Senate 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?

Another Temporary Fix: Stopgap Bill Includes Farm Bill Extension — Is This the New Normal for Ag Policy?

Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:26:14 GMT

A new stopgap spending bill to reopen the government also extends key Farm Bill programs for one year—covering the provisions left out of July’s budget package. While the Senate waits on the House to vote, it brings up what some economists think may be a new reality: the days of passing a comprehensive Farm Bill may be over, and a piecemeal approach could be the new norm in Washington.

It’s been about 6 years and 11 months since Congress passed a new, comprehensive (5-year) farm bill. This week, the continuing resolution (CR), which funds the federal government through January 30, includes an extension of the current farm bill, again. This prevents outdated “permanent law” provisions from taking effect. Without action, those Depression-era statutes could have triggered mandatory price supports for certain commodities, disrupting markets.

The bill also includes an extension of the U.S. Grain Standards Act, ensuring official grain inspection and weighing services continue without interruption.

Senate Votes 60–40 to Advance the Measure

The Senate advanced the package in a 60–40 vote Sunday night, providing farmers relief from uncertainty over whether core safety-net programs might lapse.

An earlier package dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” increased funding for commodity programs, crop insurance, and export promotion, but it left out several smaller and conservation-related initiatives—including the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The new CR temporarily fills that gap while Congress works toward a full Farm Bill reauthorization.

Boozman: “Critical USDA Services Resume”

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, praised the bill’s passage, emphasizing its importance for both producers and rural communities.

“Ending the government shutdown ensures critical USDA services resume so vulnerable families no longer experience disruptions to nutrition benefits, farmers can access the programs and personnel they rely on to keep their operations running efficiently and disaster assistance is delivered,” Boozman said in a statement.“We advanced long-overdue farm bill policy improvements in the One Big Beautiful Bill, including enhanced risk management tools farmers have been calling for, and we’re continuing work to reauthorize other key initiatives. Extending the farm bill and the U.S. Grain Standards Act gives us more time to finalize these programs essential to farmers, ranchers and rural America.”

Is This the New Norm?

The extension buys lawmakers additional time to complete a comprehensive Farm Bill reauthorization, expected to be one of the top legislative priorities in early 2026.

But the loss of urgency to pass a new, comprehensive five-year farm bill may be due to the fact Congress included key enhancements to the Farm Safety Net in the One Big Beautiful Bill earlier this year. The Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists in July if that makes it more difficult or easier to pass a Farm Bill this year. 70% said yes. And in September, the Monthly Monitor asked when Congress will pass a new farm bill. Nearly 40% (39%) said a piecemeal approach for passing the farm bill is the new norm.

According to the Congressional Research Service, Sections 10101 and 10108 (Title I, Agriculture) would increase federal outlays by about $52.3 billion + $1.6 billion over 10 years.

The American Farm Bureau Federation says the bill directs about $65.6 billion in new agricultural investment over 10 years: ~$59 billion for core farm safety-net enhancements, ~$6.6 billion for other ag priorities.

Key Farm Bill-style Provisions in the OBBB

Here’s a breakdown of major provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that impact legislation within the Farm Bill:

1. Extension & enhancement of commodity support / safety-net programs

The bill extends core programs originally in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) through crop year 2031.
Reference prices under the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program are raised.
The Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program’s revenue guarantee is increased (for example, from 86% to 90%) and maximum payment rates increased.
Marketing Assistance Loan rates are increased.
The bill provides a one-time opportunity for eligible producers to update base acres (“new base acre holdings”).

2. Crop insurance and disaster assistance

Premium subsidies for crop insurance increase; the bill boosts coverage levels for the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) and Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) policies.
Disaster assistance programs are expanded: loss types eligible are broadened, thresholds for payment triggers are lowered, and coverage levels increased.

3. Dairy, sugar, and specialty commodities

For dairy: The bill increases the amount of milk production a producer can enroll in the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program. Also, it requires dairy product manufacturers to report cost/yield data so that “make allowances” under the federal milk marketing order system can be updated.
For sugar: Under the sugar support program, priority is given to sugar-beet processors if marketing allotments are raised; the bill also mandates reallocation of tariff-rate quota shortfalls by March 1 and requires USDA to report on refined sugar imports.

4. Agricultural research, animals, trust funds, and miscellaneous programs

Section 10108 of the bill funds: the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, National Animal Disease Preparedness Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank.
Extends funding for trust funds supporting pima cotton, wool, certain textile, and citrus industries.
Miscellaneous investments in horticulture, energy (for agriculture), trade promotion, and rural infrastructure also included.

While nothing is easy in Washington, it seems addressing portions of farm bill funding within other legislation is the path of least resistance. Which could change the way farm bills are shaped - and passed through Congress- in the years ahead.

Opposition to the Farm Bill Extension

While most farm groups applaud the one-year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) says it comes with potential issues for small and medium size farmers.

“The Senate’s deal to reopen the government has a number of problems that will hurt farmers and rural communities. The Senate attaches a 12-month Farm Bill extension to the deal, setting up the possibility for more chaos just a year from now,” says Michael Happ, Program Associate for Climate and Rural Communities. “Even worse, it is not a clean extension. The text proposes eliminating payment limitations for Farm Bill conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). In most years, well over half of applicants to EQIP are turned away due to a lack of funds — and without payment limits, the USDA will likely issue fewer, larger EQIP contracts. By getting rid of the payment limit, the Senate opens the door for more of EQIP’s finite resources to be diverted to the largest operations while more small and midscale farms are closed out.”

