Tag: farm bill

There is an important factor is at play in this year’s Farm Bill process – one not often mentioned but nonetheless being closely watched by Farm Bill observers. It’s the growing international debate over the pace and extent of ambitious green policies and programs – and the prominent role played by the farming community in that debate.

Climate Change Concerns Across the Pond

Farm protests first gained attention in the European Union, where farmers concerned about their precarious financial situation prompted marches, tractorcades, street protests and incidents of civil disobedience.

Ports have been blocked, the European Parliament pelted with eggs. Protests erupted in France, Germany, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands, Portugal – and more recently have spread across the globe.

Protestors decried the effects of increasing regulation, costly bureaucracy and especially restrictions on land use and inputs they argued cut into their financial security.  The argument seems to have gained some political traction.

In Europe, the farmer protests and opposition from several member states already had led to a long delay in implementation of an ambitious Nature Restoration Plan. The Plan finally won overall approval after the June elections for the European Parliament.

However, critics in the farm community continue to argue that the plan lacks the clear and consistent funding it needs to be implemented.  They also note that the environmentally focused Green Party suffered the loss of one-third of its seats in those same elections.

Discontent Down Under

Australian Pollster Kristy McSweeney echoed the European farmers’ economic worries by reporting that citizens down under make immediate economic and healthcare concerns their top priorities, well ahead of climate change issues.

McSweeney reports that only two in five citizens believe Australia will meet its emission-reduction targets for 2030 and 2050.

Many of those involved in the protests emphasize that their actions reflect practical concerns more than political ambitions. They continue to value the preservation and protection of the natural resources on which their livelihoods depend.

But they want to see climate policies tempered by economic reality, too. Green advocates remain suspicious, however.

Green Member of European Parliament (MEP) Jutta Paulus recently reported to Energy Intelligence that “it is likely that we will have more parties [in the European Parliament] that deny human-induced climate change and thus will very likely not only not prioritize climate and energy measures, but actively work toward dissolving things that have been reached.

Paulus continues, “the other side of the argument is that EU citizens and member states should have more choice in what green technologies they support so long as the overall 2050 net-zero target is met.”

Back in the USA

European politics and Australian public opinion may seem an unimportant sideshow in the Farm Bill debate. After all, another legislative extension will be largely invisible to consumers. Fundamental policies and programs will remain in place, with the most significant issue likely to center on how to appropriate and allocate the federal funds they require.

The existing policies and programs that farmers rely upon to make basic immediate production decisions will continue under an extension. But the indecision will make longer-term decisions more problematic.

U.S. policymakers will watch the political trends in the EU and elsewhere for signs of what may be coming in their political backyard. They can see the power of the farm community to influence voters – and the larger concerns that may be emerging about the balance of ambitious climate-change action and fundamental pocketbook issues for farmers and consumers alike.

What is happening in Europe may be a political object lesson for those who must vote on a Farm Bill with a 10-year price tag of $1.4 trillion.

As former Yankee catcher Yogi Berra is supposed to have said,

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.”

 

Inside the Farm Bill

What is the Farm Bill anyway? It’s a massive piece of legislation – 942 pages in one version before Congress, compared with about 1,200 pages in the average Bible. To many, it’s not blasphemy to think of the Farm Bill as the Bible for American agriculture.

The 2018 Farm bill contained 12 separate titles, including commodity support programs, crop insurance, conservation, trade, bioenergy, research, forestry, rural development, credit, nutrition and more. It provides the basic “rules of the road” for our entire food system.

Historically, Congress has approved 18 separate farm bills since the 1930s, usually one every five years or so.

That’s no small feat legislatively.

But by combining farm support measures with nutrition programs – notably the old “Food Stamp” program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) – rural and urban legislators have been able to come together to produce a much too complex and far-reaching piece of legislation.

The process consistently has produced farm policies and programs that have fed the nation.

And much of the rest of the world.

Political Pushback 

Three of the past four Farm Bills have required one-year extensions, including the extension passed last November. Despite ambitious efforts by both House and Senate legislators, a fresh Farm Bill still hasn’t passed Congress. In fact, it’s so far from the final passage that many worry that yet another one-year extension is almost inevitable.

With a crowded legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, a looming presidential election, and continuing political divisions still in play, hope for passage seems to be waning with each passing week. The ostensible reasons for the delay are familiar.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle point to a long list of philosophic and practical differences, most seeming to boil down to matters of how to divide the funds in a bill estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to cost an estimated $1.4 trillion over the coming decade.

Some of the key issues under debate include:

Allocating funds provided by the Inflation Reduction Act

• Some legislators favor moving those funds into the Farm Bill spending and expanding eligibility for producers.
• GOP senators point out that about half of ‘traditional’ farm conservation activities currently are excluded from the IRA and want to use more of the IRA monies to support those activities.
• Environmental groups and their political supporters want to make sure any funding shift does not weaken the federal commitment to addressing climate issues or in any way contribute to a shift in overall funding away from these environmental goals.

Increases in reference prices

• Critics of the increases worry that the money for such added Farm Bill expenses would come from savings achieved by reductions in SNAP costs.
• SNAP supporters question why farmers’ economic needs are more important than feeding hungry people.

Changes in SNAP payments and program eligibility

• Nutritional program costs represent nearly 82 percent of all Farm Bill spending – a share that has been steadily increasing over recent years.
• Critics wonder what the SNAP program has to do with producing food. They think this should be a separate bill instead of hidden in payment to producers.
• Budget hawks seek ways of controlling the costs – or at least temper the rate of growth in nutrition spending.

The Path to Passage

Part of the delay is procedural. Passing a Farm Bill is a complicated series of actions: developing and approving a bill by committees, passage by the House and Senate, reconciling differences through a House-Senate conference, and submission to the President for signature. It may not sound all that difficult, but it is.

Note that the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have spent almost an entire year listening to and engaging farmers, farm and commodity groups, consumers, health and nutrition experts, academics, local authorities and many others in discussions about farm policies and programs. Legislation of nearly 1,000 pages reflecting all these interests takes time to develop.

Maybe more importantly, the calendar is not the Farm Bill’s friend. The legislative time available for action is limited, and competition for floor time is intense. The House of Representatives averages about 151 days in session each year, and the Senate 168 days. Election years—especially presidential election years—usually provide members with extended time to campaign. This year is no different.

In the final six months of 2024, the U.S. Senate is tentatively scheduled to be in session for 53 days. In the House, it’s 42 days. “Tentative” schedules are just that, and they may be subject to change. Lame-duck sessions also are possible. But whatever decisions might be made for keeping Congress at work, the calendar – and history – don’t suggest a rosy outlook for Farm Bill resolution in 2024.

Opposing Points of View

Beyond the realities of the calendar, simple politics is part of the delay in resolving the fundamental issues.

First, the farm bill process has succeeded for almost a century because of the willingness of all parties involved to come to agreement, if not total consensus. Compromise on any issue has proved elusive to this Congress, obviously. But old Farm Bill hands also point out that this time around, as much as 70 percent of Congress has never been through a Farm Bill process.

One in four U.S. senators has been in office for six or fewer years.  In the House, it’s 45 percent – almost half. There’s less experience with – or appreciation for – the importance of finding agreement on something as essential as the food security of the populace. Some members simply don’t have the background to see the Farm Bill as anything but yet another football to be kicked around the political playing field.