House Ag Committee

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

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 21:44:57 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:29:25 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.

Beef Producers Urge Congress to Vote Yes on Big Beautiful Bill to Deliver Tax Relief

Fri, 27 Jun 2025 17:10:13 GMT

Beef producers have taken to social media and are urging congress to vote yes on the Big Beautiful Bill to deliver lasting tax relief and allow farmers and ranchers to keep more of their hard-earned money.

“Across the nation, farming and ranching families are thinking about how their cattle operation stays in business for future generations. Legislation that reduces the Death Tax, cuts taxes across the board, and helps farmers and ranchers keep more of their hard-earned money is how we keep America’s agricultural legacy going strong for future generations,” says Ethan Lane, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) senior vice president of government affairs. “Cattle producers’ message to Congress is simple: pass the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Missouri cattle producer Deb Thummel says with two generations of her family considering a future in agriculture, she hopes Congress passes the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to both help cattle producers keep more of their hard-earned income as well as protect farms and ranches from the Death Tax.

“I would really like to see that bill get passed to offer us tax relief, both on the income tax side and on the Death Tax side,” Thummel says. “Taxes eat into our ability to maintain and improve our operation, and they also impede the ability for farmers and ranchers to pass their operations down to the next generation.”

One Big Beautiful Herd 🤝 One Big Beautiful Bill

Cattle producers like @MoCattle Secretary Deb Thummel need Congress to cut taxes, allowing farmers and ranchers to keep more of their hard-earned money. pic.twitter.com/KcDvQt2iby
— National Cattlemen's Beef Association (@BeefUSA) June 24, 2025

Montana cattle producer Garrett Harshbarger says, “Let’s keep ranching lands in ranching hands. The only way we can do it is through passing the One Big Beautiful Bill and ensuring future generations don’t pay extreme taxes on their family land.”

Garrett said it best: let's keep ranching lands in ranching hands. The only way we can do that is through passing the One Big Beautiful Bill and ensuring future generations don't pay extreme taxes on their family land. We urge Congress to pass the #BIGBEAUTIFULBILL!… pic.twitter.com/hrQg3FkQg0
— National Cattlemen's Beef Association (@BeefUSA) June 26, 2025

On Thursday, fifth-generation California cattle rancher and past California Cattlemen’s Association President Kevin Kester and Virginia farmer Jeb Cullipher joined President Donald Trump at the White House for an event urging Congress to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and deliver tax relief.

Virginia farmer Jeb Cullipher and California rancher Kevin Kester at the White House supporting the One Big Beautiful Bill.

(White House)

“It was an incredible honor to stand with President Trump and echo his message that America’s family farmers and ranchers need tax relief now,” Kester says. “When I was hit with the Death Tax 30 years ago, I couldn’t hire new employees, invest in equipment or make improvements to the ranch. My family and I had to stretch every dollar and sacrifice basic purchases so that we could pay off that tax bill. To protect our food security and national security, we need to make sure no other farming family experiences that same burden, which is why Congress must pass the One Big Beautiful Bill and deliver lasting tax relief.”

Kester raises cattle with his wife, children and grandchildren. His grandchildren are the seventh generation of his family involved in agriculture. More than 30 years ago, he inherited the ranch from his grandfather and faced a $2 million death tax from the IRS. Today, land values near the Kester ranch have soared as billionaires and non-ag companies buy up thousands of acres, driving up costs for working farmers while removing productive land from agriculture — a double hit to those hardworking Americans producing our nation’s food. These are not just challenges for the Kester family, they’re a growing threat to farmers and ranchers across the country.

The Death Tax rips family farms and ranches apart but the One Big Beautiful Bill boosts the Death Tax exemption, protecting more family farmers and ranchers than ever before.

It's time for Congress to pass this bill! pic.twitter.com/VuVUA8aRkm
— National Cattlemen's Beef Association (@BeefUSA) June 24, 2025

“America’s family farmers and ranchers work hard every single day, and they should be keeping more of their hard-earned money, not sending it to Washington. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has always been a staunch voice for lowering taxes, axing the death tax and protecting producer profitability,” Lane says. “The One Big Beautiful Bill accomplishes all of these priorities, and it’s time for Congress to step up and pass this bill.”

Zane Gross a first-generation cattle producer from Ohio shared his message on social media urging Congress to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to protect America’s family farms and ranches and strengthen our food security by making sure farmers stay in business.

First-generation cattle producer Zane Gross wants to grow his farm in Ohio and build a legacy for his children and grandchildren, but high taxes stand in the way. He's calling on Congress to step up and pass the One Big Beautiful Bill! pic.twitter.com/H7QsY1J2nr
— National Cattlemen's Beef Association (@BeefUSA) June 24, 2025

In addition to the seven producer stories , NCBA sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., urging passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act .

What is the Big Beautiful Bill?

The Senate and House each have their own committee proposals for Trump’s “big beautiful bill.” Trump has said he wants to sign the legislation on July 4, but many reports cast doubt Congress can meet that approaching deadline.

