag Economist John Newton Named Executive Head of Terrain

CBO Estimate Shows House Ag Committee's Farm Bill Would Increase Federal Budget Deficit by $33B Over 10 Years

Mon, 05 Aug 2024 12:42:20 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as expected late Friday, Aug. 2, released an official House farm bill cost estimate indicating that the House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $33 billion over the next decade.

The CBO’s report estimates that the farm bill will cost $1.25 trillion over the 2025-2033 period, with a net increase in the federal budget deficit by $33 billion. The primary driver of this increase is the cost of several commodity program provisions, which are expected to rise significantly due to higher reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program and other enhancements.

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Provision

A contentious provision in the bill aims to suspend USDA’s use of Section 5 under its Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) spending authority. This section essentially acts as a revolving fund used by the USDA to address various agricultural challenges. House Agriculture Committee Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) proposed reallocating this authority to boost farm subsidies and crop insurance premium subsidies by between $50 billion and $53 billion over ten years.

However, CBO estimates potential savings from suspending this authority to be between zero and $8 billion, far short of the needed amount. The CBO’s skepticism stems from the provision’s ambiguous language, which could be interpreted in multiple ways, making it unclear whether it would effectively prevent USDA from spending funds under Section 5.

Political and Legislative Implications

The funding gap highlighted by the CBO could force House Republican leaders to either direct the CBO to revise its budget estimate or modify the legislation to align with budget constraints. Any attempt to direct CBO could lead to political backlash and is unlikely to be accepted by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The House bill includes several enhancements to existing programs:
• PLC and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programs: Expected to increase payments by $34.9 billion and $9.7 billion, respectively.
• Dairy Margin Coverage Program: Costs would rise by $300 million due to updates in eligible production amounts.
• Federal crop insurance program: Costs would increase by $3.5 billion due to higher premium subsidies and administrative funding.

Conversely, the bill proposes cuts to the nutrition title, saving an estimated $29.4 billion by imposing restrictions on future updates of the Thrifty Food Plan, which sets Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

Of note: CBO’s analysis of the House farm bill language would zero out the sugar program over time. “There was a technical, clerical error in the introduced bill that will be fixed prior to the bill moving to the floor,” said Rob Johansson, Director of Economics and Policy Analysis at American Sugar Alliance. Farm bill writers say efforts will be made to correct any misunderstanding if the House farm bill gets to the floor for debate and votes. The CBO score would then be $58 million.

Reaction:
Thompson expressed dissatisfaction with the CBO’s scoring, particularly regarding the savings from suspending Section 5 of the CCC Charter Act. Thompson believes the CBO’s methodology underestimates the potential savings and has criticized the CBO for what he sees as a history of underestimating CCC outlays. He argues that the House farm bill is designed to provide significant investments in various agricultural sectors, including the farm safety net, biosecurity, and trade promotion. Thompson insists that more work is needed to ensure the bill is financially sound and can be passed into law.
Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has been critical of the House Republican proposal. She argues the CBO score reveals the bill is not financially viable, relying on what she describes as “magic math and wishful thinking.” Stabenow emphasizes the need for a bipartisan agreement that includes realistic negotiations on funding investments for various components of the ag sector. She has called for her Republican colleagues to engage in serious discussions to find viable funding solutions and has expressed her willingness to explore creative funding options outside the traditional farm bill framework. Republicans stress that unlike the House, Stabenow has not officially filed a new farm bill in the Senate, just pages of summaries.

Outlook: Thompson has indicated a willingness to work with CBO and the Budget Committee to clarify the interpretation of the CCC provision and address the funding gap. However, the top Democrat on the House Ag Committee, David Scott (D-Ga.), and Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) have called for abandoning the current version of the bill due to its budgetary implications.

Ag Secretary Vilsack Has A Clear Message For Farm-State Lawmakers On Passing A New Farm Bill: 'Get Realistic'

Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:21:13 GMT

During an interview with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack on AgriTalk Thursday, the focus was on the farm bill. He was asked to start with Title I regarding the differences between the Republicans and Democrats relative to the farm bill negotiations. Are those differences negotiable? Vilsack’s response:

“I don’t think we’re close to getting a farm bill done until the folks who are negotiating the farm bill are realistic about what’s doable within a constrained resource environment. The Republican proposal, whether it’s the House version or the Senate version, essentially requires a significant amount of additional [funding] coming into the farm bill, in order to pay for all of the various promises that have been made from reference prices to crop insurance premium assistance to all the other proposals that are contained in those bills. It can amount to over $50 billion of additional resources that CBO identified within the existing farm bill or new money coming in.”

“The reality is they just don’t have it [the funding]. First of all, they’re taking resources from nutrition assistance which is a red line for Democrats. They’re also essentially playing fairly fast and loose with the amount of savings from reducing liability and future secretary’s ability to use the CCC. The Congressional Budget Office we believe is probably going to score that about $8 billion in savings. They need $53 billion to be able to make it work. So at the end of the day, if we’re really serious about getting a farm bill done, I think we have to lower people’s expectations and we have to really take a look at what is absolutely necessary in order to provide help and assistance to the farm to farm country. We’re not there yet. I think Senator Debbie Stabenow’s (D-Mich.) approach is more realistic, and more reasonable. [Stabenow] has identified additional resources outside of the farm bill that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has promised would be available, so she’s identified some real money to put into the farm bill. I think there’s some serious concerns on the House side and I think that’s a problem.”

Watch the full interview here:

Contentious Areas of the Farm Bill

Asked if there was any give in some contentious areas, Vilsack said: “There’s going to have to be give. I think that there is a genuine desire on the part of perhaps both Republicans and Democrats to see the potential for the conservation resources that are in the inflation Reduction Act (IRA) moved into the farm bill, but with the guardrails intact in terms of the directing it for climate smart agricultural purposes. If you take the guardrails out, I think then you lose Democratic support for moving that into the baseline. So, I think there’s an opportunity there for conversation.”

“I think there’s an opportunity to creatively use the CCC in a way that actually does provide some additional resources or capacity. But I don’t think it’s anywhere near $53 billion. And as a result, that means that you have to lower expectations. Look, you know, the reality is when you talk about reference prices, you’re talking about roughly 22 commodities out of 130 commodities we have that are covered by crop insurance. We’re talking about the fact that over 50% or so of those benefits go to the top 10% of agricultural sale farms in the country in terms of sales. There’s a real serious question here, especially given the fact that we’re seeing so many farms that we’ve lost over the course of the last 30 or 40 years. Can we continue to sustain the number of farms we’ve lost? Its 544,970 farms since 1981. I mean, are we okay with that? Are we okay with losing 151 million acres of land in 1981 that’s not in farming today. Are we okay with the impact on rural communities. This is one aspect of this. When you look at the fact that a disproportionate share of the military comes from rural communities and now you see the military having concerns about whether or not they have adequate resources and people to draw from in terms of an all-volunteer military and they’re thinking about, you know, expanding who could qualify and so forth. My gosh, you know, these are serious issues.

“So that’s a long way of saying I think there’s a way to get to yes, but people have to lower the expectations. They have to really look at what’s going on in the countryside, and tailor a farm bill in a way that responds to the challenges of more farmers, many farmers, not just a few.”

Snap Overpayments?

We noted that Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), ranking member on the Senate Ag Committee, put out an interesting graphic on the overpayments, etc., in the SNAP program and it was a rather large figure. We asked if there was wiggle room on looking into that as far as better enforcement and moving some of that potential funding or not into the farm bill. Vilsack’s response:

“Let’s be clear about that number. First of all, it isn’t necessarily overpayments. It’s also under payments. That is a function of state government. And we are working with the state governments because they’re the ones who administer the SNAP program. And there’s an opportunity for us to work collaboratively with them to shore up and to begin returning back to where things were before Covid, where there were ongoing interviews and things of that nature, and that’s going to happen, but that’s not necessarily going to be the resources sufficient to pay for $53 billion of increases in reference prices.”

Conservation Funding

Noting if there is any area where there is some agreement, it’s on conservation. We asked Vilsack if the Democrats and Republicans in Congress can find common. His response:

“I think we could get to yes easily if the understanding was we’ll move the balance of the IRA conservation resources into the farm bill with the understanding that the climate guardrails remain. I don’t think there’d be any disagreement on the part of folks to do that.

