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

Farm groups and farm-state lawmakers had to first sell Congress on the need for substantial aid via the Continuing Resolution (CR), now congressional leaders must sell others to pass it.

While the measure still needs to pass both the House and Senate, the stopgap deal to avoid a government shutdown includes $10 billion in direct payments for farmers, $21 bllion in ag disaster aid, a one-year extension of the 2018 farm bill and year-round E15.

Passage of CR Now in Question

Congress actually passing the stopgap spending measure is far from a done deal. Washington insiders were confident Wednesday morning Congress would pass the measure with bipartisan support, but strong opposition from the incoming Trump administration later in the day on Wednesday is now throwing that into question.

President-elect Donald Trump has asked to keep certain measures House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) supports in the continuing resolution (CR), like aid for farmers and natural disaster survivors, but also demanded the House ditch items that Democrats negotiated.

Trump has also requested that Republicans extend the suspension of the debt ceiling, a limit on how much the U.S. government can borrow, which is set to expire early in his new term next year.

Johnson’s legislative strategy has sparked significant discontent among Republicans, casting doubt on his ability to retain the gavel in the next Congress. On Tuesday, Johnson introduced a sprawling bill to extend federal funding until March 14, allocating $110.4 billion for natural disaster relief ($21 billion in ag disaster funding) and incorporating a range of unrelated policy provisions. Late-stage negotiations added $10 billion in aid for farmers, opening the floodgates to additional Democratic demands, including the transfer of RFK Stadium to D.C., a congressional pay raise, health plan regulations, and funds to rebuild Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge.

The concessions enraged GOP lawmakers across the party’s ideological spectrum, with members voicing concerns about Johnson’s leadership. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has already pledged not to support Johnson in future leadership elections, and private discussions among Republicans suggest Johnson may face insurmountable opposition come Jan. 3. The Freedom Caucus and moderates alike criticized his handling of the bill, while high-profile figures like Elon Musk, now a Trump adviser, lambasted the legislation as “criminal.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) warned of potential Senate resistance, labeling the bill a “cramnibus.” Johnson defended the compromise as a necessary measure under a divided government, framing it as a preparatory step for Republicans to advance Trump’s “America First” agenda in the next Congress. However, with a slim three-seat majority and growing fractures within the party, Johnson’s future as speaker hangs in the balance.

Breaking Down the Proposed CR

While the fate of the stopgap spending measure is now in question, if passed, the funding would last through March 14 for fiscal year 2025 that began Oct. 1.

Highlights of the bill that will impact agriculture includes:

• One-year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, including provisions that don’t have “baseline,” or cost money to extend. Negotiators found $143 million in unspent agricultural funds to rescind to offset those extensions. GOP leaders said they would push to consider a new bill the first quarter of 2025.
• $10 billion in farmer financial aid along the lines of a bill introduced by Rep. Trent Kelly (R-Miss.).
• $21 billion in ag disaster aid for farmers and ranchers as part of an overall $100.4 billion disaster package. The measure sets aside $2 billion of the disaster aid specifically for livestock producers, with much of the rest available via block grants to states and territories and direct aid to farmers and ranchers. It includes $3 million specifically for regular testing of procedures in place for inspections of molasses imports at the Canadian border, a provision sought by U.S. sugar producers.
• Year-round E15, including other biofuel provisions detailed below.
• SNAP provision. Language extending authorization of a program that replenishes stolen Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/food stamp) benefits, which Democrats said would prevent a $1.5 billion cut to those benefits.

Disaster Aid

The disaster crop loss program will likely operate similarly to the 2021 program without any of the 2022 quirks that made it into a debacle. The livestock program will likely operate similar to the 2022 livestock program where the Biden administration actually managed to get it right. The economic aid program is very similar to Kelly farm act with a factor applied to keep it within budget.