IATP is urging the Senate needs to keep payment limits in place and go back to the negotiating table.

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

Fusing The Best of Regenerative Ag and Smart Farming: Senator Marshall’s Take on MAHA

Fri, 25 Jul 2025 14:22:10 GMT

Having grown up as a Kansas fifth generation farm kid and spending many years as a physician, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, R-Kan., views the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda through a different lens than many of his Beltway colleagues.

“I delivered a baby every day for some 25 years in my hometown,” Marshall says. “And certainly, diet and nutrition are so, so, so important. When I came to Congress, this was one of the things I wanted to address. And I want to start by saying there’s no MAHA without American agriculture leadership.”

RELATED: MAHA Report’s Surprising Stance on Glyphosate, Atrazine Explained

While much of the recent reporting around MAHA focuses on unpacking the movement’s outwardly anti-pesticide bent , Marshall has fashioned his own, more conventional ag-friendly version covering four distinct pillars:

Increase American agricultural efficiency
Grow healthier, nutrient rich food
Unlock affordable health care access for millions of Americans
Focus on health care resources to combat the mental health epidemic

“I believe soil health leads to healthy food, which leads to healthy people,” Marshall says. “I hear the MAHA group and I hear the ag folks. I have a foot in each of those worlds, and I am trying to bring them together. Because guess what? American agriculture wants healthy children just as much as anybody.”

RELATED: Decode MAHA’s Potential Effect on the Agriculture Sector

Marshall believes MAHA can achieve that goal by embracing some – but not all – of the regenerative ag principles Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., espoused on the campaign trail. American farmers are already reducing chemical use with tools like selective spraying systems and mechanical weeding implements, but the senator knows there’s still meat on that bone. He views it less as a return to “40 acres and a mule” and more as a combination of pieces and parts from the regenerative ag playbook with precision ag technology generously sprinkled into the mix.

“Regenerative ag should be centered around precision ag and growing more with less,” he says. “We’re already using 60% less fertilizers and less pesticides. I think we must continue to decrease the amount of fertilizers and pesticides, so there’s less residue on that loaf of bread in the grocery store.”

Marshall is currently rallying Congressional support for the bipartisan Plant Biostimulant Act. This yet-to-be-ratified farm policy would streamline the FDA approval process under FIFRA for new, novel and natural modes of action. But the senator emphasizes the program must remain voluntary.

“About 5% of the farm bill is conservation practices,” he says. “So, I would streamline the FDA process and allow these biostimulants to be one of the options. It’s not a subsidy, though. I just want to make the regulatory process easier. And that’s going to make it more affordable, as well.”

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

Another goal is for the American producer to embrace best-in-class crop production and sustainability practices. The Kansas senator points to one example from his home state as the creative and nimble thinking he wants to see American farmers embrace.

“We have a group of sorghum growers that have their own mill,” Marshall says. “And they’re selling that flour directly to the infant formula (companies) as well as to European markets. The EU has higher standards, so to speak, than America does, and so be it. I don’t know if they’re necessary, but I don’t make the rules. These Kansas farmers have cracked the code and they’re getting a premium for their sorghum right now, and all it takes is a little extra effort.”

Your Next Read: Can Pulse Crops Double Acreage by 2030? The Push to Include More Pulses in the MAHA Movement

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

Grassley: Farmers Can Feed And Fuel The World At The Same Time. It’s Not Either/Or

Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:12:38 GMT

A still-agitated Sen. Chuck Grassley spoke to AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Monday, detailing a list of frustrations from the town hall meeting Grassley hosted last Friday night at the Franklin County Courthouse in Hampton, Iowa.

The event marked the kickoff for Grassley’s 45th annual tour to each of Iowa’s 99 counties, done so he could hear directly from Iowans.

He heard from them all right.

About 150 Iowans worried and upset about funding cuts and mass firings of federal employees, led by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, showed up and volleyed questions at the senior senator from Iowa.

In the overflow crowd were also a number of corn and soybean growers and county-based Republican party leaders Grassley and team had personally invited.

“A lot of them showed up. I’d have assumed I’d got a friendly question… And do you know that for a whole hour, not a single farmer or a single Republican leader asked me a single question,” the senator told Flory.

Instead, Grassley said he had to listen to “an hour of people complaining about President Donald Trump, Musk and Congress,” claiming the latter is not doing enough to provide a check on the president’s authority.

“Why wouldn’t they take an opportunity to ask Grassley something about international trade, or about the five-year farm bill or stuff like that?” Grassley asked Flory.

“I’ll ask you right now,” Flory responded. “Let’s talk about E15 and year-around availability. There’s a big push for it right now. Is that going to happen?”

“I think so, but I don’t know exactly when, because you’ve got to be bipartisan,” noted Grassley, who has long-championed year-round E15.

E15 Decision Requires Bipartisan Support

In mid-February, Grassley and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), both members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, had reintroduced the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025. The legislation is currently the only permanent, nationwide solution they said that will unleash the power of E15. The legislation would enable the year-round, nationwide sale of ethanol blends higher than 10 percent, helping to lower fuel prices and provide certainty in fuel markets for farmers and consumers.

“We’re hoping all those things get done, but we need permanency and predictability with ethanol and biodiesel,” Grassley told Flory. “And we need certainty, and this administration ought to give us that certainty.”

On his first day in office of his second term, President Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency to explore the benefits of making E15 available year-round through his Executive Order Declaring a National Energy Emergency.