“There’s roughly somewhere in the neighborhood of $14 billion to $15 billion left of what was allocated in the IRA that’s available. There’s tremendous demand and interest as we had 45,000 contracts last year, a record number of contracts in the various programs, and we’ve got waiting lists. We’re hiring more people for NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). So, there’s a real interest there. I think we can get to yes.”

Using CCC Funding in Question

Regarding the CCC program, Vilsack said: “There’s probably a way that you can put some restraints or utilize the CCC in a way that generates some savings, but it’s just not $53 billion. Let’s get real about it.”

We then turned our focus on past remarks Vilsack has made that climate smart programs could be the next revenue stream for farmers. We told him farmers are in the prove-it stage and asked him for an update. His response:

“We’re beginning to see products that are actually generating value added. I use the rice product that was produced by Louisiana and Arkansas rice producers, getting a premium for producing climate smart. I’m told that there are dairies that are now lined up to get a value- added premium for potential export opportunities. I’m told that there are also a number of producers that are also now seeing increases as a result of climate smart practices. We’re seeing interest in sustainable aviation fuel. That’s a new market opportunity and we are in the process of working with Treasury and with the Department Transportation and EPA to craft guidance for the 45Z tax credit, which is really the significant tax credit for individual and bundled activities on the climate smart side that will allow us to qualify ethanol that’s produced from those crops to benefit from sustainable aviation fuel. That’s a new opportunity. We’re spending resources from the IRA to better align our tools to measure, monitor and verify the results of climate smart practices which are going to allow folks to qualify and participate in ecosystem markets. That’s a new revenue source. We’re seeing interest in renewable energy in terms of trying to do it in a way that doesn’t reduce productive agriculture, but it actually adds to productive agriculture. I was out in Colorado recently, hearing from folks who are now seeing solar panels being raised instead of three feet now 10 feet off the ground so that you can actually have dairy cows grazing underneath the solar panels. So, the innovation and creativity are there to increase the level of income that small and midsize producing farms can produce. At the end of the day, they’re going to have to figure this out because we can’t continue to lose farms.”

Will Congress Pass a New Farm Bill in 2024?

Mon, 03 Jun 2024 18:25:19 GMT

The farm bill finally saw some movement in Washington last month, but the majority of agricultural economists still don’t think a farm bill will be passed until 2025, with some even saying it could be 2026.

The May Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , a survey of nearly 70 agricultural economists from across the U.S., asked economists when they believe Congress will pass a new farm bill. Sixty-eight percent of the economists replied they expect it to be passed in 2025.

Nineteen percent said it could be in 2024, which is an increase from the April survey when zero ag economists said 2024.

However, some ag economists think the farm bill will be passed in 2026. Thirteen percent responded 2026 in the latest survey, which is in line with the results from last month’s survey.

“If a bill is not completed in 2024, the dynamics could be very different in 2025. Regardless of the election results, the upcoming expiration of various tax provisions is likely to put pressure on Congress to reduce, or at least not increase, spending elsewhere,” said one economist in the anonymous survey. “Unless the filibuster is eliminated, even a Republican Congress could find it hard to finance increases in spending on farm programs by limiting spending on SNAP. Thus, I expect smaller farm program changes than are currently being discussed.”

The latest survey also asked economists what are the most important changes for producers in the next farm bill, and what potential changes in farm policy are being overlooked. Economists shared nine potential changes:

Higher subsidy levels for area-based products.
The wild card is milk pricing system.
Ongoing trends toward more environmental regulation from USDA agencies, supported by progressive elements in Congress.
The focus has been on changes to reference prices, and potential additional funding for export markets could be an important change.
Expect increases in crop insurance premium support (subsidy) levels for higher coverage levels and for area products.
Commodity program changes will ultimately be modest, but will favor cotton, rice and peanuts. Despite that, the safety net will be more significant across the board in the next few years because of the recent price history and the moving average calculations.
Constraints on the Secretary’s CCC spending will affect administrative programs and proposals going forward.
Based on what has been released so far, it seems like reference price changes are going to be the big change that impacts producers. A potential change in farm policy that is being overlooked is the need for a base acre overhaul (not just voluntary).
Reference price increases will be the most important change.

What’s Next for the Farm Bill?

As Farm Journal Washington Correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer reported two weeks ago , the House version of the farm bill made it out of committee just before Congress broke for a week-long recess. The contentious House Ag Committee markup of a new $1.51 trillion farm bill began on Thursday, May 23, and went into early Friday morning with four Democrats joining all 29 panel Republicans in voting for the measure, bringing the final tally to 33-21.

There a couple different paths to move the bill forward, but nothing has been set. House Speaker Mike Johnson could bring it to the House floor once he’s certain there are enough votes.

House Ag Committee Chairman GT Thompson recently stated that of the 435 members of Congress, more than half have never debated or voted on a farm bill before. He called it a unique challenge that requires a lot of education to bring people up to speed.

However, Wiesemeyer also says it could go to the House Rules Committee first, and there, the bill faces a couple of roadblocks for passage, including not only getting enough Democrats to support the bill, but also finding the support of hard-right Republicans.

The Senate version is a different story, as the the Senate Ag Committee hasn’t released the complete bill, only a preview of what is in it. What are the key differences in both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill? Wiesemeyer broke it all down here .

As Farmers Look to Cut Costs for 2025, Machinery and Technology Could Take the Biggest Hit

A Margin Squeeze is Setting in Across Row-Crop Farms, and 80% of Ag Economists Are Now Concerned It’ll Accelerate Consolidation

A Contentious House Ag Committee Markup of a New $1.51 Trillion Farm Bill Passes Out of Committee

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

House Agriculture Committee Set to Mark Up 942-Page Farm Bill Draft

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

Tue, 21 May 2024 22:22:21 GMT

The House bill favors production ag while the Senate bill puts lid on food stamp/TFP, conservation and CCC program changes.

The House on Friday released text and other information regarding its 942-page farm bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. (Here’s a link to text of the bill, the updated title-by-title summary can be found at this link and here’s a l ink to our Special Report on the measure.)

The Senate has not released text of its measure, only some summary details of what some charge is a “hodge-podge” of some 100 different bills from farm-state lawmakers.

Of note: We keep stressing that one of the keys in this debate will be official scoring of different aspects of the two bills. Those will show the House approach maintains the $1.51 trillion ten-year farm bill baseline, while the Senate appears to go over it by at least $5 billion and perhaps around $20 billion or more. So, the House approach is budget neutral, and the Senate is not. The official scoring will also show how the two chambers got to their total spending levels and how much funding is being made for various titles. That will answer the equity questions Democrats usually like to talk about on other issues, but not the farm bill.

The House Ag Committee on Thursday (May 23) will mark up the House farm bill. House Ag Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) told Agri-Talk on Friday that his panel will have the votes to clear the panel, but he has yet to receive any firm Democratic member commitments to vote for the House approach. But Thompson said those voting against it “do so at their own peril,” with many hailing from rural districts where a no vote could prove a political liability this fall.

House floor debate strategy, Thompson said, depends on what occurs during this Thursday’s markup session. Thompson said a panel vote along party lines would be “unfortunate,” but added, “we’ll still find a pathway to the floor.”

The real reason Thompson wants to get a markup session vote this week is that come June, new farm bill scoring forecasts will come from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and a new baseline would take additional time to work through, with likely different forecasts and implications for farm bill spending.

Democratic complaints in the House and Senate are unified and deal with House GOP efforts to reform the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), but not take any existing funding from the program, nor for the SNAP/food stamp program. Thompson’s bill would restrict what factors can be considered in future updates of the TFP, which is used to set benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A 2021 update conducted by the Biden administration resulted in a more than a 20% benefit (over $250 billion) increase, drawing criticism from Republicans over the methodology used and the result.

TFP changes would net $27 billion, House aides said. Some $12 billion to $16 billion would be “reinvested” in nutrition programs, while the balance would be shifted to other programs under the purview of the House Ag Sub./committee on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture, including the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) programs that are set to see funding doubled.

Aides say the money freed up from the TFP should not be viewed as a cut or as savings given the CBO projections assume future updates to TFP along the lines of the exceptionally large changes brought by the 2021 revamp. They also said the changes would lock in current nutrition program benefit levels set by TFP, preventing a future administration from conducting an update that results in lower ones.

