Controversial provisions cloud passage of Farm Bill

For much of the last year, advocates in DC have acknowledged that a comprehensive Farm Bill reauthorization, which includes a wide array of programs such as crop insurance, farm subsidies, forestry, rural housing and infrastructure, and nutrition programs like SNAP (formerly known as food stamps), was highly unlikely to pass in this cycle’s deeply divided Congress, especially given the narrow majority held by Republicans in the House. But that hasn’t stopped Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House from working on their wish list. Last week, both the House and the Senate released competing outlines for the reauthorization of the Farm Bill, which is currently extended temporarily through September 30th.

There are a number of notable areas of bipartisan agreement. Specialty crops look to be a big winner, with funding increases for specialty crop-related research on both pests and crop diseases. Crop insurance and commodity protection programs like both the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) also see increases in payouts and eligibility. Lastly, in a notable compromise between the two bills, several Inflation Reduction Act conservation programs are folded into the Farm Bill conservation programs, which is a win for Democrats who wanted to see these programs made permanent, and a win for Republicans who can say they successfully clawed back Democratic spending that they opposed in 2022.

There are also some provisions that demonstrate agreement in principle but differ in their approach to solving a particular issue. For example, the House bill increases funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program, in order to help make U.S. agricultural products more competitive in foreign markets. The Senate bill contains an expansive trade title, including increased funding for international food aid, along with a host of trade promoting accounts, but MAP and FMD are not specifically mentioned in the summary. Both proposals also provide significant increases in funding for biofuels and biobased products, but the specific proposals and funding amounts have yet to be released, and the devil will be in the details for this one.

Forestry is expected to be a somewhat contentious area, although there are a few areas of agreement. The House summary proposes a number of new categorical exclusions for environmental reviews for forestry activity, which is typically a nonstarter for Democrats. It also creates new and enhances existing market opportunities for forest products, including existing and new data sources and tools, investing in innovative wood products, and expanding the use of biochar. The Senate proposal meanwhile designates 100,000 acres of new wilderness land, and builds on existing programs to promote seed development, expand nursery capacity, and prioritize reforestation projects. The Senate summary also recognizes the value of innovative wood products, though it is from a climate change lens, supporting the use of less energy-intensive materials, such as wood, to be used as structural building material.

By far the most controversial and what will likely prevent passage of a comprehensive Farm Bill this year is the nutrition title. House Republicans contend that their proposal will not reduce eligibility for nutrition programs like SNAP and WIC, but their summary includes vague descriptions like “corrects egregious Executive branch overreach and disallows future unelected bureaucrats from arbitrarily increasing or decimating SNAP benefits.” In the Senate Democratic proposal, SNAP and other nutrition programs are expanded in a number of ways, such as allowing college students under 24 to be exempt from work requirements in the program and allowing Puerto Rico to participate in SNAP like a state. Resolving these differences is likely impossible this year, given Speaker Johnson’s razor-thin majority and cantankerous conservative faction already upset with him for caving to Democrats and avoiding a government shutdown.

Most expect the House to act first, with the House Agriculture Committee expected to take up the full legislative text at the end of May. The Senate will likely follow with their own committee consideration. Neither bill is expected to come to their respective chamber floor for a vote prior to the November elections. There is a chance this gets wrapped up in the lame duck session in November/December, but more likely it will be one of the early 2025 legislative efforts, depending on who wins and by what margin in November.