“We got plenty of leadership here in the Midwest, and all the president would have to do is say, ‘Well, why doesn’t Congress get off of its butt and get something passed to help and bring certainty to this very important industry, because we have the capability of feeding the world, and we have the capability of fueling the world,” Grassley said.

Trump Tariffs Are Concerning

Grassley has been very consistent over the years in his messages to American farmers and the public at large that he is not a proponent of using tariffs to negotiate trade decisions.

Flory asked Grassley what his take is on what’s currently happening on the trade front, and whether he anticipates any long-term gains resulting from implementing tariffs.

“I’m a free and fair trader. I want to negotiate tariffs down,” Grassley replied. “If the president’s plan works, I’m going to say, ‘Praise the Lord.’ And if it doesn’t work, I’m going to say, ‘I told you so.’ But I’m not telling him that yet.”

Grassley said while he’s been in the Senate, he has spent 40 years trying to eliminate or reduce tariffs. “If he (Trump) can do it in a better way, I’m going to honor him for doing it.”

Another trade-related issue Grassley brought up is the decision by the Trump administration to impose fees of up to $1.5 million on Chinese-built vessels entering U.S. ports as part of the administration’s efforts to revive the U.S. shipbuilding industry.

“I don’t know that the president understands what he’s doing,” Grassley said. “The president is just creating a problem every time a ship docks in the United States, putting up to a million-dollar-plus cost on it. It is going to make it much more difficult for us from a competitive standpoint. I don’t know if they really think this stuff through or not.”

Augusto Bassanini, president of the United Grain Corporation, said as much in a March 21 letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Bassanini, quoted in an online article by the South China Morning Post, said the “unintended consequences” of the proposed actions “are already beginning to surface, with global shipping markets reacting by reducing bookings to U.S. ports, increasing shipping rates, and modifying contractual terms.”

Are More Tough Economic Times Ahead?

Flory asked Grassley if the various issues are signaling a prolonged period of tough economic times for agriculture. “Should we be anticipating some payments to farmers like, you know, the market facilitation program payments under the first Trump administration?” Flory asked.

“Well, already we got the $29 for soybeans and $42 for corn going out now to farmers. That was the $10 billion appropriation of the previous bill, but that deals with the Biden economics,” Grassley replied.

“The only thing I’ve got to tell you is when (Trump’s) tariffs screwed up our sale of soybeans to China, then he put $28 billion out through the CCC (USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation), which I think is too liberal of a delegation of authority to the president of the United States. But anyway, farmers want their money from the marketplace, not from the federal treasury,” Grassley added.

Flory’s final question to Grassley was regarding the timeline on tax cuts and budget reconciliation in the Senate.

Grassley said, “I hope today the chairman of the committee tells me he’s put together a bill. If he does that today, that will give us an opportunity to get something moving. Because until now, we’ve had 10 weeks of nothing but talk, talk, talk, going over the same thing week after week, and we got to move.”

The full discussion between Sen. Grassley and Flory on AgriTalk is available here.

Your next read: USDA Announces Key FPAC Appointments to Advance ‘America First’ Farm Agenda

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

Senate Agenda to Start 2025 Includes New Farm Bill

Fri, 03 Jan 2025 17:50:11 GMT

As the 119th Congress begins, the Senate’s opening day promises to be largely ceremonial, in contrast to the dramatic House speaker election. Senators will convene at noon ET to swear in new members, hear remarks from Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and address procedural matters.

Thune’s Filibuster Pledge
Thune will reaffirm his commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster, emphasizing its role in maintaining the Senate’s deliberative nature. This stance may clash with potential calls from President-elect Trump to abolish the filibuster, as he did during his first term.

Upcoming GOP Agenda Includes New Farm Bill
Thune will outline plans to pass individual appropriations bills, a farm bill, and focus on regular order and extended floor debates. The GOP’s initial reconciliation package, targeting border security, energy, and defense, could test the filibuster’s resilience.

Democratic Priorities
Schumer will advocate for bipartisan cooperation and outline Democratic goals, despite the GOP’s emphasis on party-line measures.

Cabinet Confirmations on Hold
The Senate will adopt its organizing resolution today, formally transitioning control of committees to the GOP. However, Cabinet confirmation hearings won’t begin until the week of Jan. 13, allowing more time for senators to meet with nominees, including former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Sen. Marco Rubio.

Republicans 53-seat majority will be delayed slightly because West Virginia Governor Jim Justice is waiting until Jan. 13 to allow Governor-elect Patrick Morrisey to take over before appointing a successor. This delay will affect Justice’s seniority ranking but is not expected to impact Republicans’ legislative activities significantly, given the short timeline.

Schumer Sets Democratic Agriculture Panel Member List
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has set the list of Democratic assignments on committees for the 119th Congress, with two new members of the Senate Agriculture Committee – Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Elissa Slotkin. Leaving the panel after the 118th Congress were retired Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), defeated Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) was previously announced as the new Ranking Member on the panel.

More Dramatic Start for the House
House Republicans are preparing for today’s unpredictable speaker election, where incumbent Mike Johnson (R-La.) faces a challenging path to retain his gavel. With a razor-thin 219-215 majority, Johnson can afford only one GOP defection if all members vote. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has signaled opposition, while some others remain undecided. Johnson has emphasized the importance of avoiding theatrics, recalling the protracted 2023 speaker vote, and is striving for a first-ballot victory.

Johnson has secured former President Trump’s endorsement and has focused on uniting his party behind key agenda items like border security and tax reform. However, some Republicans demand assurances of a more conservative approach, citing frustrations with Johnson’s reliance on Democratic votes in the previous Congress.