Democrats are also in ideological lockstep against taking off any guardrails they insist on relative to conservation program spending — the House farm bill would remove climate guardrails from $13 billion in Inflation Reduction Act (IRA/Climate Bill) conservation funding. House Republicans note the bill removes the IRA’s climate sideboards to restore the locally led nature of conservation programs and provide flexibility for States — even if the conservation practices involved are not deemed “climate-smart.” Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has proposed keeping the funds focused on climate and within the four programs originally defined under the IRA: the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), and Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Republican aides said Thompson wants “to make sure that these programs remain flexible and can answer whatever natural resource problems are occurring.” They said casting a wider net with the funds will put more focus on the quality of projects — climate-smart or otherwise — rather than using incentives to boost the volume of projects using the more limited set of climate-smart practices. House aides emphasized that shifting the IRA funds into the bill would result in a permanently higher conservation funding baseline. “This is a long-term investment that increases conservation spending in Title II (Conservation) by about 25% in perpetuity,” they said.

CCC issue. Dems are also opposed to the House GOP push to suspend USDA’s Section 5 spending authority under the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a $30 billion borrowing authority fund (that Congress replenishes each year) that was used to pay for farmer aid during the Trump trade war with China, and billions of dollars USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack tapped out of CCC for various spending, including over $3 billion for “climate-smart” ag funding.

Some media say the House Ag bill has a significant funding gap, but sources say that is not the case. The issue: The CBO estimates that the suspension of Section 5 authority would save $8 billion over 10 years, but that is considerably less than the $53 billion needed to cover the cost of changes to commodity programs and even more for changes to crop insurance. Efforts to get CBO to alter their low-ball forecast led to Thompson asking and getting help from House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) who directly called CBO leadership about the matter. Says one farm bill contact: “Arrington has the power to do directive scorekeeping. Some farm bill analysts apparently do not understand this. I know that Arrington and staff are sure that everything is defensible. After Trump and Biden, does anyone believe that the Ag secretary will only use his discretion to spend less than $1 billion per year of CCC funds? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.”

House aides said they expect the cost of the Title I moves to be scored at between $50 billion and $53 billion, and when combined with crop insurance updates in Title II, the price tag rises to around $90 billion.

Democratic leadership in meetings have been lobbying against House farm bill proposals. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Stabenow reportedly have urged House Ag Democrats to vote against the farm bill during this Thursday’s markup session.

Stabenow made her views known about the House farm bill in a statement, offering some hope but also listing major differences:

“I’ve had several conversations with Chairman Thompson encouraging him to get his ideas on paper so that we can move this process forward. I’m glad his Committee released the Food, Farm, and National Security Act, and it appears that our visions for the 2024 Farm Bill have a lot in common.

“I remain deeply concerned that his proposal will split the broad, bipartisan coalition that has always been the foundation of a successful Farm Bill. It makes significant cuts to the family safety net that millions of Americans rely on, and it blocks USDA’s ability to provide real time assistance to farmers through the CCC to address emerging challenges. Even with these shortsighted cuts, it is unclear to me how they will pay for their proposal.

“Democrats have made clear from the beginning that we will not walk away from our commitment to the most vulnerable among us or from our farmers battling the effects of the climate crisis every day. The Food, Farm, and National Security Act clearly crosses those bright red lines and turns back the clock on decades of progress for farmers and families.

“The only path forward is holding together our broad coalition of farmers, hunger and nutrition advocates, rural communities, conservationists, and the climate community. That has always been how we ensure that our country’s farmers, families, workers, and rural communities have the certainty of a bipartisan, five-year farm bill.”

House Ag ranking member hammers House farm bill approach. “The discussion draft released by Chairman Thompson confirms my worst fears: House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America’s hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis,” said House Ag Ranking Member David Scott (D-Ga.). “The funding proposal that the Chairman has put forward does a disservice to American agriculture because it doesn’t provide a path forward to getting a bill passed on the House Floor,” Scott concluded.

Of note: Scott’s comments regarding a floor vote seems to acknowledge the measure will clear the Ag Committee, but a warning that a failure to secure Democratic support could be insurmountable on the House floor.

We will have more analysis of the Thursday House Ag markup vote later this week.

COMPARING THE TWO FARM BILLS. The following is not an exhaustive review of both House and Senate farm bills, but a digest of some key issues in various titles. Check the House and Senate Ag Committee web sites for additional information.

KEY FARM BILL SAFETY NET PROGRAMS:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Higher Reference Prices: Increases reference prices for all eligible commodities under PLC/ARC between 10% and just over 20%, enhancing the safety net for producers. Also, by increasing the statutory reference prices, the maximum effective reference price is also increased.
Annual Election Maintained: Keeps the annual choice between PLC/ARC programs.
Increased ARC Coverage: Boosts ARC coverage from 86% to 90% of benchmark revenue and raises the payment band from 10% to 12.5%.

Source: Combest-Sell Associates

Source: Combest-Sell Associates
Expanded Base Acres: Provides an opportunity to add new base acres to farms that have no base, or that have been planting in excess of existing base acres. This provision does not modify or impact existing base acres. Expands base acres based on 2019-2023 plantings exceeding current base, including non-covered crops up to 15% of total acres. Includes provisions to establish payment yields on the additional base acres.
Higher Pay Limits: 1) Ends the disparate treatment of pass-through entities and 2) Raises pay limits for producers that get 75% or more of their income from farming and eligible for a payment limit of $155,000 (up from $125,000) that is indexed to inflation, and including LLCs and other farm structures.
Increased Loan Rates: Increases loan rates with more flexible repayment options and allows redemptions during government shutdowns. Provides for a more substantial increase in loan rates for commodities that did not receive an increase in the 2018 Farm Bill.
Textile Mill Assistance: Enhances Economic Adjustment Assistance for Textile Mills. To account for persistent inflation and support the domestic textile industry, increases the payment rate from 3 cents to 5 cents under the program.
Sugar Policy Improvements: Increases loan rates for sugar beets and cane, and makes other policy improvements. The House farm bill would increase the national average loan rate to 24.00 cents for raw cane sugar; sugar beets: 136.55% of the loan rate per pound of raw cane sugar. The 2018 Farm Bill increased the national average loan rate to 19.75 cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 25.38 cents per pound for refined beet sugar. These rates are adjusted regionally to reflect marketing cost differentials.
Makes improvements in U.S. dairy policy: Including restoration of the “higher-of” formula in calculating Class I fluid milk price and forward pricing authority. Increases cap on Tier I for Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program to 6 million pounds. Provides opportunity to update production history for DMC. Provides a 25% discount on DMC premiums for operations that enroll in coverage for the life of the 2024 Farm Bill. Mandates biennial cost surveys to ensure make allowances accurately reflect the cost of manufacturing dairy products. Ensures the Dairy Forward Pricing Program does not expire.
Enhances standing disaster programs: Including the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), the Tree Assistance Program (TAP), and authorizes any future ad hoc assistance to be delivered via block grants to states. Increases payment rate of LIP to 100% of fair market value of the animal if the loss is caused by an attack by a federally protected species. Allows for a supplemental indemnity payment for the loss of unborn livestock if the loss of the gestating animal qualifies for assistance. Ensures farming operations are eligible for assistance under LIP, ELAP, TAP, Livestock Forage Production Program (LFP), and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) if the operation derives 75% or more of its income from farming, ranching, or forestry.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Reference Price Increase: 5% increase in reference prices for crops not benefiting from the 2018 Farm Bill escalator, including rice, peanuts, and seed cotton.
Base Acres for Underserved Producers: Opportunity to establish new or additional base acres if recent planting exceeded base for underserved producers.
Prohibition on Payments: No commodity payments on land owned by persons/entities with an AGI of $700,000 or greater, affecting tenants who cash rent or sharecrop the land; lowers AGI eligibility for commodity programs from $900,000 to $700,000.
ARC/PLC Election: Maintenance of the annual election between ARC/PLC.
PLC Payment Band: Introduction of a 20% payment band on PLC, similar to the 10% payment band on ARC, which is maintained.
ARC Coverage Increase: Increase in ARC coverage from 86% to 88%.
Marketing Loan Rates: Authorization to increase marketing loan rates by up to 110% of their current levels based on production costs.
Textile Mill Assistance: Increases in Economic Adjustment Assistance for Textile Mills.
Sugar Policy Improvements: Undisclosed increase to sugar loan rates and other policy improvements.
Dairy Pricing Authority: Extension of forward pricing authority for dairy.
Livestock Disaster Programs: Improvements to livestock disaster programs (LIP, TAP, ELAP) and authorization for a standing disaster program, pending appropriations.
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance: Modifications including eliminating AGI testing and increasing pay limits.