There are some key differences in each that could impact farmers and ranchers. 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.

Your Next Read: 5 Strategies to Help Cattle Cope with Heat

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

Fri, 27 Jun 2025 19:01:08 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 14:14:35 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.”

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

Sat, 21 Dec 2024 16:16:07 GMT

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

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

Debt Ceiling

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

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

Breaking Down the Votes

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

House no votes on CR

(House of Representatives)

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

Here is the list of Senate Democrats who voted no:

Senate no votes on CR

(U.S. Senate)

Farmer Aid in the CR

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

Farmer aid breakdown

(House Ag Committee)

Possible Payment Amounts to Farmers

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

Possible payments as calculated by Farm CPA Paul Neiffer

(Lindsey Pound )

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

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

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

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

House Ag Committee Fact Sheet Details Payments

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

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

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

Farmer aid

(House Ag Committee)

Your Next Reads:

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

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

Ag Sector Could Score Big in Stopgap Spending

Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:53:55 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

(Farm Journal)

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.

(Farm Journal)
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%.

(Farm Journal)

Source: Combest-Sell Associates

(Farm Journal)

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.

(Farm Journal)
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.

Farm Bill 2023 Draft is Expected by Mid-September

Thu, 20 Jul 2023 17:40:37 GMT

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

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

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

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

Prepare for big changes in the farm bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farm bill bottom line

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

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

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

Wed, 28 Jun 2023 20:55:07 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related story: 3 Reasons the Farm Bill is Behind Schedule

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

Bottom line

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

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

Ag Labor Working Group Created to Gather Input from Producers

Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:04:23 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the representatives appointed to the working group:

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

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

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

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

How Does the Farm Bill Funding Process Work?

Wed, 14 Jun 2023 19:52:40 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Reasons the Farm Bill is Behind Schedule

Wed, 07 Jun 2023 17:00:00 GMT

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

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

1. Budget issues

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

2. Debt ceiling negotiations

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

3. Updated CBO projections

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

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

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

Lawmakers Meet with Biden to Discuss Farm Bill 2023

Thu, 11 May 2023 18:31:17 GMT

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

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

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

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

Farm Bill Meeting Perspective

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

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

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

Commodity Programs Might See a 12% Cut in the Proposed $1 Trillion Farm Bill

Fri, 17 Feb 2023 19:59:17 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office unveiled its 10-year cost estimates (2024 to 2033) for existing farm bill programs on Wednesday, with a projected $1.5 trillion price tag, up from $867 billion in the 2018 farm bill.

Jim Wiesemeyer, Pro Farmer policy analyst, advises not to put too much weight in these estimates, as they are the reason the farm bill is out of date so soon after it is written.

“CBO’s farm bill forecasts are frequently well off the mark in either direction,” he says. “It’s a lot like USDA’s farm income projections in February for the year head. CBO looks out 10 years … good luck taking these forecasts too seriously.”

So, will this amount of money keep the programs ahead of their time? Some aren’t convinced. And it starts with the farm bill’s largest funded program—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

SNAP Spending

Based on the 10-year period, SNAP spending is nearly 82% larger than what it was granted in the 2018 Farm Bill at $663 billion.

(Farm Journal)

A large portion of the increase is due to the administration’s re-evaluation of SNAP’s the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which resulted in a quarter-trillion-dollar increase in SNAP benefits from July 2021 to the May 2022 baseline.

In the most recent baseline, CBO increased its estimate of outlays for SNAP by $93 billion over the 2023–2032 period for “technical” reasons.

According to Sen. Boozman (R-AR), these reasons are rooted in “unacceptable” $250 billion spending by the USDA on TFP—which was supposed to have cost nothing—in the previous farm bill. Boozman made his sentiments known at a Senate Ag Committee farm bill hearing on nutrition on Thursday.

“Congress had no intention of your team spending that, and if you understood that was going to happen, you should have alerted Congress,” Boozman said to Cindy Long, USDA administrator. “How can we trust you going forward to give us advice? Spending a quarter of a trillion dollars from this committee is totally unacceptable.”

Related articles: How Long Does it Take to Write a Farm Bill?

While Boozman is adamant other program will suffer funding losses due to the “unsustainable” TFP increases in the coming bill, Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) says that’s not the case.

“Whether commodity or SNAP programs go up or down, these monies aren’t traded. So, cutting SNAP won’t add money to the commodity title,” Stabenow says.

The 2018 bill enacted policy for a “thorough” farm bill update that hadn’t been done since 1975, according to Stabenow. She says the TFP increases fall under that update umbrella.

“The Trump administration chose not to use that [update and funding] because that was 2018—they chose not to proceed,” Stabenow rebutted. “The Biden administration came in and chose to proceed with those funds, and I’m glad they did.”

The General Accountability Office (GAO) has since determined USDA failed to submit the TFP food basket increase to Congress as a rule as required by the Congressional Review Act.