Johnson’s potential ousting could create a leadership vacuum since there isn’t an obvious replacement. Removing Johnson might reignite public clashes among top Republicans, including House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (La.), Majority Whip Tom Emmer (Minn.), and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (Ohio). These tensions could fracture party unity and complicate legislative efforts.

Political Implications for Trump and the GOP
The disruption could weaken Republican cohesion, making it harder for the party to advance its agenda or align with Trump’s interests, especially heading into the 2024 elections.

If there is a confirmed House speaker today, the schedule ahead includes:

· Saturday: House Republicans will meet at Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., to discuss reconciliation plans.
· Sunday: Republican elected leadership holds a retreat in Baltimore.
· Monday: The House will convene to certify Donald Trump’s Electoral College victory.

Your Next Read:
How is Stabenow’s Senate Farm Bill Proposal Different From the House Bill?

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

Time Is Running Out, But Boozman Says Passing Emergency Relief for Farmers Is a Priority

Fri, 06 Dec 2024 01:50:10 GMT

It’s a dire situation in farm country, according to Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), ranking member of the Senate Ag Committee. Just this week, he was on Capitol Hill urging legislators to help producers offset some of their losses with emergency relief .

“It’s clear the pain our farm families are living through,” Boozman said on the Senate floor . “For some producers, this is the second or third consecutive year of negative cash flow. This means many farm families are ending 2024 in the red, unable to pay off this year’s operating loan, unable to get the loan to farm in 2025 and facing the reality of being the generation to have lost the family farm due to extreme market conditions beyond their control.”

Lower commodity prices and increases in input costs are creating tight margins for row crop producers. Without a new farm bill this year, Boozman is exploring ways to provide 2024 economic assistance and certainty for 2025 through an improved farm safety net.

“We simply have to come up with a package that helps [farmers] get through this year,” Boozman said. “The last two years, as I mentioned earlier, were the worst ever as far as decrease in income. Going forward, if we don’t modernize the farm bill, if we don’t get risk management tools adjusted for inflation, then bankers aren’t going to have certainty [farmers’] risks are going to lessen, and it’s going to be difficult for a lot of farmers to get the financing they need.”

Whether it’s ag lenders, economists or farmers, Boozman said everyone is saying: It’s a dire picture in farm country and help is needed.

FARM Act

Another possible way for farmers to see some economic relief is through the Farm Assistance and Revenue Mitigation (FARM) Act. The bill was authored by Rep. Trent Kelly (R-Miss.) on the House Ag Committee. It would offer payment assistance to eligible farmers.

Congress is in session through Dec. 20, so Boozman and others are working diligently to secure enough support and votes to pass the FARM Act. While it’s unclear how Congress will push through the FARM Act, it’s likely going to be via the Continuing Resolution (CR).

“We’re working literally as we speak to get the language together and to get agreement from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to move forward,” Boozman said. “I can’t tell you for sure it’s going to get passed, but I understand how important it is as far as where it would be attached, which is probably to the continuing resolution.”

What payment might farmers receive through the FARM Act? According to one economist, the current payment calculation is: (USDA’s Projected Cost of the Crop – National Projected Returns) x Eligible Acres x 60% = Total Payment.

When you take into consideration the new WASDE prices and cost of production released each month, here’s how those payments could look per acre:

Corn: $101
Soybeans: $53
Wheat: $73
Cotton: $195
Rice: $84
Sorghum: $97
Oats: $177
Barley: $0

It’s important to note these payment estimates could change with the updated WASDE report next week. One economist told Farm Journal the 60% figure is a moving target that’s currently being debated on the Hill.

Steep Losses for 2024
The Senate Ag Committee recently released 2024 total farm income losses at $29.3 billion. At the top was corn, with losses of $11.59 billion, followed by soybeans and then wheat. However, almost every crop is facing steep financial challenges, including sorghum, oats, rice and peanuts.

Sen. Boozman (R-Ark.)

Now the question is, will the proposed relief in the FARM Act be enough to help stop the bleeding on row crop farms? Boozman hopes so.

“I understand how difficult it is — and for ag, I can’t imagine not describing it as a recession. When you look at the numbers recorded by USDA, I think they’re actually undervalued. We simply have to come up with a package that helps [farmers] get through this year,” Boozman said. “It’s not only what economists are telling us, it’s not only farmers and landowners — it’s all lenders and everyone involved in agriculture painting a very dire picture.”

As farm-focused senators are working to get the FARM Act passed, Boozman said the proposed legislation is facing some unexpected challenges, specifically in regard to cost.

“It’s just going to cost some money to get it done, and we’re working really hard to explain the need for that,” he said. “I don’t know exactly what [the FARM Act] will look like in the end, but we’ve got a lot of good people working on it. Senator Hoeven is working really hard on the Senate side. A lot is going to go through the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, and I’m on that committee as well as several others. Cindy Hyde-Smith has been active, John Thune and all of the people on the ag committee have done a great job of trying to come up with a package that will be enough to make a real difference for people to get through this year.”

Looking Ahead

Boozman recently met with Brooke Rollins, president-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Agriculture. It was his first meeting with her, and he said he was very pleased, saying: “She’s very close to the president, which is so important in these cabinet positions that she’s got his ear...I’m looking forward to getting her confirmed as quickly as possible and working with her in the future.”

What will Rollins’ priorities be if she’s confirmed once Trump is sworn into office? And will he support Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s nomination to head the Department of Health and Human Services? Watch the full conversation here.