CROP INSURANCE:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Increases premium support under crop insurance for beginning producers and veteran producers for a 10-year period.
Encourages R&D on improved risk management tools for specialty crops.
Increases SCO and WFRP coverage to 90%, with 80% premium support under SCO.
Requires development of certain new policies to meet the risk management needs of producers.
Addresses private sector delivery concerns by re-establishing an annual inflation adjustment for A&O, eliminating the current flaw that harms specialty crop A&O, and by ensuring states with high losses the A&O necessary to accurately adjust the higher volume of claims in a timely fashion.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Increases premium support for beginning producers and veteran producers akin to the House farm bill.
Increases premium support for SCO at 80% and increases coverage level to 88%.
Includes performance-based discounts for climate and other environmental practices.
Expands native sod regulations from Prairie Pothole Region to the entire country.
Increases support for Whole Farm and Micro Farm insurance policies to serve small and underserved producers. Provides frequent review of rating and actuarial soundness of policies.
Prioritizes underserved producers and crops for new policy development.
Codifies the cease-and-desist order of RMA relative to cancelation of policies, etc.
Allows FCIC to bypass private sector delivery to deliver certain crop insurance policies.
Overhauls A&O, including providing a total A&O on all A&O, and
Provides for a seat at the table for agent groups in any new SRA renegotiation.

CONSERVATION:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Summary: Maintains and extends the new investment in the Conservation Title made under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act (IRA/Climate Bill) by making the new funding baseline permanent rather than subject to a Sept. 30, 2031, expiration as is currently the case. The funds may also be used for all conservation purposes rather than just climate initiatives, so the funds are available to all producers and program efforts are locally led.
CRP: 1) Maintains current 27-million-acre CRP acreage cap and requires state allocations be based on historical allocations. 2) Incentivizes enrollment of marginal lands by basing rental rates on land capability classification and paying high rental rates for land capability classes III through VII than other eligible lands. Class I and II soils would receive up to 85% of the county’s average rental rate, while class III soils would receive 100% of the county’s average rental rate. Classes IV through VII would go up to 155%. 3) Increases payment limitation from $50,000 to $125,000 per year.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Summary: (1) Maintains IRA dollars in permanent budget baseline; (2) permanently authorizes conservation programs (i.e., the programs would not require a farm bill to continue but would be treated effectively akin to SNAP); the Commodity Title would be the only farm bill title with significant mandatory funding that would require reauthorization every 5 years or so in a farm bill; (3) continues IRA-mandated climate strictures on funding and reorients RCCP, EQIP, and CSP to focus more on climate; (4) new mandatory spending —some believe about $13 billion above and beyond IRA funding — would occur with regard to CRP, ACEP, and CSP, and the bill also proposes to codify the $5 cover crop program where there is a state match.
CRP: Gradually increases CRP acreage cap from current 27 million acres to 29 million acres.

TRADE PROMOTION & FOOD AID:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Trade promotion: Doubles funding for the Foreign Market Development and Market Access Program.
U.S. Food Aid Prioritization:
* Emphasizes U.S. food donations over cash in international food aid programs.
* Requires at least 50% of aid to be actual U.S. food.
* Enhances USDA’s role in delivering U.S. food aid programs.
* Streamlines the procurement process for U.S. food to address immediate crises, ensuring effectiveness of U.S. food aid.

SENATE FARM BILL:

(1) Preserves current funding levels for MAP and FMD, (2) Preserves U.S. commodity donations as an option under U.S. food aid programs, generally at current levels.

FOOD STAMPS/SNAP, TFP AND DIETARY GUIDELINES:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Maintains current nutrition title programs, increasing benefits in certain cases.
Reforms the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) update such that the provision may not be used by the Ag Secretary in the future to increase SNAP benefits in the manner that it was done in August of 2021 (i.e., an increase of more than $250 billion) but also prevents the provision from being used to decrease benefits of that magnitude. Apart from removing the possibility of huge increases or huge cuts in the future, as well as a few instances where there are increase, SNAP benefits remain unchanged.
Reforms Dietary Guidelines for Americans process to remove the politics and emphasize good science and transparency.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Maintains current TFP process; and

Increases funding of an estimated nearly $8 billion for SNAP, TEFAP, Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and Community Food Projects.

ANIMAL DISEASE PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE EFFORTS, MODIFIES EFFORTS SUCH AS CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 12:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Invests new funds in programs designed to protect livestock and poultry from catastrophic animal diseases.
Clarifies that states and local governments cannot impose, directly or indirectly, as a condition for sale or consumption, a condition or standard on the production of covered livestock unless the livestock is physically located within such state or local government.

* Provides clarity to national markets by ensuring producers must only comply with applicable production standards imposed by their own state or local government.
* Protects producers from having to comply with a patchwork of state-by-state regulations.
* Protects the rights of states and local governments to establish standards as they deem necessary, but only for those raising covered livestock within their own borders.
* Only covers production (excluding domestic animals raised for the primary purpose of egg production), and does not include the movement, harvesting, or further processing of covered livestock.
Requires USDA to report on its preparedness to support livestock producers and poultry growers facing economic losses due to animal disaster outbreaks.

SENATE FARM BILL:

New mandatory funding for historically underserved producers
New funding for local and regional food systems
New funding for programs that address animal diseases
Authorizes additional climate initiatives, including climate hubs
Creates a USDA Special Investigator for Competition
No comparable language regarding Prop 12, etc., that is in House farm bill

OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING LOANS:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Updates and increases limits under guaranteed and direct operating and ownership loans to reflect the modern costs of planting, growing, and harvesting a crop and raising livestock.
Includes provisions to ease securing credit for beginning producers.
Increases loan limits for the Farm Service Agency

* Guaranteed farm ownership loan limits would increase from $2.24 million to $3.5 million
* Guaranteed operating loan limits would increase to $3 million
* FSA direct ownership would go from $600,000 to $850,000
* FDA direct operating loans would go from $400,000 to $750,000
* Eligibility requirements for FSA direct real estate loans would be lowered to one year of experience

SENATE FARM BILL:

Updates guaranteed and direct operating and ownership loans on par with the House proposal except guaranteed operating loans are lower under the Senate version.
Seeks to ease securing credit for beginning producers.

BROADBAND:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Strengthens rural broadband by working to connect those areas still without service while improving those areas with service that is poor by requiring higher standards of providers in exchange for financial assistance.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Strengthens rural broadband and increases funding for the Rural Partnerships and Prosperity and Investments in Rural Infrastructure programs.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Invests mandatory funding in agricultural research facilities and other research title initiatives.
Invests mandatory funding in specialty crop research initiatives.
Invests mandatory funding in 1890s land grants.
Establishes a commission to improve the accuracy and efficiency of NASS data collection and reporting.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Increases funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, 1890s land grants, agricultural research facilities, and Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research.

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Renews and makes improvements to renewable energy programs, including the Rural Energy for America Program.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Includes extensions and modifications of the suite of energy title programs but the Senate summary does not provide great detail. The Senate bill does increase funding for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical and Biobased Product Assistance Program, Biobased Markets, and the Bio Preferred Program.

HORTICULTURE:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Renews and makes improvements to horticulture programs, including new investment in the Specialty Crop Block Grant program, the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program, Organics, etc.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Includes renewal of programs but also funding increases for Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, Organics, etc.

Washington Insiders Now Think We Could Get a First Look at a New Farm Bill as Early as Next Week

Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:46:47 GMT

The first look at a new farm bill could happen as early as next week. It’s long overdue after nothing was released out of Committee in 2023, and there’s growing doubt a farm bill will even be passed in 2024.

The latest timeline is according to Joe L. Outlaw, co-director, Agricultural & Food Policy Center (AFPC), Texas A&M University. In an interview with Farm Journal, Outlaw says the House Ag Committee could unveil its version of the farm bill the week of April 15.

Far From Finished

This is just the first step in a long process of getting a new farm bill across the finish line. Even if its version is passed out of committee, Outlaw says the quickest a farm bill has ever been released and then signed by the President is nine months, which means even if we see a first look at a new farm bill next week, it’s unlikely a final bill will be passed this year.