Row Crop Safety Net

Disaster programs such as the Market Facilitation Program (MFP), Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP), Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+) and Emergency Relief Program (ERP) saw billions of dollars moved from taxpayers to producers in the past 10 years, with USDA reporting the largest spike in 2020 at $45 billion.

According to estimates from the House Ag Committee, CBO’s 2023 baselines compared to the 2018 farm bill will cause changes over the five-year period in:
• Commodity programs—12% decrease
• Conservation—19% increase
• Nutrition—82% increase
• Crop insurance—26% increase

However, CBO’s latest baseline provides no built-in ad hoc for these programs.

“If Congress doesn’t provide more funding/investments for Title 1, it puts pressure on farm-state lawmakers to continue the billions in ad hoc aid,” Wiesemeyer says. “Some analysts say reforming Title I would mean spending far less than continuing ad hoc assistance. If Title I is not made more effective, farmers will keep wondering if Congress will fund more emergency aid.”

Related articles: The Cost of a Farm Bill: 2023 Row Crop Priorities

GAO released a report stating that those wanting to change crop insurance program features will try to use to their advantage.

Here are the changes GAO says Congress could make to mitigate the programs costs:

• Reduce subsidies to high-income participants by creating an income limit.
• Adjust compensation to insurance companies to better align with market rates.

Livestock Safety Net

Dairy and livestock did, however, receive a safety net mention in CBO’s baselines.

Under the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program, CBO forecasts FY 2023 payments will total $194 million in FY 2023, with those increasing to $248 million in FY 2024 and $266 million in FY 2025. For the rest of the period—through FY 2033—they are forecast between $196 million and $265 million, for a total of $2.531 billion.

Livestock disaster payments are expected at $621 million in FY 2023 and forecast between $562 million to $591 million over FY 2024 to FY 2033, for a total of $6.333 billion.

How Long Does it Take to Write a Farm Bill?

Tue, 14 Feb 2023 21:49:18 GMT

World Ag Expo kicked off in Tulare, Ca. on Tuesday with a farm bill listening session—hosted by House Ag Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.)—taking place at the event.

To set the stage for the hearing and bill, Chip Flory, AgriTalk host, sat down with Thompson for an update on where the farm bill 2023 stands. According to Thompson, most of the legislation has already been penned.

“We don’t need to rewrite the entire farm bill,” Thompson says. “We’re comfortable with many parts in the 2018 bill and there aren’t many tweaks or changes, instead things we need to protect and invest in more.”

Thompson’s words on the farm bill carry more weight than most congressional leaders. With the House taking the reins in writing the bill this year, he says the pen is “firmly” in his hand.

Related articles: Crop Insurance, Production Costs, ERP Among Key Topics at Senate Ag Farm Bill Hearing

But that doesn’t mean the Senate is sitting idle in the writing process.

Senate’s Seat at the Farm Bill Table

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Ia.) told Flory last week that Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has already made “significant progress” in writing the Senate’s version of the bill.

“Our committee has been working on the bill since late last year as our members are out and about engaging with stakeholders,” Ernst says. “We’re compiling all that work to get a bipartisan bill written and to the finish line this year.”

Budget Estimates Released this Week

Farm bill discussions will continue momentum this week as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will release its 10-year cost estimate for current farm bill programs, including commodity supports and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which reserves 80% of farm bill funds.

Related articles: Stepped-Up Basis Leaning in Favor of Rural America on House Ways and Means Panel

Jim Wiesemeyer, ProFarmer policy analyst, advises against putting too much weight in these numbers.

“CBO’s farm bill forecasts are frequently well off the mark in either direction,” says Wiesemeyer. “It’s a lot like USDA’s farm income projections in February for the year head. CBO looks out 10 years… good luck taking these forecasts too seriously.”

According to Wiesemeyer, these estimates are the reason the farm bill is frequently out of date so soon after it is written.

A Divided Government: GOP Retakes the House by Slim Margin

Fri, 18 Nov 2022 21:23:21 GMT

It’s finally official, the GOP garnered the 218 seats needed to control the House, ushering in an era of divided government and a check on the Biden administration agenda. Most look for Biden to increase his use of executive orders and regulations to fulfill some other goals.

The End of an Era

It was ironic that it took several GOP House races in liberal California to get the Republicans to 218 votes. Six more House races need to be called so the GOP majority number could rise by a few seats.

“The era of one-party Democrat rule in Washington is over,” Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader from California, said this week on Capitol Hill, as his Republican colleagues nominated him to serve as House speaker. “Washington now has a check and balance.”

The majority will hand Republicans control of committees with subpoena authority, allowing them to make good on campaign pledges to investigate Biden’s administration and family, as well as social-media companies that conservatives claim are biased against them.

President Biden Commented on the GOP win in the House

“I congratulate Leader McCarthy on Republicans winning the House majority, and am ready to work with House Republicans to deliver results for working families,” Mr. Biden said in a statement on Wednesday, adding that “the future is too promising to be trapped in political warfare.”

