With budget restraints in general and House Republicans’ goal of cutting federal spending, there will likely be little or no increase in farm bill budgets. If there are cuts, the fight centers around farm programs or the human nutrition programs that are 84% of the bill.
All the committees’ Democrats are on record that nutrition programs need more money, not cuts, and there should be no cuts to the climate change provisions. They claim that since half of the Conservation Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funds since 2020 went to “climate smart” practices, that must mean those practices are in demand and need more funding. There was no suggestion that that trend was necessitated by the left’s insistence on climate change components, rather than best use and farmers’ and ranchers’ preferences.
Discussion of where cuts could be made in agriculture has involved slowing or eliminating some programs mainly meant to advance climate change goals of the Biden administration in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The list of $50 billion in clawbacks from the IRA supposedly included unspent IRA climate change funds, limiting additions to nutrition plans and the Conservation Reserve Program. Nutrition programs have grown rapidly, before and during the pandemic.
Chairman Glenn “G.T.” Thompson (R-PA-15) said they need to find some “pay-fors” to offset dollars for commodity credit programs, crop safety net programs, research and expanded trade tools.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) called for a “climate-smart” farm bill to help “stabilize the climate,” that would “incentivize emission reductions, increase financial support” for “climate resilience” and invest in innovation to accelerate mitigation and adaption efforts. One of their greenhouse gas targets is “reducing methane emissions from livestock farming” and nitrous oxide emissions from “excess fertilizer.”
Former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns covered the farm bill on a webinar for the Colorado Livestock Association. Johanns, also a former Nebraska U.S. senator and governor and now an alliantgroup consultant, set the key players. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is the Senate Ag Committee chairman, retiring in 2024, Johanns said. Arkansas Sen. John Boozman (R) is ranking member and protective of southern crops and prices. Thompson is chairman of the House Ag Committee and “knows what he’s doing.” Rep. David Scott (D-GA-13) is former House Ag chairman, now ranking member and his “heart is in the SNAP program,” Johanns said. Scott’s mantra: Do not cut that program. His Senate ally: Stabenow.
As for political pressures, the Freedom Caucus is 40-plus members conscious they got elected to cut spending. This will be the first trillion-dollar farm bill, with roughly $1.2 trillion allocated for nutrition. Commodities will account for 4% ($69 billion). Crop insurance will cost around $101 billion, disaster assistance $15 billion and IRA climate change spending $17 billion. There are additional nutrition programs at $60 billion and trade programs at $25 billion. The IRA climate change money is still there. House Republicans want to repurpose it and the Senate wants to stay climate change.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will be a battleground. Republicans want to reimpose work requirements on able-bodied applicants, the Democrats oppose that and want more help for mothers and children.
To get a bipartisan farm bill through Congress, there needs to be enough Senate support for 60 votes and spending cuts to pass the House. There will likely be two very different versions. A House version passed with no Democrat support will likely fail in the Senate. The odds are good that the Senate will pass a bipartisan version and the fight shifts to conference committee.
There is not expected to be a standalone livestock title. There will be a disaster program including livestock and forage indemnity provisions, funding for EQIP, animal health programs and there is support from both chambers for more risk management opportunities.
Boozman insists commodity reference prices rise. There will be some minor revisions in the climate change provisions so Democrats can claim a victory. The nutrition programs will be fully funded or very close.
Johanns was asked about reducing the cost of the nutrition programs. There are only two ways to cut costs: reduce the costs of the product or raise the eligibility requirements.
Only a bipartisan compromise bill will pass. The last farm bill expired Sept. 30 and delays only become a problem on Dec. 31.
Johanns’ parting reminder: The nutrition part of the farm bill does involve lots of spending. But it uses products American farmers and ranchers raise. Politically speaking, we would not likely have a farm bill with any agricultural parts without the support of urban legislators. — Steve Dittmer, WLJ columnist
(Steve Dittmer is the author of the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation newsletter. Views in the column do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of WLJ or its editorial staff.)