Direct Payments to Farmers

Paul Neiffer’s analysis of the $10 billion in financial aid included in the CR calculates what the possible payments could be, including $43 per acre for corn, $30 for soybeans, $31.80 for wheat, $85 for cotton and $70 for long-grain rice.

(Paul Neiffer )

When will payments be received by farmers? Economic aid will come 90 days after enactment. As for ag disaster, the push is on to use the 2020 approach where most payments came out of USDA’s Kansas City office.

Here are the key details and the differences from the original FARM Act:

• The same 8 crops are specifically identified (corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, peanuts, oats and barley).
• You will be paid on total 2024 planted acres by crop plus 50% of prevent planted acres by crop.

How Ag Financial Aid Will be Determined

• The calculation uses national avg payment yield for PLC. Regarding the legislative language on the minimum payment rate calculation for economic assistance, we previously used 8% of the reference price multiplied by the national average yield. The legislative calculation uses the national average payment yield for PLC instead.
• The payment limit is lowered from $175,000 to $125,000 and if your Farm AGI exceeds 75% of total AGI, then this is doubled to $250,000. Definition of AGI remains the same and this limit is per entity/ per person. This means an LLC has one payment no matter the number of owners. AGI is based on a three-year average of 2020-2022 tax years.

Here is a table of Neiffer’s estimated per acre payment amounts based on his knowledge of the provisions:

Year-Round E15

CR package includes nationwide year-round sales of 15% ethanol gasoline (E15) and offers short-term biofuel blending relief to small refiners.

Previously, E15 was restricted during summer months, though eight Midwestern states had already been granted year-round sales earlier this year. The inclusion of the E15 language, based on a bill by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), marks a major win for ethanol producers and farm state lawmakers who have spent years lobbying to permanently allow year-round E15 sales.

The bill would also provide short-term relief to some small refiners under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that retired renewable identification numbers (RINs) in 2016-18 in cases when their requests for “hardship” waivers remained pending for years. The bill would return some of those RINs to the small refiners and make them eligible for compliance in future years.

Enacting the stopgap funding bill would also make it unnecessary for eight states to follow through with a costly gasoline blendstock reformulation — set to begin as early as next summer — they had requested to retain year-round E15 sales in the midcontinent. Oil industry groups last month petitioned EPA to delay the fuel reformulation until after the 2025 summer driving season, citing concerns about inadequate fuel supply and the prospects that a legislative fix would make required infrastructure changes unnecessary.

Ethanol Groups React

Ethanol groups say the E15 legislative change could pave the way for retailers to more widely offer the high-ethanol fuel blend, which is currently available at 3,400 retail stations and last summer was about 10-30¢/USG cheaper than 10% ethanol gasoline (E10).

Offering the fuel year-round would be “an early Christmas present to American drivers,” ethanol industry group Growth Energy chief executive Emily Skor said.

Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, said biofuels “champions” are fighting for the provision allowing the sale of E15 year-around. “We have been working to get a year-round E15 solution for over 10 years,” he said in a statement. “It would be monumental for ethanol demand to support rural farmers and would save drivers 10 to 20 cents at the pump.”

Calculating What It Means for Corn Demand

The potential increase in ethanol consumption and corn use due to year-round E15 sales is relatively modest based on the available information. The additional ethanol consumption from year-round E15 sales is estimated to be approximately 15 million gallons. This represents a small fraction of the total U.S. ethanol production. The 15-million-gallon increase in ethanol consumption would translate to an additional corn use of about 5.6 million bushels. It’s important to note that the impact of year-round E15 sales is limited by several factors:

• Distribution network: E15 has a small distribution network, available at only a fraction of gas stations.
• Consumer adoption: The shift to E15 may be gradual and dependent on factors such as price differentials and consumer awareness.
• Seasonal demand: While year-round sales are now permitted, demand may still fluctuate seasonally.