But the president also recognized the surprising strength of the Democratic showing, and the defeat of a series of far-right Republicans who had refused to recognize the legitimacy of the last election.

“There was a strong rejection of election deniers, political violence and intimidation,” he said.

With the majority transition now set in stone, a timeline for any new farm bill in 2023 largely rests with the House.

Farm Bill 2023 Outlook Shifts

The Senate Ag Committee will be led by current Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) who is a veteran of getting farm bills over the finish line, and top her liking. In the House, likely new Ag panel leader is Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.), who will have a governing party that just garnered control.

The GOP caucus contains more than a few conservative activists who have made prior farm bills difficult to be completed. While some will not say it publicly, veteran farm bill watchers believe the House will run out of time in 2023 because of the need for hearings and to gear up new members and their staffs on the complexities of farm policy.

Thompson has made it clear he wants a bill in 2023 and wants the House to consider it by the August congressional recess. Look for Thompson to push early action via hearings and others matters early in 2023.

More on elections :

Impact of the Elections on Farm Bill 2023
Ballot Counts Continue as Some Republicans Suggest a Break From Trump
‘Red Wave’ of Voters Did Not Happen: Why Were Poll Predictions So Far Off the Mark?

Foreign Farmland Ownership to be Addressed in New Study

Mon, 03 Oct 2022 19:51:45 GMT

House Ag Committee ranking member G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) and Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), Republican leader on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, in a letter to General Accountability Office (GAO) Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, asked the GAO to conduct a study addressing the following:

1. What is known about the extent of and trends in foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land (e.g., by country of investor, by state, by type of land)?

2. How does the Farm Service Agency collect data ona foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land and what steps are taken to ensure data reliability? How have USDA’s data collection methods changed since AFIDA was enacted in 1978?

3. What procedures are in place to ensure proper disclosure of acquired agricultural land by a foreign person or entity and does USDA have a process to ensure accurate disclosure of the transfer or sale of such lands?

4. Do the current standards for filing under AFIDA ensure that land acquired by a foreign person or entity through a U.S. chartered company or corporation is accurately disclosed as a foreign investment in agricultural land?

5. How, if at all, does the U.S. government use the data on foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land to ensure the land is used for its intended purpose and does not pose a threat to national security?

6. What improvements or policy options, including regarding national security, could be made to strengthen reporting of foreign investment in agricultural land?

7. Are there other Departments or Agencies that USDA is or should be partnering with to ensure accurate disclosure of foreign owned agricultural land?

According to Rep. Thompson, foreign ownership and investment in U.S. ag land has “nearly doubled” in the past decade.

“This growing trend has elevated concerns regarding national security in a time of uncertainty that is already compounded by challenges to our supply chain infrastructure, high input costs for farmers, and geopolitical pressures. It is critical for Congress to have a thorough understanding of foreign investment in our nation’s agricultural land,” he said.

The study was put into motion to ensure an “affordable, reliable” food supply is secured for the nation’s wellbeing, according to Rep. Comer.

“We are calling on the Government Accountability Office to report on the scope of this threat to our food supply to inform Congress how we can best protect the security of the American people. Americans need transparency about the federal government’s efforts to address this growing problem,” says Comer.

What We Know

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has noted that foreign ownership of U.S. land increased by 2.4 million farm acres in 2020. If this trend continues, it will contribute to unfair competition for young and beginning farmers who seek to buy land.

(Farm Journal)

Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Grassley introduced the “Farmland Security Act,” to require more disclosure by foreign entities about the purchase of U.S. farmland. The bill would require USDA to increase reporting on foreign investments in the U.S., “including the impact foreign ownership has on family farms, rural communities and the domestic food supply.”

USDA also would be required to develop an interactive public database with real-time updates on disclosures of foreign land purchases.

China’s Role

USDA’s latest data shows China owns over 191,000 acres of U.S. lands.

A Chinese company, Fufeng Group, recently acquired 300 acres in North Dakota for $2.6 million. According to the company, it intends to establish a milling plant.

Various government officials, including North Dakota’s Governor Doug Burgum, have raised concerns over the sale.

“We ask that this review process be completed with the utmost urgency to aid Grand Forks officials in their decision-making process and provide clarity on whether this land purchase has national security implications,” Burgum wrote.

Eric Chutorash, Fufeng Group USA COO, claims the company has no Chinese government ownership and all workers in the plant will be Americans. He says he “cannot imagine” anyone in the facility would partake in espionage.

This isn’t the first time a question has been raised in China’s stake in the U.S.

The plug was pulled on a similar wind energy project in Del Rio, Texas, in April when state officials realized two key issues:

1. The land dedicated to the wind farm is miles from the Laughlin Air Force Base.
2. The Chinese company hired to carry out the job is owned by a former member of the Chinese military who has direct ties to China’s ruling communist party.