New Farm Bill

What’s possibly in the House Ag Committee’s version of the bill? The policy insiders we spoke to said it’s almost a guarantee we will see an increase in the reference price under Title One.

“I think out of the House side, you will see a change in the reference prices,” says Brad Weddelman, chief economist with Combest, Sell & Associates Chairman. “GT Thompson has said over and over again that he wants to look at reference prices and doesn’t want to move forward without strengthening the farm safety net.”

The bigger question right now is how much of an increase the House Ag Committee will make to reference prices when they unveil their version of the farm bill.

“I think that’s the million-dollar question right now. Right? And a lot of it comes down to funding,” says
Bart Fischer, co-director, Agricultural & Food Policy Center, Texas A&M.

“If you looked at it just in terms of cost of production, we’re up roughly, on average, 30% from where we had been just in terms of cost,” Fischer adds. “So that’s an easy baseline to start with. But I don’t know that we’re going to have the funding to get to 30% increases across the board, because we’re talking more than $100 billion at that point.”

There have recently been reports that there will be $40 billion to $50 billion in additional funding beyond the farm bill baseline, but it’s not clear how the committee found those funds. Our own Jim Wiesemeyer says it could be changes to SNAP, tweaks to conservation funding, or even tapping into USDA’s CCC.

Hamas-Israel War Gets U.S. Lawmakers’ Attention; May Impact House Speakership Vote

Mon, 09 Oct 2023 13:45:17 GMT

The attack on Israel by Hamas adds urgency to GOP efforts to elect a new House speaker. They head into a conference vote as soon as Wednesday with two strong candidates and no clear favorite between House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Trump-backed Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). The need to focus on Israel may help get a House GOP leadership decision this week, several lawmakers said.

Lawmakers have emphasized that a delay in filling the role could slow any efforts to help Israel. “We have to move quickly on this,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Sunday on CNN. “We’re just in too dangerous of a time to be playing games with our national security.” On Fox News, Jordan said Sunday that his first move as speaker would be to help Israel. “I want to give them what they need to win,” Jordan pledged on the program Sunday Morning Futures. Scalise also pledged full support. “Make no mistake: The United States will always stand with Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East,” he wrote on social media. “They must defend themselves as their citizens are slaughtered by Hamas terrorists. They have our full support and our prayers.”

The Pentagon announced an initial emergency military assistance package for Israel on Sunday, as well as the movement of U.S. Navy ships and aircraft closer to Israel as a show of support. The initial Israeli request will not require new funding to be approved by Congress. President Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday — the two leaders’ second call since the Hamas invasion began.

An Israeli official confirmed Americans are among the “scores” of hostages being held in Gaza following one of the largest attacks on Israel by militant group Hamas in decades, and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said officials are still working to verify reports of American deaths — as the total Israeli and Palestinian death toll exceeds 1,100.

Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas’s Saturday surprise attack on Israel and gave the green light for the assault at a meeting in Beirut last Monday, the Wall Street Journalreported ( link ), citing senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah, another Iran-backed militant group. Senior Israeli security officials have pledged to strike at Iran’s leadership if Tehran is found responsible for killing Israelis. The strike was intended to hit Israel while it appeared distracted by internal political divisions over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. It was also aimed at disrupting accelerating U.S.-brokered talks to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel that Iran saw as threatening, the senior Hamas and Hezbollah members said, according to the WSJ article.

Of note: The U.S. has no Senate-confirmed ambassador to Israel, despite President Biden nominating former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in early September. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is still blockading senior military promotions, which Pentagon officials have warned is damaging U.S. national security policy. The Senate is on recess this week.

House Speakership Race Heats Up

The House speakership race heats up this week, with the contest now between two GOP members. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan have announced their candidacies, and others could still enter the race, but it remains to be seen whether the conference can coalesce around a viable successor to Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Late last week, former President Donald Trump endorsed Jordan.

The House GOP conference will hold its internal election for speaker Wednesday morning after a Tuesday evening “candidate forum,” according to a schedule distributed by Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York. On Monday night, the conference will also meet behind closed doors for a “member-only discussion.” Phones are to be checked at the door and staff aren’t allowed into the meeting, the invitation says.

House GOP leadership race between Scalise and Jordan. On Saturday, a third possible contender, Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, said he would not run and urged his Republican colleagues to unify behind either Steve Scalise (R-La.) or Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Hern said he believed a three-man race would “create even more division and make it harder to elect a Speaker.”

Differences between Steve Scalise, 58, and Jim Jordan, 59:

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.):

Has spent nearly a decade working his way up House leadership.
Viewed by some as a product of the traditional system.
Pitches himself as a unifier.
History of incremental gains and compromise.
Voted to raise the debt ceiling multiple times.
Supports Ukraine funding.
Voted for the 2018 Farm Bill but against the 2014 and 2008 Farm Bill.
Defends Trump but is less vocal.
Known for developing relationships across different party factions.
Known for personal touches and hospitality.
Faced criticism for appearing before a white-supremacy group in the past.
Diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a blood cancer.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio):

Committee chairman more aligned with antiestablishment conservatives.
Support of McCarthy’s allies.
Seen as more willing to fight without compromise.
Endorsed by former President Donald Trump.
Former wrestling coach who argues for a go-to-the-mat mentality.
Voted against a measure to avoid a government shutdown
Voted to raise the debt ceiling less frequently.
Opposed Ukraine funding.
Voted against the 2018, 2014 and 2008 Farm Bill.
Defends Trump more vocally.
Uses regular television appearances to criticize Democrats.
Co-founder of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
Advocates for a deeper dive into leadership accountability.
Not known for the same personal touches and hospitality as Scalise.
No reported health concerns in the way of his candidacy.

GOP proposes raising Speaker nomination threshold to whole House majority. Over 90 House Republicans, including members from various factions, led by Fitzpatrick and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), have initiated a push for a special meeting to consider amending the rules governing the nomination of a Speaker of the House. The proposed amendment seeks to increase the threshold required to elect a speaker, shifting from a majority within the GOP conference to a majority of the entire House.

This change aims to ensure that Republicans can nominate a speaker with a unified front, reducing the need for multiple rounds of voting on the House floor, as witnessed during McCarthy’s speaker race in January.

A growing number of House GOP lawmakers want to alter a rule allowing one lawmaker to demand a “motion to vacate.” In January, then Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) agreed to the one-member rule as a way of placating far-right/rebel lawmakers, many of whom had long questioned his support for their causes.

Background: Until 2019, a single member could call for a “motion to vacate,” or oust the speaker. Democrats changed the rule that year so that it would take a majority of one of the parties to agree to proceed. Reps. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have not said whether they would back rules changes.

The problem: It would take 217 votes to change the rule. There are currently 221 Republicans in the House, with one seat vacant. Eight Republicans deployed the rule to undo McCarthy. Rebel Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), the architect of McCarthy’s demise, told Fox News Digital that he would be “open-minded” about a possible change.

U.S. senators arrive in China, seek diplomacy over conflict, and potential meeting with President Xi Jinping. A bipartisan delegation of U.S. senators, led by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), landed in China on Saturday, expressing a commitment to fostering competition rather than conflict with the Asian superpower. The senators engaged in discussions with Shanghai Communist Party secretary, Chen Jining, and have planned meetings with senior officials in Shanghai and Beijing, including the hope of meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Schumer emphasized the importance of maintaining a cooperative relationship between the world’s two largest economies and stated that the U.S. aims for economic competition with China but does not seek confrontation.

This visit follows a series of high-level visits by officials from the Biden administration to ease escalating tensions between the two nations.

The U.S. hopes to pave the way for a potential meeting between President Biden and Xi at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco in November, although China has yet to confirm the Chinese leader’s attendance.

The bipartisan delegation includes Republican senators Mike Crapo of Idaho, Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy of Louisiana, as well as Democratic senators Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Jon Ossoff of Georgia.

The senators intend to address concerns of fair competition for American companies operating in China, with a particular focus on Micron Technology Inc., which has a substantial presence in the states represented by some of the delegation members. Market access issues, the flow of chemicals used in the production of fentanyl, human rights, and the investment climate for U.S. businesses in China are among the topics to be discussed during the delegation’s visit.