Looking ahead, maintaining current corn use levels for ethanol (around 5.5 billion bushels) would require increasing the national average ethanol blend rate to 15-17% by 2042, given projected declines in gasoline consumption. This suggests that year-round E15 sales alone may not be sufficient to significantly boost corn use for ethanol in the long term. However, others note the quickest way to get consumer attention is with price and E15 is the cheapest option for most cars… in many markets it’s cheap enough that consumers seek it out. Also, some think it’s not even a question for new facilities to include E15 … it’s the easiest way to be competitive in a market. Either way, year-round E15 sales represent a symbolic victory for corn ethanol advocates, the immediate impact on ethanol consumption and corn use is expected to be minimal in the short run, but differences of opinion are in place regarding long-term impacts.

A bewildering assessment of the year-round E15 impact came from some traders, based on a Reuters article.

The concern expressed by traders regards a potential shift in demand from biodiesel to ethanol due to year-round E15 sales. That is a questionable conclusion. Consider:

• Separate products with different applications. Ethanol and biodiesel are distinct biofuels with different uses and markets: Ethanol is primarily blended with gasoline for use in standard gasoline engines. Biodiesel is typically blended with petroleum diesel for use in diesel engines. This fundamental difference makes a direct substitution between the two unlikely in most applications.
• Potential market impacts. While the products aren’t directly interchangeable, there are some potential indirect effects to consider:
  
  • Fuel blending choices: Refiners and fuel blenders might adjust their overall biofuel strategy, potentially favoring increased ethanol blending if E15 becomes more widely available year-round.
  • Feedstock competition: Both ethanol (from corn) and biodiesel (often from soybean oil) compete for agricultural resources. Increased demand for corn-based ethanol could impact crop planting decisions and prices.
  • Policy uncertainty: The combination of year-round E15 approval and the upcoming change in administration adds complexity to the biofuels policy landscape, which could affect investment decisions in both ethanol and biodiesel sectors.
  • Market reaction may be premature. The sharp drop in soybean oil prices mentioned in the Reuters story likely reflects short-term market uncertainty rather than a definitive shift in demand. Several factors suggest this reaction may be overblown:
    
    • Infrastructure limitations: Widespread adoption of E15 will take time due to the need for compatible fuel pumps and consumer education.
    • Separate mandates: The RFS has separate volume requirements for different biofuel categories, including biodiesel.
    • Diesel market stability: Demand for biodiesel is also driven by the diesel fuel market, which has different dynamics than the gasoline market.

Additional Details From the Bill

Democrats celebrated inclusion of priorities like funding for childcare and 9/11 survivors’ health care benefits; restrictions on China-related investments; legislation intended to crack down on publication of artificial intelligence-generated “deepfakes,” and on “junk” fees charged for hotel stays and concert tickets; new safety standards for lithium-ion batteries; and more.

Taxpayers would recoup some of the bridge rebuilding cost through proceeds from insurance and litigation payouts by the owner of the cargo ship Dali, which crashed into the bridge in March.

Also included is $25.6 million for residential security and protection of Supreme Court justices.

Negotiators also agreed to a 100% federal cost-share for Francis Scott Key Bridge reconstruction in Baltimore, a key demand of the Maryland delegation — who elsewhere in the bill had to accept language paving the way for a new Washington Commanders stadium on the old Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, while transferring a D.C. National Guard fighter squadron to Maryland.

Appropriators threw in an unrequested $300 million for fisheries disaster aid, which Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and others sought.

The deal omits language that Democrats were seeking to unfreeze $20 billion in IRS enforcement funding.

What’s Next?

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is expected to turn to Democrats to supply the bulk of votes needed to get the bill to the Senate. It appears lawmakers would have at least a day to review the package. It looks like Johnson will bring the CR up under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority for passage.

A floor vote has yet to be scheduled, but the initial assessment is that the House will take it up as early as Thursday or more likely on Friday. That leaves the Senate little time to clear the measure before Friday’s midnight deadline. But even if the final action does not occur Friday, there is wiggle room on the weekend to get it done.