Some 14 states restrict or prohibit foreign ownership of farmland, though none outright forbid it, according to a memo last November by the Congressional Research Service.

More on farmland:

China’s Latest Land Purchase Could Pose Major U.S. Security Risk
Who Can Afford These Soaring Farmland Prices?
U.S. Cropland Cash Rents Hit All-Time High

Cattle Contract Library Act Passes Ag Committee

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:28:40 GMT

By a unanimous vote on Thursday, the U.S. House Agriculture Committee passed the bipartisan Cattle Contract Library Act of 2021 (H.R. 5609). The bill must be approved by the full House and would also need Senate consideration before it could be signed into law.

Introduced earlier this week by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), the Cattle Contract Library Act would establish a library of contracts for the Agricultural Marketing Service to report terms of alternative marketing agreements between packers and producers. Supporters of the bill say it would greatly increase transparency in cattle markets.

Rep. Johnson said the bill is the result of nearly a year of work with producers and industry leaders following the July 2020 Boxed Beef & Fed Cattle Price Spread Investigation Report. The investigation recommended the creation of a cattle contract library.

According to a statement from Rep. Johnson, this is the first cattle market transparency bill to pass out of the Agriculture Committee since the July 2020 report was released. The Cattle Contact Library Act is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, National Farmers Union, Livestock Marketing Association, South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, South Dakota Farm Bureau, and the South Dakota Farmers Union.

“Producers want action – they want more transparency in the cattle market – this bill is a step in the right direction,” Rep. Johnson said. “The Cattle Contract Library Act ushers in greater transparency and competition to an industry that desperately needs it. I’m grateful to the farmers & ranchers for their critical input to come to a consensus and I’m glad the committee answered this request. I’m going to fight like hell to get this bill passed out of the House.”

During an interview with Chip Flory on AgriTalk Thursday, Tanner Beymer, NCBA director of government affairs and government regulatory policy, said the cattle contract library has “broad support from all sectors” and has been a longstanding priority for NCBA.

“Members of Congress recognize this broad support,” Beymer said.

The cattle contract library will give cattlemen valuable information about “what attributes are being incentivized by packers and at what (price) levels,” he said. Such information will help producers gain more marketing leverage.

“Information is power, and this bill allows cattle producers to compare their agreements with other (packer/producer) agreements and allows them the opportunity to negotiate more favorable terms,” Beymer said.

The only cattle producer group that has not endorsed the Cattle Market Transparency Act is R-CALF USA, the group said in a statement. R-CALF directors reviewed the bill and determined it “does not address the competition-disrupting leverage” the beef packers now have.

“The problem with our broken market is not that we don’t know the details of the contracts that confer market leverage to the packers, the problem is there are too many contracts and because of that, our price discovery market is being destroyed,” said Iowa cattle feeder and R-CALF USA Director Eric Nelson. “Putting a contract library ahead of taking action to preserve our price discovery market sends a signal that more contracts are good and more producers should try to access them. This is not what is needed.”

Prior to Thursday’s vote, the North American Meat Institute urged the House Ag Committee to pause.

“Members of the Meat Institute are still analyzing the bill and how it might affect their operations,” said Julie Anna Potts, President and CEO. Due to the limited time allowed to consider the legislation, “we ask the House to pause and include packers in the conversation, since the packers would bear the burden of complying with this new government mandate.”

The bill must be approved by the full House and would also need Senate consideration before it could be signed into law.

“There is already robust price discovery provided by beef packers on a daily basis,” Potts said. “We urge members of Congress to slow down and to first do no harm.”

Related stories:

Beef Contract Library Bill Introduced In House

Q&A: TCFA's Ben Weinheimer's Southern Plains Perspective on the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 04:52:32 GMT

With the industry divided on the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act legislation, perspectives range across regions of the U.S., including Iowa Cattlemen’s Cora Fox .

Ben Weinheimer, president and CEO of the Texas Cattle Feeders Association provides his view of the bill and how it may impact his area producers.

Q: What part(s) of the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act do you feel will be most beneficial to cattle producers?

A: Unfortunately, the proposed requirement of a government managed cash trade mandate is overshadowing and squelching constructive discussion on other elements of the bill that could have a positive impact. Several of those other proposals in the bill have support from all segments of the supply chain, such as implementing changes in Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) or making other market reporting improvements that would presumably result in a corresponding improvement in market transparency and price discovery. Some of these include expedited carcass weights reporting, annual reporting of cutout yield and the establishment of cattle contract library (which from our perspective would logically occur sometime after USDA completes the 1½ year cattle contract library pilot program funded by Congress earlier this year).

Q: In Texas, what percentage of cattle are sold on negotiated trade vs. AMA?