Your Next Read: Everything Farmers Need to Know About The FARM Act in Congress

Senate Ag Committee Members: 1 in 5 Farmers at Risk Financially

Thu, 21 Nov 2024 21:55:18 GMT

A trifecta of high input prices, high interest rates, and depressed crop prices have Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) bringing focus to the economic stress for farmers.

Earlier this week at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing: A Review of Disaster Funding, the senators asked colleagues to broaden the scope to include market loss assistance for the nation’s agricultural sector.

Their warning included that one in five could be pushed out of business due to declining farm income, high production costs, and soaring interest rates.

“Many farmers across the country are on the verge of going out of business because a hurricane, wildfire, drought, or other weather-related event wiped out entire crops. And they need help,” Hyde-Smith said. “But there are also many farmers across the country on the verge of going out of business due to sky-high input costs and below break-even commodity prices. And they need help too.”

As Washington policy analyst Jim Wiesemeyer points out, despite USDA’s forecast of $116 billion in net farm income for 2024 — still 15% above the 10-year average — lawmakers argue it doesn’t reflect the dire circumstances of many individual producers, especially row crop producers.

Sen. Boozman said “it’s really dire in farm country,” especially noting the economic hardship on crop producers.

Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member @JohnBoozman presses @USDA about the economic distress America’s farmers are experiencing. pic.twitter.com/34HrLRrcai
— Senate Ag Committee Republicans (@SenateAgGOP) November 20, 2024

“I’ve never been in a situation where the bankers are coming in saying, ‘If you don’t do something because of our bank examiners we’re not being able to be able to provide the credit that our farmers need,” Sen. Boozman said.

Ag bankers report a 40% surge in new operating loans. With mounting financial pressure there are signs of growing debt distress in the central Plains and Midwest. It has many wondering as forced farm liquidations loom, the fate of rural America could hang on swift and significant government intervention.

“This year, producers in Mississippi and across the country are reporting some of the best yields ever. That’s what’s so hard about this. They did everything right, yet, they will go out of business if they’re able to unsecure financing to farm next year,” the Senator added. “The high cost, the high interest rates and the low prices is definitely the perfect storm. You may be hard pressed to find a lender able to finance a farmer who is that deep in the hole and we understand that. Just like the weather-related disasters, adverse market conditions are completely out of the farmer’s control.”

Wiesemeyer adds: “Calls for federal aid are intensifying, with proposals like a $21 billion House bill targeting crop growers as a stopgap ahead of the delayed new farm bill.”

At last week’s American Bankers Association Ag Lenders Conference market analyst Mark Gold shared his perspective on the farm lending atmosphere.

“They’re a little bit worried out here. With $4 corn, $10 beans, it’s very hard with these land prices where they are to make ends meet and they’re concerned that this thing gets worse, and there’s going to be a lot of bankruptcies in this community.” Gold said. “I don’t think that’s actually going to happen. I think there’s some things down the road like using ethanol and aviation fuel that could be an absolute game changer. I think that’s something the American farmers should really be pushing out here that would change the corn dynamics in a heartbeat.”

Stabenow Finally Releases Full Text of Senate Farm Bill; Here's What It Means for Agriculture

Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:35:08 GMT

Stabenow unveiled 1,397-page details of her long-awaited farm bill Monday morning. This comes as early Sunday evening Pro Farmer broke the news that Senate Ag Chairwoman (D-Mich.) had briefed Democrats but not Republicans on her coming farm bill text, which was expected to be released Monday.

Stabenow said in a news release and summary of the bill , “The foundation of every successful farm bill is built on holding together the broad, bipartisan farm bill coalition. This is a strong bill that invests in all of agriculture, helps families put food on the table, supports rural prosperity, and holds that coalition together.”

BREAKING: Chairwoman @SenStabenow Introduces Rural Prosperity and Food Security Acthttps://t.co/qRunZlk6zj
— Senate Ag, Nutrition, & Forestry Committee Dems (@SenateAgDems) November 18, 2024

The Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act includes $39 billion in new resources “to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong.” The bill builds on the proposal Stabenow released in May by investing new resources and including innovative, new ideas to deliver the assistance farmers need faster.

It provides farmers with the certainty of a 5-year farm bill and the immediate help they need to manage the urgent needs of the present. It doubles down on our commitment to rural communities, ensures that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) keeps up with the realities of American life, and brings the historic investments in climate-smart conservation practices into the farm bill. These new investments include:

$20 billion to strengthen the farm safety net to support all of agriculture and establishes a permanent structure for disaster assistance so emergency relief reaches farmers faster;
$8.5 billion to help families make ends meet, put food on the table, and improve access to nutrition assistance;
$4.3 billion to improve quality of life in the rural communities that millions of Americans call home.”

Farm CPA Paul Neiffer has already combed through the bill, and says, “This is our first preview of the Senate Farm Bill Proposal. There appears to be some benefit to production Ag, however, many of the proposals seem to penalize production ag such as the following:

Very limited increase in base acres
Restriction on payments due to ownership of farmland by higher AGI individuals or entities
Reduction in AGI limits
No change to definition of farm income
Possible limit on PLC payments
Items that may benefit production ag include:
Permanent ERP (although this is a very messy program)
Partial advance payments of ARC and PLC
Automatic 2023 and 2024 ARC or PLC decisions”

Senate GOP Ag Committee Ranking Member Reacts

Senate Ag Committee ranking member John Boozman (R-Ark.) on X wrote: “An 11th hour partisan proposal released 415 days after the expiration of the current farm bill is insulting. America’s farmers deserve better.”