House Ag Panel Says Ag Economic Aid in Current CR Would Improve Ending Cash Position by 20% By End of 2025

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

House Ag panel staffers say 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.

Additional Analysis on Potential Aid for Producers

The following is what Combest-Sell and crew put out about the ag financial aid and disaster aid:

Crop Loss Assistance

For crop loss disaster assistance for the 2023 and 2024 calendar years, the measure makes provision for nearly $21 billion.

The language is pretty wide open with slight refinements of prior years’ disaster bills. There are some carve-outs including: $2 billion of the total amount is provided for livestock losses in 2023 or 2024 due to drought, wildfires, or floods; block grant authority to compensate producers with timber losses, citrus, pecan, and poultry losses (including poultry infrastructure losses); and a special provision for agricultural producers who suffered losses due to Mexico’s failure to adhere to its water rights treaty with the U.S.

For the bulk of the disaster program, the eligible causes of loss are the same as those under the 2022 program, including losses of revenue, quality or production losses of crops (including milk, on-farm stored commodities, crops prevented from planting, and harvested adulterated wine grapes), trees, bushes, and vines, as a consequence of droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, tornadoes, winter storms, freeze, including a polar vortex, smoke exposure, and excessive moisture occurring in 2023 and 2024.

Please note that while the 2022 statute was used again as base text (and it used 2020 which used 2019, etc.), that is not an endorsement of the badly flawed implementation used by the Vilsack USDA. We would say that the disaster program from 2020 and 2021 is more of the standard bearer to think back to.

Losses are to be covered under terms and conditions determined by the Secretary but subject to previous requirements that: (1) smoke tainted wine grapes due to wildfires are covered; (2) losses due to drought are eligible if in a county with a D2 drought for 8 consecutive weeks or D3 drought or higher at any time during the calendar year but excessive heat as a cause of loss can cover lesser drought if it meets STC parameters; (3) sugar beet and sugar cane disaster be implemented through processors that elect to deliver aid to their producers; (4) not more than 1 percent of funds may be used for implementation; (5) payment limitations required under previous ERP programs apply (i.e., $125,000 per entity, or $250,000 if not less than 75% of AGI is derived from farming); (5) higher pay limits for specialty crops and high valued crops under previous ERP programs apply (i.e., $125,000 per entity, or $900,000 if not less than 75% of AGI is derived from farming) (Note: there is *no* AGI means testing for disaster aid; the portion of AGI derived from agriculture is just used as a measure to determine eligibility for the higher pay limit)] ; (6) prescribed pay limits are separate for each of the 2023 and 2024 calendar years; (7) payments under the program plus crop insurance and/or NAP (less premiums or fees paid) cannot exceed 90% of the loss; and (8) the same future crop insurance purchase requirements under previous ERP programs apply. In addition, to the extent that any factor must be applied to stay within budget, one single factor must be applied to the eligible benefit of each producer (i.e., no progressive factor).

No gender or race-based components are expected to be applied either in light of the federal court’s injunction.

The Secretary may use $30 million to provide equitable relief for specialty crop A&O for 2022 and 2023 reinsurance years.

The Secretary shall use $3 million to test product coming into the country under the molasses tariff line to ensure that it is molasses.

USDA is required to report to Appropriations Committees on progress of implementation within 120 days of enactment and quarterly until all payments are made. We will be pushing with the new Administration at USDA to get the FSA back on track with a quick and clear implementation that treats a loss as a loss regardless of the gender or race of the producer. Federal courts will also be ensuring this.

Economic Loss Assistance

For economic loss assistance for the 2024 crop year, the measure provides $10 billion in relief.

The program is not as robust as the Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MISS.) bill (the “FARM Act”) that was introduced this fall and spread in popularity like wildfire. But it is still generous, and we hope that when coupled with disaster relief it will go a long way in helping producers until Congress reauthorizes a new Farm Bill next year with a strong, meaningful safety net.