A: As a result of voluntary, industry-led efforts by TCFA members during the timeframe from January 2021 through May 2022, negotiated trade in the TCFA region, which includes Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, averaged 13,215 head (13%) per week, including 7,208 head (7%) negotiated cash and 6,007 head (6%) negotiated grid. If the 13,000-plus head per week number looks familiar, it’s because Dr. Stephen Koontz at Colorado State University in 2020 and 2021 laid out research-based recommendations for the number of head of cattle per week that should be traded by negotiated means to help ensure robust price discovery. Those recommendations range from 6,000 head per week (minimum) to 13,000 head per week (robust) for our region. On average over the past 17 months, we have exceeded the recommended level for robust price discovery.

Q: Have these numbers changed in the past decade? If so, how?

A: Yes. During the previous decade of 2011-2020, negotiated trade in our region averaged 11,122 head (11%) per week, consisting of 7,292 head (7%) negotiated cash and 3,837 head (4%) negotiated grid. The lowest weekly average in a single year occurred in 2015, when we averaged 3,350 head (4%) per week, with 1,964 head (2%) negotiated cash and 1,386 head (2%) negotiated grid. In that timeframe, we were still suffering the consequences of a major drought and a large packing plant closure in our region. Negotiated trade levels were lower due to total cattle sales declining and we know that more cattle traded normally means more negotiated trades, too.

It is also interesting to look at the correlation, or lack thereof, between average weekly negotiated trade levels and fed cattle prices in our region. From 2011-2020, the average weekly fed cattle price was $124.77/cwt.; the 2015 average was $148.31/cwt.; and $126.55/cwt. in 2021-2022. It’s apparent there are a number of other external factors that influence the market beyond just weekly cash trade levels.

Q: Do you foresee any ‘unintended consequences’ to this bill? If so, what are they?

A: Some bad ideas never become good ideas. That’s true of so many situations where the government has been asked to “fix” an issue in the private sector. On the other hand, there are many examples where the private sector has made the necessary adjustments or corrections in response to economic signals, beef quality, beef safety, technologies and many other areas, which resulted in positive outcomes. In all those situations, the private sector – individuals and businesses – are afforded the opportunity to respond in an efficient, effective and timely manner in the absence of governmental constraints, limitations or mandates. The Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act would result in fewer marketing opportunities and less incentive for producers to invest in genetics and innovative production techniques that lead to higher-quality beef and the most efficient and productive beef production system in the world. This is a step backward and counters to the continuous improvement the cattle industry has been working toward to meet consumer demand.

Q: Do you have any reservations of getting the government involved in the beef industry to this extent (specifically with marketing beef)?

A: The list of examples of when the government has overturned or withdrawn a law, rule or regulation is so short that few come to mind. Perhaps the ill-conceived idea of mandatory country of origin labeling (mCOOL) is one such example. Yet, it took a decade to implement a course correction on mCOOL, but only after it cost U.S. cattle producers millions of dollars and the threat of Canada and Mexico implementing billion-dollar tariffs on our beef exports.

TCFA policy supports cattle producers’ rights to utilize any marketing option best suited for their business model to capture the highest value for their cattle feeding customers. Value-added is the mindset of our members and has been for decades, and those value-added market signals have successfully improved the quality of cattle and beef available to beef consumers in the U.S. and around the globe. To suggest that the proposed bill would only regulate how the packers purchase cattle is inaccurate. It would have a direct and immediate negative impact on cattle feeders, and ultimately cow-calf producers, and limit their freedom to operate and invest in genetics and technologies to maximize their returns and enable them to compete for consumer demand with other proteins.

Q: If you could add/change anything to this bill to better suit cattle producers, what would it be?

A: Unfortunately, there are many other issues negatively impacting cattle producers’ ability to operate: inflation, drought, labor, feed, trucking, climate, fuel, fertilizer, packing plant capacity and war, to name a few. Some members of Congress to no avail have spent years trying to force the government upon cattle producers’ marketing decisions. We encourage Congress to prioritize efforts to increase access to labor, expand packing plant capacity, provide disaster assistance to producers, promote domestic energy production, and explore realistic expectations for addressing climate change, given the long list of more pressing issues impacting producers today.

Q: After the recent hearings, do you feel the best interest of the independent cattle producer was voiced and heard in the presented testimonies?

A: Definitely. Shawn Tiffany, an independent feedyard owner/operator from Kansas, testified at the Senate Agriculture Committee in opposition to a government mandate. He testified it could potentially result in fewer marketing opportunities and less incentive for producers to invest in genetics and innovative production techniques that lead to higher-quality beef. A similar message was also delivered by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) President Don Schiefelbein. He urged House Agriculture Committee members to oppose government mandates and instead support key policies with broad, unified support across the entire cattle industry, including a cattle contract library, reauthorization of Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) and investments in regional processing capacity expansion.

For two decades, economists have shown that alternate marketing agreements (AMAs) lower costs and increase efficiencies and have also pointed out that there is no evidence to indicate that mandating cash trade will improve prices in the fed cattle market or upstream to cow-calf producers.

Q: If not, what point of view do you feel was missed?