Rep. Cole: McCarthy’s ‘cuts’ deal with conservatives now void. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the House Rules Chair, declared that the appropriations cuts orchestrated by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in a secretive deal with conservatives last June no longer hold weight with McCarthy no longer in power. In an interview with Politico ( link ), Cole stated, “This agreement was faulty from the beginning. It’s changed over time, and now in a sense, it doesn’t exist at all because McCarthy isn’t the speaker anymore.” He further emphasized that the new speaker would have to address this issue.

The more challenging task of addressing non-defense programs lies ahead, with the collapse of the agriculture appropriations bill last month serving as an example.

Big difference between Senate and House. While the Senate Appropriations Committee has followed the spending caps set in the debt ceiling agreement, the House has diverged significantly, creating a substantial gap in their respective budget proposals.

House rules also make it challenging for Democrats or moderate Republicans to adjust the spending bills during floor debates.

Farm Bill 2023 Draft is Expected by Mid-September

Thu, 20 Jul 2023 17:40:37 GMT

The 2023 farm bill is expected to be drafted for a markup in mid-September. It might be considered by the House before some provisions of the current farm law expire on September 30, though demands for floor time are substantial, and the deadline is tight.

The bill will not likely include further work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beyond those stated in the recently approved debt ceiling bill. House Ag Committee Chairman, G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) envisions SNAP as a workforce development program and prefers using incentives to shape participants’ shopping habits.

Despite the farm bill’s challenges, Thompson aims to achieve as many approving votes as possible from both parties. Further, he’s ensuring new representatives are familiar with the bill’s complexities before the vote, to avoid misunderstandings and flare-ups on the House floor.

Thompson, along with other members, is also seeking additional funding sources for the bill, but that will likely be the biggest farm bill hurdle that may trip up lawmakers.

Prepare for big changes in the farm bill

The committee says they plan a mid-September markup of a draft farm bill once the text is ready after August recess. The top four members of the House and Senate Ag committees urged CBO to ramp up staffing to address a backlog of scores for proposed changes to programs the upcoming farm bill, according to a letter .

The letter , addressed to the leaders of the congressional Budget committees and CBO director Phillip Swagel, said the Ag committees have “become increasingly concerned at the volume of outstanding requests” for scores related to the farm bill.

Lawmakers said they “expect several hundred more preliminary scores will be needed before each chamber, and eventually, the Congress, has a farm bill completed for final scoring.”

To address the concerns, the members said CBO and the Budget committees should “use all available resources and authorities to ensure CBO can reorganize staff to prioritize farm bill requests, hire or contract additional staff, or find available qualified professionals who can be assigned on detail.” They added that new hires or detailees should have experience in scoring farm bill-related programs.

Thompson also said that the timeline could be met in getting the bill done by the end of September if the Senate would follow the House schedule.

“There would be no need for an extension if the Senate would get their [farm bill version] done in the same timeframe I’m talking about,” he observed.

Farm bill bottom line

Thompson acknowledged on Tuesday that Congress would likely need to extend the existing farm bill due to delays caused by unrelated legislation. This marks his first explicit admittance that legislators will miss the imminent deadline, as some of the authorizations from the 2018 Farm Bill are set to expire by the end of September.

As his previous comments signaled, Thompson’s prediction seems to stem from assessing the Senate’s progress, being further behind in drafting its version of the farm bill than the House.

McConnell: Extra funding for farm bill ‘hard to come by'

Wed, 28 Jun 2023 20:55:07 GMT

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) today warned that the tight spending atmosphere after the debt ceiling debate will limit any additional money for the next farm bill.

“New spending is going to be hard to come by” for the farm bill, McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a University of Kentucky ag event on the reauthorization of the farm bill. The comments reinforce the idea that House and Senate Ag committees would need to remain at or below baseline spending levels for the around $1.5 trillion food and farm legislation; both parties have requested more funds.

Related story: Stabenow Proposes $20 Billion Farm Bill Solution?

Efforts by some farm-state lawmakers are looking at “efficiencies” in moving some funding around via various titles of the farm bill. Also, the House Budget panel is working with Ag Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) regarding crop insurance program ideas.

“I have proudly served on the Ag Committee since my first day in the Senate and understand exactly how important the Farm Bill is to ag communities across Kentucky,” said McConnell. “I’m glad the Committee’s Ranking Member, Senator Boozman (R-Ar.), joined me in Fayette County with Commissioner Ryan Quarles and Dean Nancy Cox to hear farmers’ priorities for the Farm Bill firsthand.”

Boozeman echoed McConnell in stressing the importance of continuous farm bill conversations as the bill is drafted.

“Stakeholder input is a vital part of the process. That’s why it is important to get out of Washington and hear directly from those on the ground who utilize farm bill programs to ensure their concerns are being addressed and their needs are being met.”

Related story: 3 Reasons the Farm Bill is Behind Schedule

Boozman highlighted the changed global context since the last farm bill in 2018, citing high interest rates, inflation, and input costs. He also emphasized the importance of risk management tools to ensure the ag capacity of the U.S. with the changing environmental and economic conditions. The ongoing war in Ukraine and potential animal pandemics were also noted as significant factors impacting ag.

Bottom line

Boozman expressed confidence in the process of crafting the farm bill, hoping for an effective outcome. He has consistently said he will not support a farm bill that doesn’t provide for an increase in the Price Loss Coverage program’s reference prices.

What was not said: McConnell didn’t comment on the possibility of running for re-election in 2026.

Ag Labor Working Group Created to Gather Input from Producers

Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:04:23 GMT

Approximately 21 million people are employed in the ag and food industry, according to USDA data from 2021. Of the 21 million, 2.6 million people work directly on the farm. But farmers are pleading for more employment in the sector.

The Committee on Ag is looking to solve these workforce issues with the formation of the Agricultural Labor Working Group.

“This is a complex problem that deserves the focused attention of the Members who hear from producers every day rather than the partisan grandstanding that has plagued these efforts in the past,” House Ag Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) and Ranking Member David Scott (D-Ga.) said in a statement.

According to the committee press release , the Ag Labor Working Group’s responsibilities will include:

• Gathering input from ag stakeholders, employers and workers, while “particularly emphasizing the H-2A visa program for nonimmigrant agricultural workers”
• Crafting a report about the program and its impact on food security
• Filing a final report that includes recommendations to address the program’s flaws.

“A robust ag industry starts with a strong and healthy workforce. However, due to a labor shortage, American farmers are increasingly turning to overseas workers to fill positions on the farm. Unfortunately, this is not an easy process because our visa policies and regulations have become convoluted and burdensome. Reforms are desperately needed to address this pressing issue,” said Co-Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ar.).

Here are the representatives appointed to the working group:

Rep. Don Davis, Co-Chair (D-N.C.)
Rep. Yadira Caraveo (D-Co.)
Rep. Salud Cabajal (D-Ca.)
Rep. Jim Costa (D-Ca.)
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX)
Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL)
Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.)

Rep. Rick Crawford
Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR)
Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX)
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Ca.)
Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.)
Rep. David Rouzer (R-N.C.)
Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI)

According to the press release, the members were chosen based on location and differing sectors of ag.

“Labor is one of the biggest limiting factors facing agriculture, and farmers need a system that provides long-term stability,” said Zippy Duvall, Farm Bureau president. “We are committed to engaging with the newly formed working group to address meaningful H-2A reform and a reasonable wage rate that enables farmers and their employees to continue meeting the needs of America’s families.”

How Does the Farm Bill Funding Process Work?

Wed, 14 Jun 2023 19:52:40 GMT

The Senate and House Ag committees are facing delays in drafting the next farm bill, and it was expected to be the most expensive farm bill to date, clocking in at around $1.5 trillion.

However, Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow, (D-Mich.) said in a Senate Ag Committee hearing that there will be no new funding for the new farm bill. This means any increase in funding for programs will require reallocating money from other parts of the bill.

Funding is a primary reason the bill could held up, according to House Ag Chair G.T. Thompson, who is spearheading the farm bill. He shared a rundown of the farm bill funding process and implications on Wednesday with Jim Wiesemeyer, Profarmer policy analyst, and Davis Michaelsen, AgriTalk host,

Q: Do the current issues between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the far-right House GOP members mean no additional funding for a new farm bill?

Thompson: “No, absolutely not. There’s no real bearing or implications that I see with a small group of folks who have really tried to hold the House hostage here. Speaker McCarthy has been a great ally in the farm bill process so far. He understands the seriousness, the logistics to make it happen, what’s needed. One important point is: We’ve never had Republican leadership rowing in the same direction when it comes to a farm bill as it now is with Speaker McCarthy, Scalise, Stefanik and Whip Emmer. We’re working together on everything from member education to future whip operations. As our Budget Views and Estimates letter said, there really is no better return on investment when it comes to federal funding.”