“An 11th hour partisan proposal released 415 days after the expiration of the current farm bill is insulting. America’s farmers deserve better.” RM @JohnBoozman
— Senate Ag Committee Republicans (@SenateAgGOP) November 18, 2024

Meanwhile, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) issued the following statement:

“Though America’s pork producers appreciate Chairwoman Stabenow’s efforts to publish Farm Bill text, this is simply not a viable bill, as it fails to provide a solution to California Prop. 12,” said NPPC President Lori Stevermer, a pork producer from Easton, Minn. “Pork producers have continually spoken up about the negative impacts of this issue, and it is a shame these conversations were disregarded.”

In May, NPPC secured 100 percent of pork producers’ priorities in the House Agriculture Committee-passed bipartisan 2024 Farm Bill. In June, producers once again secured all policy priorities in Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member John Boozman’s 2024 Farm Bill framework.

NPPC said it urges both chambers of Congress to swiftly consider and pass a Farm Bill this year that includes a fix to California Proposition 12, a state law that places arbitrary housing standards on the pork industry, creating uncertainty for pork producers as they look to continue their operations to the next generation.

Additional Impact on Agriculture from Farm CPA

In a post this morning, Paul Neiffer of Farm CPA Report included a quick preview of the items that jumped out at him relative to the farm bill details released by Stabenow.

Reference Prices: The House proposal raised reference prices by approximately 10-20%. The Senate proposal appears to raise reference prices by a flat 5% (rounded). Although it appears that Cotton only went up by 4% instead of 5%.
Increase in Base Acres
- Only underserved and disadvantaged farmers may increase base acres
- Based on average of 2018-2022 plantings
- Includes prevent planted acres
- Maximum increase of 160 acres per farm
- If disadvantage farmer does not farm acres during 2025-2029, then increased base acres are eliminated
- Special 2023 and 2024 ARC/PLC election
- Automatic election to be paid the highest amount for 2023 and 2024 crop year even if the farmer originally elected ARC or PLC.

Limit on PLC Payment: The maximum amount of payment for PLC will be 15% of the effective reference price. As example, assume a farmer has a PLC yield of 200 bushels for corn and the effective reference price is $4.30 and the final corn harvest price is $3.50. Under the old PLC rules, the farmer could receive 200 bushels times 80 cents per bushel or $160. Under this proposal, the farmer is limited to 65 cents or $130 per acre.
Partial PLC Payments: Instead of waiting until after October 1 to collect a PLC payment, the farmer, in certain situations may elect to receive up to 50% of the crop beginning February 1. This is based on firm projections by USDA that the final harvest price will be below the effective reference price. If USDA pays too much, then the farmer must pay it back.
Agricultural Risk Coverage: As expected, the Bill increases the guarantee from the current 86% to 88%, less than the 90% in the House Bill. However, not expected, the Bill increases the maximum payment to 12.50% of benchmark revenue, matching the House Bill and makes this retroactive to the 2024 crop. 2023 crop remains at 10%.
Partial ARC Payments: Provides same mechanism for partial payments as under PLC.
Increase to Marketing Loan Rates: For 2025 crops and subsequent years, the loan rate will be the lesser of 110% of current loan rates or an adjustment based on current input costs versus a five-year average.
Sugar Program: Increase sugar cane payment to 24 cents per pound for 2025-2029. Sugar beet growers will receive 136.5% of sugar cane payment rate.
Permanent ERP: Emergency Relief Program would be made permanent (at least until next farm bill). Payment limits of $500,000 for specialty crops and $250,000 for all other crops.
Terms appear similar to old ERP programs, but it does not mandate how USDA will administer it, etc. Also, no extra payment limit if you can prove you are a farmer. This may still be messy for CPAs to help farmers calculate their claim. Also, requires farmers to insure all acres.
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limits: AGI limits dropped from $900,000 to $700,000.
- Increases AGI limits to $1.5 million for specialty and high-value crops.
- What happens if a farmer grows both? The Bill does not address this, other than likely leave it up to USDA to come up with rules.
- Waiver of AGI rules available to economically distressed producer.
- It appears that no payments will be allowed if the land is owned by someone or an entity whose AGI is over $700,000. This means that a farmer who is cash renting that ground will not qualify for any payment on that ground. Under current rules and the House Farm Bill proposal, any farmer who is cash renting the ground and their AGI is under the limit will qualify for a payment. This is a major change and will create the law of unintended consequences. They seem to want to not have an incentive for wealthier individuals to purchase land since their high AGI will not qualify them for any payments but under current rules they get no payment anyway.

Increase in CCC Scoring: Section 1708 indicates that for purposes of CBO scoring, the restrictions on utilizing CCC funds shall be $6.7 billion per year for 2024-2033. The last scoring by CBO was $400 million per year.

CRP Rentals Limit Increased to $125,000 from current $50,000

Crop Insurance Changes: Increases subsidies for beginning and veteran farmers and ranchers to essentially match House proposal.
- Increases SCO to allow for payment at 88% instead of 86% of guarantee. House was at 90%.
- Increases premium subsidies.
Makes improvements to Whole Farm and Micro Farm insurance plans.

Comments:

Several contacts, asked to respond to Stabenow’s late farm bill details, used the same words: “Wow, finally, but too late.” Stabenow is departing Congress after this session ends, and veteran farm bill watchers say this late-entry farm bill is not a positive chapter in her long career. Most are asking why she chose today in releasing the details, and why she took a partisan approach in briefing about the matter.