A: One aspect of this conversation that merits additional discussion is the significant increase in beef demand we have benefited from over the past few decades. Largely, this is due to cattle producers’ response to consumer demands for higher grading beef that provides a repeatable, high-quality eating experience. Restaurants, beef retailers and consumers have all received cattle producers’ value-added transformation that consistently delivers high-quality beef.

Q: If there is another hearing in the future, who would you recommend to testify?

A: Members of Congress have had the opportunity to hear from multiple subject matter experts on this topic over the past few years. In my opinion, all perspectives have been heard and the facts have not changed from the first hearing to the last. Therefore, we encourage Congress to set aside the controversial and divisive proposal of a government managed cash trade mandate and instead act on recommendations to improve market transparency and price discovery which have broad industry support.

Other Perspectives:

Iowa Cattlemen’s Cora Fox

House, Senate Deliver Cattle Market Compromise

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:56:26 GMT

On Wednesday, U.S. Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act to the Senate, while Iowa Representatives Cindy Axne (D-IA) and Randy Feenstra (R-IA)—both members of the House Agriculture Committee—introduced identical legislation to the House of Representatives.

“For years, Iowa’s independent cattle producers have been bearing the burden of price discovery and a lack of transparency when trying to market their cattle and make ends meet,” said Rep. Axne. “The Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act would provide meaningful and long overdue reform to the cattle industry to ensure producers in Iowa and across this country can continue their operations for generations to come.”

“Consolidation and a lack of transparency in the meatpacking industry have driven up costs for consumers, and lowered margins for Montana’s cow calf operators,” said Sen. Tester. “This legislation will help feeders and producers get fairer prices through cash negotiations, and will shed light on all cattle transactions in a highly consolidated market.”

The legislation seeks to return fairness to the cattle marketplace dominated by four major meat packers by:

1. Establishing regional mandatory minimum thresholds of negotiated cash and negotiated grid trades based on each region’s 18-month average trade to enable price discovery in cattle marketing regions. In order to establish regionally sufficient levels of negotiated cash and negotiated grid trade, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Chief Economist, would seek public comment on those levels, set the minimums, and then implement them. No regional minimum level can be more than three times that of the lowest regional minimum, and no regional minimum can be lower than the 18-month average trade at the time the bill is enacted.
2. Requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create and maintain a publicly available library of marketing contracts between packers and producers in a manner that ensures confidentiality.
3. Prohibiting the USDA from using confidentiality as a justification for not reporting and make clear that USDA must report all Livestock Mandatory Reporting information, and they must do so in a manner that ensures confidentiality.
4. Requiring more timely reporting of cattle carcass weights as well as require a packer to report the number of cattle scheduled to be delivered for slaughter each day for the next 14 days.

Endorsements for the bill have come from the American Farm Bureau, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, National Farmers Union, and National Grange.

Legislation to Support Small Cattle Farmers and Ranchers

Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:54:39 GMT

U.S. House Agriculture Committee Chairman David Scott (D-GA) announced Thursday he intends to introduce legislation aimed at helping smaller beef farmers and ranchers.

Scott said help for those smaller producers “has been missing” but it is one of his top priorities.

“My bill will apply to small family farmers and ranchers. According to USDA, the average beef cattle herd is 44 head, and operations of 100 or fewer beef cattle account for 90 percent of all farms and 44 percent of the beef cattle inventory,” Scott said. “Yet, we are losing an average of 17,000 cattle ranchers per year. This is a national crisis.”

While the announcement did not provide many details, Scott said the bill would create a new program that “strengthens the Federal safety et and makes insurance products work better for small cattle farmers and ranchers, both in terms of coverage and accessibility.”

The congressman also wants to establish a grant program at USDA to help small farmers and ranchers and producer-owned cooperatives to undertake innovative business initiatives.

“By developing more direct-to-consumer and direct-to-institution markets, my legislation will give small farmers and ranchers more control over where they sell their cattle or meat products and provide them with opportunities to add value to their products and increase their profitability,” Scott said.

House Ag Panel Invites Top Five Meat Processor CEOs to Late April Hearing

Mon, 11 Apr 2022 13:38:16 GMT

House Ag Committee has requested the CEOs from the top five meat packers to appear before the panel on April 27, Pro Farmer has learned. They will reportedly be sworn in before making comments and the panel will take “other measures” if the CEOs say they will not attend, contacts advise.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers are pushing for a general counsel at USDA to investigate meat industry competition. On April 26, the Senate Ag Committee will have a hearing on livestock pricing bills.

House Ag Committee Hearing Into Anti-competitive Practices Set For April

Mon, 21 Mar 2022 14:35:47 GMT

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Agriculture Committee will hold a hearing on April 27, 2022, on anti-competitive behavior by the nation’s largest beef packers.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman David Scott of Georgia released the following statement acknowledging he will host a Full Committee hearing to determine whether anti-competitive behavior by the largest meatpacking companies caused increased beef prices, and unfair difficulties to ranchers and farmers, to the detriment of U.S. food consumers.