Q: You listed those figures and they’re good ones for the ag sector. Does that mean you’ve convinced House Speaker McCarthy for additional funding beyond the baseline because some mainstream farm groups say they’d rather have an extension than a baseline farm bill?

Thompson: “An extension is short sighted, and it really falls short of us making the refinements needed. I use a baseball analogy when it comes to the farm bill: We’re rounding first base, and that means we’re really doing a great job and probably beginning to wrap up the fact-finding, audit phase. We’re going to be on course to do this by what I’ve always committed to--completing a farm bill on time. We’ve made the case again that a successful farm bill enhances our farm safety net for our producers and a baseline funded bill does not mean that we can’t make program improvements. But I’m not rooting for the extension. We must invest in the safety net for our farmers and ranchers. I think the Speaker heard that loud and clear from those in attendance in Tulare, California, when we were at the world ag exposition.”

Q: What does the farm bill spending game plan look like?

Thompson: “We need to find new dollars. And I think one of the allies that we haven’t had is quite frankly Budget Chairman Jody Arrington (R-Texas). He’s a great aggie himself. I think there are efficiencies that can bring us some new dollars, just as we look at incorporating some of the disaster relief that we normally spend in an emotional way. Anytime you do that you don’t do it efficiently. The Senate usually puts in some additional legislation on must-pass pieces of legislation. It would spend a lot of money and not all that very smartly. By incorporating some of that disaster relief into crop insurance, we will enhance crop insurance, making it more attractive for more subscriptions. At the same time. I think we can do that by spending less money. We’ll bring new dollars in and that’s just one of a number of ideas we have when there’s a recognition that in certain areas, certain titles of the farm bill, we need to find some new dollars.”

Q: You can move around dollars even though Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has said don’t go into one area to get more funding elsewhere?

Thompson: “The House will chair the farm bill this time around. But I think there’s dollars to be had and common sense tells us especially when we’ve been going through such an emotional time of spending, look at the trillions of dollars just in the past two and a half years. We’re talking trillions of dollars. You can’t tell me some of that was not spent emotionally and was appropriated. The funding is sitting out there in different corners of the federal government. And I’m talking things specific to agriculture.”

Q: Will some of those refinements include a voluntary update of base acres chairman, because soybean and other grower groups want that, while others don’t. But getting base acre data is like looking into a black hole trying to get accurate data. We understand your committee staff is working with USDA to get some information. Is that correct?

Thompson: “We definitely are working on a deep dive on all the information we need, and base acres is one of those areas. This is something you need to have good data to be able to do. Having base acres is like winning the lottery. What about those new young and beginning farmers that do not have base acres, but we’re relying on them to feed us well into the future for decades? Their base acres is something that has come up a lot in our listening sessions across the country and it’s certainly something we’re looking at right now. We really don’t have any conclusions at this point.”

Q: On food stamps, we know you’ve been wanting to expand language beyond what the debt limit package included… you want to expand career and technical education to those excluded from the work requirements for food stamps. Is that correct?

Thompson: “There’s a lot that we need to look at. I was pleased that the Speaker came to me and asked me what we should put forward in the debt ceiling. He wanted something that was going to perhaps save some money and at the same time, not blow up the farm bill process. We were able to accomplish that. The fact that we reduced the percentage of waivers that states can use. We zeroed out as of the first of the year… hundreds of thousands of waivers states stockpiled basically exempting anyone from having access to the SNAP employment and career and technical education benefits.

Q: What implications from the debt ceiling will spill over to titles in the farm bill, such as the biggest piece of the funding pie, SNAP?

Thompson: I was very disappointed in what the president and his people put into the debt ceiling package related to this. They basically excluded folks who are homeless, people who are veterans and young adults 18 year old… foster youth who all of a sudden overnight become adults and therefore some of them leave their foster homes with all their life belongings in a garbage bag. This is a pretty sad situation. They essentially put language into the debt ceiling measure that prevented anyone within those three groups of having access to the SNAP employment, career and technical education benefits that we provide by waiving that opportunity for them. That’s something we need to look at.”

Q: Will you seek to get language in the farm bill to curtail USDA’s ability to tap the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act for funding. House Republicans in the FY 2024 appropriations bill includes this language. Will that also be a topic in the farm bill debate?

Thompson: “It’s certainly going to be a topic. As you noted, the current proposed bill from the Ag Appropriations Subcommittee reinstated some guardrails that would limit the Secretary’s discretionary authority to use the CCC and then, quite frankly, that’s where it belongs. That could be very, very helpful if it survives the appropriation process. A recent GAO report reinforced the fact that the climate smart commodity pilot program should have gone through a rulemaking process. And Secretary Vilsack circumvented Congress and while I like working with the secretary, I was not happy with what happened there. From the Ag committee’s perspective, I’m concerned that using the farm bill to legislate sideboards around USDA interpretations of the CCC authority would impede the ability of a future Ag Secretary so we should exercise our oversight authority, and we are definitely doing that at this point.”

3 Reasons the Farm Bill is Behind Schedule

Wed, 07 Jun 2023 17:00:00 GMT

The Senate and House Ag committees are facing delays in drafting the next farm bill, and it is expected to be the most expensive farm bill to date, clocking in at around $1.5 trillion.

The process is “behind schedule” judging by past experiences with previous farm bills. Neither of the committees have established a timeline for crafting the legislation, although whispers have a draft coming before the August recess, or no later than September.

1. Budget issues

According to Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow, (D-Mich.), there will be no new funding for the new farm bill. This means any increase in funding for programs will require reallocating money from other parts of the bill.

2. Debt ceiling negotiations

House republicans could push for more changes in the food stamp program. However, if that’s the case, I’m not as upbeat on the impact of the debt limit bill.

3. Updated CBO projections

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in February estimated the 2023 farm bill would come with a $1.5 trillion price tag, up from $867 billion in the 2018 farm bill. With no additional funding available, this will set the bill negotiations back.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy last week signaled that House Republicans would likely seek further changes in work requirements or other reforms relative to some programs. Previously, the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills experienced delays, both due to conflicts over the SNAP program, which represents $4 out of every $5 in the legislation.

Senate Ag chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has stated that the issue of work requirements is settled and will not be altered. However, the House Ag Committee plans to hold a hearing discussing “opportunities for modernization” of SNAP and other programs that are part of the farm bill.

Conservation and CRP Rates Discussed in Latest House Panel Hearing

Thu, 25 May 2023 14:49:22 GMT

During a House Agriculture Conservation, Research and Biotechnology Subcommittee hearing , lawmakers discussed concerns about the ability of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) to manage new climate-related funding, staffing challenges, and CRP payment rates.

Leaders of the NRCS and FSA are tasked with addressing staffing shortfalls to deliver conservation and farm programs and implement new climate-related funding included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggested that the NRCS might only be able to spend around $3.9 billion of the $4.95 billion allocated to it under the IRA for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP).

Terry Cosby, NRCS Chief, expressed confidence in the agency’s ability to administer these funds, mentioning a recent notice of funding availability that made up to $500 million available for FY 2023. The influx of IRA money has allowed the NRCS to offer more contracts under programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

Lawmakers questioned the barriers to hiring new staff, to which Cosby replied that a lack of college graduates in relevant fields was a limitation. The agency is collaborating with land grant universities to address this issue. The agency has received 1,500 applications for 200 openings for soil conservationists around the country, although it is murky how many will meet all the requirements.

Who understands carbon sequestration?

Questions were also raised about the current knowledge gap around carbon sequestration and its impact on current and future programs. Both Cosby and FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux emphasized the importance of accurate data for driving enrollment and participation in these programs.

House Ag Chairman G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) Thompson added that he also thinks lawmakers should revisit restrictions placed on the IRA funding that look to target it to climate-related efforts, saying he believes local resource concerns should guide how it is spent.

“We can’t prioritize one natural resource concern over all others and we shouldn’t prioritize one solution above all others,” he said.

On the farm bill front

Thompson raised the possibility of bringing some IRA conservation funding into farm bill baseline. He used the hearing to approach a big issue: The nearly $20 billion in funding for conservation programs contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The funding is not currently included in the baseline for the next farm bill, and Thompson suggested that a portion of the funds should be brought into the baseline. That would make it easier for lawmakers to shift those funds to other efforts in the farm bill.