The measure uses the Kelly model, with a 26% factor to keep overall costs within budget, and another factor (8% of reference price) that creates minimums that improve the payment rates for certain crops (barley, rice, peanuts, minor crops).

Eligible commodities are commodities eligible for a marketing loan, except wool, mohair, and honey.

Under the program, if the Secretary determines that the expected gross return per acre for an eligible commodity is less than the expected cost of production per acre for that eligible commodity, the Secretary shall make a 1-time economic assistance payment to each producer of that commodity within 90 days of enactment of the supplemental.

The expected gross return per acre for an eligible commodity is equal to the following:

For wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, [the projected average farm price for the commodity for the 2024–2025 marketing year contained in the most recent World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates published before the date of enactment of the Supplemental by the World Agricultural Outlook Board] X [the national average harvested yield per acre for the commodity for the most recent 10 crop years, as determined by the Secretary].

For other loan eligible commodities, a comparable estimate of gross returns, as determined by the Secretary.

The expected cost of production per acre for an eligible commodity is equal to—

For wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, the total costs listed for the 2024 crop year with respect to the commodity contained in the most recent data product entitled “national average cost-of-production forecasts for major U.S. field crops” published by the Economic Research Service.

For other loan eligible commodities, a comparable total estimated cost-of-production, as determined by the Secretary.

The amount of an economic assistance payment to a producer for a commodity is equal to [the economic loss for the commodity] X [the eligible acres of the commodity on the farm] X [26%].

The economic loss for a commodity is equal to the difference between the expected cost of production per acre for the commodity and the expected gross return per acre for the commodity.

Eligible acres of a commodity on a farm is equal to the sum of the acreage planted on the farm to the commodity for harvest, grazing, haying, silage, or other similar purposes for the 2024 crop year and an amount equal to 50% of the acreage on the farm that was prevented from being planted during the 2024 crop year to the commodity because of drought, flood, or other natural disaster, or other condition beyond the control of the producers on the farm, as determined by the Secretary.

The Secretary shall consider acreage planted to include any land devoted to planted acres for accepted skip-row planting patterns, as determined by the Secretary.

In determining the payment rate for a crop for which there is no sufficient available data, the Secretary shall use the data related to a similarly situated crop to establish a comparable rate.

In no case shall the amount of an economic assistance payment to a producer for an eligible commodity be equal to less than [8% of the PLC/ARC reference price for the commodity] X [the national average payment yield for the eligible commodity] X [the number of eligible acres for the commodity].

As for pay limits and means tests, the total amount of payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity (except a joint venture or general partnership) under this section may not exceed —

(A) $125,000, if less than 75% of the average gross income of the person or legal entity for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities; and
(B) $250,000, if not less than 75% of the average gross income of the person or legal entity for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities.

Please note the “average” is different from “adjusted.” Recall the scenario where a farmer grosses $1 million on the farm but had expenses that exceeded this, so his AGI (adjusted gross income) was negative. He or his wife also had a job teaching history and science at the local school creating a situation where his non-farm income was more than 75% of his AGI and he was therefore not eligible for the higher limit to address the losses. Using “average” gross is meant to correct that problem.

The pay limits for economic assistance are separate from the pay limits for crop loss assistance described above. And, just like the crop loss portions, this economic assistance is not subject to the AGI means test to determine eligibility that traditional farm bill benefits are subject to.

We are sure that you have seen estimated payment rates floated in various publications. These are certainly within the range, but it is important to note that final numbers have not yet been determined.

Beyond Crop Loss/Economic Assistance

Besides the aforementioned economic and disaster aid, the CR/Supplemental also includes other priorities for agriculture, including year-round E15.

The package also extends the current authorities in the farm bill for one year; makes investments in the FFAR research program; provides scholarships to 1890 universities; and addresses problems with fraudulent skimming of food stamp benefits from EBT cards.