“It is well known that among the four companies that dominate this market, there have been a number of allegations and investigations. It is critical that we find out if industry concentration and anti-competitive behavior is playing a role in inflating prices for consumers and preventing ranchers from receiving a fair price,” said Chairman David Scott.

“We want to find out if there are anti-competitive practices in the beef supply chain. As food prices rise, four companies in particular are enjoying record profits. It is time for the Agriculture Committee to address this very important issue,” Scott said.

Secy. Vilsack Unpacks Build Back Better and What it Means for Ag

Wed, 24 Nov 2021 20:51:55 GMT

The House passed the Build Back Better (BBB) framework last Friday, allocating roughly $2.2 trillion to climate change, health and child care, among others.

On Tuesday, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack rang in on AgriTalk to share agriculture’s angle in the BBB plan with host Chip Flory.

Conservation

According to Vilsack, the historic $27 billion conservation investment will impact as much as 100 million acres of cropland, providing conservation assistance to roughly 200,000 farms across the country on an annual basis.

Vilsack says these funds will offer better farm income, healthier soils and cleaner water and will increase rural jobs by, “providing premiums to farmers who are investing in cover crop production, the ability to convert agricultural waste into a variety of products, creating new revenue streams for farmers and also reducing the greenhouse gas impact of agriculture.”

Cover Crop Incentives

The American Rescue Plan, which offered farmers a $5 per acre discount on crop insurance, proved favorable in farm country. Vilsack says this success led to the BBB’s $25 per acre cover crop incentive.

“I think the point of this is farmers are ready,” Vilsack says. “They just need to be provided the incentives and the economic value to do what they want to do and what they’ve been doing forever, which is to be good stewards of the land and water.”

Ramping Up Rural Energy

Assistance to rural electric cooperatives makes up $9.7 billion in the BBB. Vilsack says these dollars will allow farmers to work with their co-ops to reduce overall energy costs.

Carbon credits were purposefully omitted from the rural energy section of the BBB, according to Vilsack. He says credits will instead be addressed in the Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership initiative framework, which will explain pilot and demonstration resources when released in coming months.

Paying the Toll

Capital gains tax provisions have not been included in the BBB, keeping rural America clear of paying the bill. Vilsack ensures corporations that, “have not paid a single dime on billions of dollars of profit will now have to pay a minimum tax” to cover the BBB price tag.

“Individuals who are making more than $5, $10 or $20 million may face a little higher income tax from the bill, while there are tax cuts for families with children,” Vilsack says. “This creates opportunities for farm families to benefit from relief in early childhood expenses while lowering health insurance premiums.”

House Agriculture Committee’s Glenn Thompson (R-PA) disagrees with Vilsack, saying the “unpopular” bill jeopardizes America’s economy.

“Congressional Democrats spent months crafting this massive legislation behind closed doors, ignoring input from the Agriculture Committee, our members and, most importantly, the communities we serve,” Thompson says. “This bill includes harmful tax increases and billions of dollars in new ideological spending as we face record inflation for everyday Americans and farm families.”

The BBB bill will now move to the Senate who aims to approve it before Christmas.

House Ag Committee

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

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

Beef Producers Urge Congress to Vote Yes on Big Beautiful Bill to Deliver Tax Relief

What is the Big Beautiful Bill?

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

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

Ag Sector Could Score Big in Stopgap Spending

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

Watch the full interview here:

Contentious Areas of the Farm Bill

Snap Overpayments?

Using CCC Funding in Question

Will Congress Pass a New Farm Bill in 2024?

What’s Next for the Farm Bill?

Related Stories:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farm Bill 2023 Draft is Expected by Mid-September

Prepare for big changes in the farm bill

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

Bottom line

Ag Labor Working Group Created to Gather Input from Producers

How Does the Farm Bill Funding Process Work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Reasons the Farm Bill is Behind Schedule

Lawmakers Meet with Biden to Discuss Farm Bill 2023

Farm Bill Meeting Perspective

Commodity Programs Might See a 12% Cut in the Proposed $1 Trillion Farm Bill

SNAP Spending

Row Crop Safety Net

Livestock Safety Net

How Long Does it Take to Write a Farm Bill?

Senate’s Seat at the Farm Bill Table

Budget Estimates Released this Week

A Divided Government: GOP Retakes the House by Slim Margin

The End of an Era

President Biden Commented on the GOP win in the House

Farm Bill 2023 Outlook Shifts

Foreign Farmland Ownership to be Addressed in New Study

What We Know

China’s Role

Cattle Contract Library Act Passes Ag Committee

Q&A: TCFA's Ben Weinheimer's Southern Plains Perspective on the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act

House, Senate Deliver Cattle Market Compromise

Legislation to Support Small Cattle Farmers and Ranchers

House Ag Panel Invites Top Five Meat Processor CEOs to Late April Hearing

House Ag Committee Hearing Into Anti-competitive Practices Set For April

Secy. Vilsack Unpacks Build Back Better and What it Means for Ag