Why John Thune's Election as Senate Majority Leader is Considered Beneficial for U.S. Agriculture

Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:50:44 GMT

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) wins Majority Leader race. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) was eliminated on the first ballot. And Thune beat Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) 29-24 on the second ballot.

The Thune selection is good for the U.S. ag sector. He has one of the best staff in Congress.

The leadership race unfolded in two rounds of voting: 

In the first ballot, Scott was eliminated. 
In the second and final ballot, Thune secured 29 votes, defeating Cornyn, who received 24 votes.

Donald Trump stayed out of the contest but did make public demands that the incoming majority leader allow him to make recess appointments to his Cabinet. All three men quickly agreed.

Thune’s election as Majority Leader is considered beneficial for the U.S. ag sector for several reasons: 

Agricultural background: Thune has a deep background in ag policy and is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. 
Farm bill experience: He has been involved in writing several farm bills, demonstrating his expertise in agricultural legislation. 
Conservation programs: Thune is an avid supporter of conservation title programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program and Conservation Reserve Program.
Bipartisan approach: He is a skilled negotiator, working for the benefit of all.
Constituency focus: Coming from South Dakota, an agriculture-based state, Thune is likely to keep agricultural interests at the forefront of his agenda.  • Experienced staff: Thune has one of the best staffs in Congress, which can be crucial for effective policymaking and implementation.

Of note: This leadership change marks the end of Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) 18-year tenure as the Senate’s Republican leader. Thune will assume the role of Majority Leader for the next two years, coinciding with President-elect Donald Trump’s second term. While Thune has had differences with Trump in the past, he has recently worked to improve their relationship and has pledged to advance Trump’s legislative agenda.

Senator Stabenow “Holds The Keys” to the Farm Bill Getting Done in 2024

Mon, 28 Oct 2024 20:18:43 GMT

According to Washington-based sources, Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) holds the key as to whether a farm bill can be completed this calendar year.

The unknown is whether Stabenow can work out a deal with the other farm bill players–Senate Ag ranking member John Boozman, House Ag Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) and House Ag ranking member David Scott (D-Ga.). Some say that could be at least possible after elections.

Results of the Nov. 5 elections, whenever they come, will likely help determine the odds of a farm bill yet this year.

Some say Stabenow would like another farm bill completion for her legacy items as she is not running for re-election. Others say she already has billions of dollars in additional conservation funding via the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA/Climate Act) and adequate food and nutrition funding without a new farm bill, especially relative to the Thrifty Food Plan.

The Broader Picture

While seen as a win-win for Democrats and Republicans, in the final farm bill Democrats must be content on funding and policy issues relative to food and nutrition and conservation, and Republicans must be satisfied relative to getting most if not all of the increase in reference prices contained in the House Ag Committee-passed measure.

Some long-time Washington contacts still give the odds of a farm bill this year at only 15%.

This group thinks a new farm bill will be part of an already busy agenda for a new Congress and new White House in 2025. This is the reason why some optimists think once the anchor of the elections is out of the way, the four major farm bill players can at least talk with perhaps more flexibility and perhaps more funding than the current farm bill baseline. That will depend in part on whether House Budget Chair Jody Arrington (R-Tex.) is able to get more funding beyond what is now signaled by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

And Washington insiders continue to signal high odds for ag disaster and ag price mitigation measures to be part of a “minibus” spending package that includes Agriculture appropriations for fiscal year (FY) 2025. House Speak Mike Johnson (R-La.) does not support a year-end omnibus spending bill and will likely again push his layered approach to spending measures like last fiscal year.

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

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.

Senate Farm Bill Proposal Not as Good as the House Proposal

Fri, 03 May 2024 20:44:56 GMT

Senator Stabenow (D-MI) released a summary of the Senate’s current Farm Bill proposal. A detailed Section by Section summary can be accessed here.

In this post we will review some of the key details in the proposal and also review where the House proposal may be different. Currently, we believe the House proposal is of more value to production ag, but the Senate proposal does have some extras, but not to the extent of the House bill. There is a lot of details in the summary that we will provide in additional posts. Today’s post primarily deals with ARC, PLC, AGI and payment limits.

Effective Reference Prices will be increased to reflect the recent high prices. However, no details are provided on the amount of increase, other than seed cotton, rice and peanuts will see an automatic 5% increase. The summary indicates most commodities will see a 10-15% increase, however, no details on how it operates.

The House bill also increases the Effective Reference Price, but further details are needed.

Limited opportunity for underserved producers to establish new base acres if recent plantings exceed current base acres. The House would allow all producers to establish new base acres.

As an aside, it appears that if females are still considered to be underserved, most married couples should consider transferring a majority of ownership from the husband to the wife. USDA appears to be continuing a trend of “rewarding” female farmers while “penalizing” most husbands and it appears this trend will continue.

Payment yields would be established for these new base acres, likely at the 90% of recent yields (could be Olympic average yields or some other average).

It appears that if land is owned by someone whose AGI is greater than $700,000, then no ARC or PLC payment is allowed on this land. This is to discourage investors from purchasing land, however, it appears this would simply penalize the farmer who is farming that ground. Further clarity is needed on this since the wording is vague at best on the summary.

The $700,000 AGI limit is then applied to most farm programs; however, the limit is increased to $1.5 million for specialty and high-value crop producers. This appears to be a penalty on most farm producers in the country and a reward to specialty and high-value producers.

The proposal “Closes a loophole that allows some farmers to avoid average AGI requirements”. Will this proposal be similar to the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2023 that Senator Grassley and Brown introduced last year. If this is part of the proposal, then all general partnerships will essentially now be treated as an entity and only two payment limits will be allowed even if the general partnership has four active farmers. However, the actual proposal may be different, but something similar to this is in the proposal.