Included in the funding were $8.45 billion for the cost-sharing Environmental Quality Incentives Programs; $3.25 billion for the Conservation Stewardship Program, directed toward working lands; $4.95 billion for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which coordinates stewardship on multiple properties; $1.4 billion for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program; $1 billion for conservation technology assistance; and $300 million to measure carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reductions from conservation practices.

Discussion about the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) focused on rental rates for transitioning farmland to conservation and the competition with farmers for prime land. Both Ducheneaux and Cosby highlighted the efforts to provide data and incentives to make the best choices for land use and conservation.

Some lawmakers say the CRP is paying farmers to take land out of production that competes with farmers looking to rent farmland. The rental rates were capped in the 2018 Farm Bill, but USDA has offered incentives and adjustments to CRP rents in a bid to attract more acres.

Subcommittee member Brad Finstad (R-Minn.) said CRP payment rates were higher than they should be and making it hard for farmers to find additional cropland. Increasing program payments as the Biden administration did in 2021 in a bid to boost CRP enrollment “incentivizes farm country to take high-quality land out of production,” Finstad said.

Young farmers especially say high CRP rates have essentially “forced them to compete with the federal government” for land, Finstad said. But Ducheneaux countered that CRP incentives “give the producers a meaningful choice” about what to do with their land. He said FSA was looking at refining its use of an erodibility index to more precisely evaluate land that is being offered for enrollment.

“The choice that they [landowners] make with their resources is not for us to dictate. Our job is to get the opportunity out there in front of them, so that they make the best choice,” Ducheneaux said.

Background

About 23 million acres are currently enrolled in the program at the end of March, including 8.4 million in general sign-up, which is aimed at larger tracts; 8.2 million in continuous sign-up, which is focused on smaller, more environmentally sensitive tracts, and 6.4 million in the grasslands option.

Two million acres enrolled through the general or continuous sign-up options are scheduled to leave the program in October unless they are re-enrolled, including 1.5 million acres enrolled via general signups and 500,000 acres enrolled via continuous CRP efforts.

Contracts currently scheduled to expire in September 2024 fall to only 480,000 and rise to just shy of 1 million acres in September 2025. Through the end of March, just over 44,000 acres were enrolled via the continuous signup in FY 2023 while 888,000 acres were enrolled in FY 2022. Annual CRP enrollment is capped at 27 million acres under the 2018 Farm Bill.

Lawmakers Meet with Biden to Discuss Farm Bill 2023

Thu, 11 May 2023 18:31:17 GMT

President Biden invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers to the White House this afternoon to discuss the upcoming farm bill reauthorization. Invitees include Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.), Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Stabenow labeled the session as a chance to “have a broader discussion about the farm bill and all the implications for it,” and that it will show “we are working together in a bipartisan way.” She also noted it was a chance for both sides to share their priorities for the bill.

Thompson signaled he wants to hear a “commitment from everyone including the president that we will get this done and done in the manner I’ve been speaking about. Bipartisan, bicameral, on time and highly effective.”

Boozman said the session is a “step in the right direction” and he wants to see the discussion focus on “the fastest path forward” for the omnibus legislation.

Farm Bill Meeting Perspective

It’s always good to have a president’s attention on a big topic like the farm bill. It will be interesting to see if Biden/Vilsack detail any must-haves in a new farm bill.

Food stamp funding and implementation flexibility, conservation and climate-smart programs are key possible administration topics.

History has a lot of examples of how some White House officials wanted to take a more active role in a farm bill only to find that lawmakers write it, not the executive branch. However, a president must sign the omnibus bill and if it is vetoed, override votes are needed--a situation that has occurred before.

House Ag Committee

Will 2026 Finally Be the Year for Immigration and Ag Labor Reform?

Will Congressional Inaction Force Farmers to Choose Between Health Insurance and Their Farm Budget?

New House Bill Pushes For Fertilizer Price Transparency

Farmers Say They Shoulder The Cost Of Mergers In Seed, Fertilizer Industries

250-Plus Ag Groups Ask Trump Administration To ‘Correct’ MAHA Commission’s ‘Activities’

Breaking Down the Biggest Differences in the Big Beautiful Bill Proposals and Potential Impact on Agriculture

EPA’s Proposed Rule A Potential ‘Game Changer’ for Farmers

Farmers Brace for Impact: What the MAHA Report Could Mean for Agriculture

Q&A With A Washington Insider: 4 Insights For Farmers

House Republicans Unveil Budget Resolution, Calling for $230 Billion in Ag-Related Cuts Over 10 Years

Congress Approves CR, Includes $31 Billion in Farmer, Disaster Aid and Farm Bill Extension

Ag Sector Could Score Big in Stopgap Spending

Odds Are Improving for Lawmakers to Pass Several Critical Farmer Support Programs

Expert Shares What Could Spark Progress On The Farm Bill

CBO Estimate Shows House Ag Committee's Farm Bill Would Increase Federal Budget Deficit by $33B Over 10 Years

Ag Secretary Vilsack Has A Clear Message For Farm-State Lawmakers On Passing A New Farm Bill: 'Get Realistic'

Watch the full interview here:

Contentious Areas of the Farm Bill

Snap Overpayments?

Using CCC Funding in Question

Will Congress Pass a New Farm Bill in 2024?

What’s Next for the Farm Bill?

Related Stories:

As Farmers Look to Cut Costs for 2025, Machinery and Technology Could Take the Biggest Hit

A Margin Squeeze is Setting in Across Row-Crop Farms, and 80% of Ag Economists Are Now Concerned It’ll Accelerate Consolidation

A Contentious House Ag Committee Markup of a New $1.51 Trillion Farm Bill Passes Out of Committee

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

House Agriculture Committee Set to Mark Up 942-Page Farm Bill Draft

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

Washington Insiders Now Think We Could Get a First Look at a New Farm Bill as Early as Next Week

Far From Finished

Hamas-Israel War Gets U.S. Lawmakers’ Attention; May Impact House Speakership Vote

House Speakership Race Heats Up

Farm Bill 2023 Draft is Expected by Mid-September

Prepare for big changes in the farm bill

McConnell: Extra funding for farm bill ‘hard to come by'

Bottom line

Ag Labor Working Group Created to Gather Input from Producers

How Does the Farm Bill Funding Process Work?

Q: Do the current issues between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the far-right House GOP members mean no additional funding for a new farm bill?

Q: You listed those figures and they’re good ones for the ag sector. Does that mean you’ve convinced House Speaker McCarthy for additional funding beyond the baseline because some mainstream farm groups say they’d rather have an extension than a baseline farm bill?

Q: What does the farm bill spending game plan look like?

Q: You can move around dollars even though Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has said don’t go into one area to get more funding elsewhere?

Q: On food stamps, we know you’ve been wanting to expand language beyond what the debt limit package included… you want to expand career and technical education to those excluded from the work requirements for food stamps. Is that correct?

Q: Will you seek to get language in the farm bill to curtail USDA’s ability to tap the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act for funding. House Republicans in the FY 2024 appropriations bill includes this language. Will that also be a topic in the farm bill debate?

3 Reasons the Farm Bill is Behind Schedule

Conservation and CRP Rates Discussed in Latest House Panel Hearing

Who understands carbon sequestration?

Questions were also raised about the current knowledge gap around carbon sequestration and its impact on current and future programs. Both Cosby and FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux emphasized the importance of accurate data for driving enrollment and participation in these programs.

House Ag Chairman G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) Thompson added that he also thinks lawmakers should revisit restrictions placed on the IRA funding that look to target it to climate-related efforts, saying he believes local resource concerns should guide how it is spent.

“We can’t prioritize one natural resource concern over all others and we shouldn’t prioritize one solution above all others,” he said.

On the farm bill front

Thompson raised the possibility of bringing some IRA conservation funding into farm bill baseline. He used the hearing to approach a big issue: The nearly $20 billion in funding for conservation programs contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The funding is not currently included in the baseline for the next farm bill, and Thompson suggested that a portion of the funds should be brought into the baseline. That would make it easier for lawmakers to shift those funds to other efforts in the farm bill.

Background

Lawmakers Meet with Biden to Discuss Farm Bill 2023

Farm Bill Meeting Perspective