The House leaves the AGI limits at $900,000 and has no further restrictions on payment limits and actually increases them and indexes them to inflation.

The House increases the ARC-CO guarantee to 90% from the current 86%. The Senate proposal only increases this to 88%. It appears the Senate keeps the maximum ARC payment at 10% of benchmark revenue while the House increases it to 12.5%.

Price Loss Coverage will now have a maximum payment equal to 20% of the Effective Reference Price. As an example, assume that the corn price is $4.00, the maximum payment would be 80 cents times their PLC yield. This appears to penalize certain crop producers such as rice, cotton, peanuts and wheat who have seen prices drop below the loan rate in the past or greater than this 20% limit.

Under current PLC rules, the payment limit is the difference between the Effective Reference Price and Loan Rate. In many cases this much higher than 20% of the Effective Reference Price as this chart shows:

However, in some cases it may not matter if they are bumping up against the payment limit anyway. The House does not limit the PLC payment.

Loan rates may increase based upon the five-year average cost of production; however, this is capped at 110% of current loan rates. Does this have much value when inputs have increase more than 10% in a year and this is a five-year average. That lag would drastically minimize the effect of inflation farmers have faced over the last three years.

Enhancements to the Dairy Margin Coverage include increasing the quantity of milk for Tier I coverage by 20% to 6 million pounds.

It authorizes a permanent standing disaster program. This appears to mean that we will have ERP for the next five years or something similar. Perhaps the Senate will eliminate the “progressive” portion of ERP but since base acres are only for underserved farmers, we highly doubt it.

We will provide additional details in other posts, but as you can see the House proposal favors production Ag that provides the bulk of our food supply while the Senate proposal appears to favor other producers.

New Legislation Would Require USDA to Study Fertilizer Industry

Fri, 15 Dec 2023 22:06:12 GMT

New legislation, called the Fertilizer Research Act , has been introduced to require USDA to study competition and trends in the fertilizer market.

The bill was introduced by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.). Grassley shared with Ag Day’s Michelle Rook it is a result of the fertilizer industry being too concentrated into too few hands.

“This whole bill is to get the Secretary of Agriculture looking into all this. So, if there is collusion, if there’s antitrust, he can suggest action to the FTC and to the Justice Department to take action through a lawsuit,” he says.

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.

Specifically, the report should include:
• A description of impacts on the fertilizer market that influence price
• Market trends in the past 25 years
• A description of the imported fertilizer and market impacts
• Impacts of anti-dumping and countervailing duties
• A study of fertilizer industry concentration
• A study of emerging fertilizer technologies
• A description of whether current public price reporting is sufficient for market transparency

“Farmers’ bottom lines thin as the price of fertilizer rises. With fertilizer being one of the ag industry’s highest input costs, it’s problematic farmers have such a limited window into market fluctuations. Our bill will provide farmers in Iowa and across the Heartland with needed transparency and certainty as they navigate production costs,” Grassley said in a release about the legislation.

At the same time, Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX, says while he appreciates the Congressional attention to fertilizer prices, the market has somewhat corrected the problem with values down sharply from the record highs 18 months ago.

“Overall, a lot of the high price situation we’ve been dealing with have largely been solved and if you look at things like urea, I thinks its urea, UAN and potash are all down 60% from where they were at the high. I think phosphates closer to 40,” Linville says. “So there’s been a lot of the price depreciate since of highs. Obviously, we’d all like to see a cheaper but it’s a good ratio today compared to where corn values are.”

Linville also believes the high prices were less about anti-competitive practices and more about global supply and demand fundamentals.

“It’s Chinese government export restrictions, its European natural gas markets being sky high to where they normally are and production issues around the world. We thought we’d lost exports from Russia when they invaded Ukraine,” he says. “So, a lot of the factors that have driven volatility have had much more to do with the international market than has been domestic.”

Linville adds he agrees with the bill’s aim to improve price transparency in the industry.

Sen. Grassley shared he aims to have this legislation included in the next Farm Bill but is open to other avenues for passage.

To view the legislation in full, click here .

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.

Senate 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

Another Temporary Fix: Stopgap Bill Includes Farm Bill Extension — Is This the New Normal for Ag Policy?

Senate Votes 60–40 to Advance the Measure

Boozman: “Critical USDA Services Resume”

Is This the New Norm?

Key Farm Bill-style Provisions in the OBBB

Opposition to the Farm Bill Extension

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

Fusing The Best of Regenerative Ag and Smart Farming: Senator Marshall’s Take on MAHA

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

Grassley: Farmers Can Feed And Fuel The World At The Same Time. It’s Not Either/Or

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

Senate Agenda to Start 2025 Includes New Farm Bill

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

Time Is Running Out, But Boozman Says Passing Emergency Relief for Farmers Is a Priority

Senate Ag Committee Members: 1 in 5 Farmers at Risk Financially

Stabenow Finally Releases Full Text of Senate Farm Bill; Here's What It Means for Agriculture

Why John Thune's Election as Senate Majority Leader is Considered Beneficial for U.S. Agriculture

Senator Stabenow “Holds The Keys” to the Farm Bill Getting Done in 2024

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

Expert Shares What Could Spark Progress On The Farm Bill

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:

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

Senate Farm Bill Proposal Not as Good as the House Proposal

New Legislation Would Require USDA to Study Fertilizer Industry

Farm Bill 2023 Draft is Expected by Mid-September

Prepare for big changes in the farm bill