The Farm Bill Takes its First Step Forward…For Good or for Bad

Early morning on Friday, May 24^th, the House Agriculture Committee finished marking up H.R. 8467, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. After more than 13 hours of debate, the bill was reported out of committee on a vote of 33-21 with four Democrats joining the Republican majority. We will talk about the likelihood of getting a Farm Bill passed this year shortly, but first, let’s cover some background information.

Firstly, what is a markup?

Think of a markup like a draft Farm Bill that the Agriculture Committee moves forward for consideration. Five days before the scheduled markup, Ag Committee Chairman G.T. Thompson (R-PA) released the 942-page text to be considered during the markup. RMFU staff pored over the text comparing it to our policy and engaged directly with our two representatives on the House Ag Committee, (Rep. Caraveo (D-CO) and Rep. Vasquez (D-NM), prior to and during the markup.

The Senate’s vision for the Farm Bill was released in early May. The House bill can be compared to the Senate framework, a 94-page outline, that they are calling the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024.

RMFU’s Current Position

RMFU made the following statement on May 24^th:

‘Today, the House Agriculture Committee held a markup for the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union is disappointed that this legislation is making harmful cuts to important programs that farmers, ranchers, and our communities depend on. It will remove $30 Billion from nutrition funding, gut programs designed to support producers to adapt to increasingly erratic weather, and drive policies that will further lessen competition throughout the food value chain. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union is opposed to the current legislation as written, and we will advocate for strong amendments when it comes to a vote in the House. We will continue to work with our members of Congress and our partners to ensure that this Farm Bill provides the greatest benefits possible to our farmers, ranchers, and communities that we represent.’

So, what is in the bill? The good, bad, and ugly. And what is missing? (abridged)

The Good

• There are considerable resources, to the tune of $233 Million per year, devoted to disease preparedness and protecting our food system from threats including highly pathogenic avian influenza, African swine fever, and foot and mouth disease as well as other disease concerns.
• There is a 10% to 20% increase in reference prices for covered commodities reflecting increased costs of production and other inflationary pressures. RMFU has advocated for increases to reference prices with the understanding that those increased costs must be offset somewhere else and, understanding that these increases do not benefit all producers, we urge a cautious and balanced approach.
• R. 8467 makes some good strides in expanding and increasing crop insurance levels including aligning premium discounts for veteran and beginning farmers to make it consistent with the USDA definition of a beginning farmer. It also increases the Supplemental Coverage Option for all commodities and the coverage levels for Whole Farm Revenue Protection. RMFU appreciates these changes, but we do have concerns that they will not adequately cover all producers including farmers and ranchers in CO, NM, and WY in particular.
• The bill increases the Livestock Indemnity Program payment rate from 75% fair market value to 100% if the animal loss is caused by an attack by a federally protected species and adds supplemental payments for the loss of a gestating animal. This is not directly in line with RMFU policy, but we appreciate the intent of the provision.
• We have long seen an issue with the delivery of ad hoc disaster programs. These are mainly outside the purview of the Farm Bill. This bill takes an innovative approach to this issue by creating standing authority for these payments to be delivered via state block grants, meaning that each state Department of Agriculture could issue emergency payments for natural disasters.
• R. 8467 also takes a novel approach to restricting eligibility for several programs and payments to businesses that derive less than 75% of their income from farming, ranching, or forestry. RMFU staff is analyzing the effects of this type of rule and also how some businesses may find a loophole around it.

The Bad

• One of RMFU’s highest priorities is establishing clear provisions within the Farm Bill that will lead to increased competition across the food value chain. Although there are a few improvements, mainly in supporting small-scale and state-inspected meat programs, there is very little that actually reduces the concentration that we currently see. In fact, there are a few areas that will exasperate the issue. One of those places is the new allowance to let livestock auction owners invest in packing facilities. We believe that this is the wrong direction to go if we are to increase competition on the local level.
• Another area where we are concerned is the fact that there are few supports in this draft for the next generation of producers. According to the recently released USDA Agriculture Census, almost one million acres of agricultural land was lost between 1997 and 2022 in Colorado and both New Mexico and Wyoming have similar trends. That also accounts for a loss of roughly one-third of irrigated land. RMFU members passed a Special Order of Business last year calling for increased supports for beginning farmers and ranchers, historically underserved and underrepresented, and those who produce food in urban and peri-urban areas. Frankly, we see very little in this draft that will support these producers.
• There is a provision in the draft bill that removes the ‘buy, protect, sell, language from the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. Just this last year, RMFU delegates voted to strengthen this provision, not eliminate it.
• At the end of the day, we must compare this with our last Farm Bill, the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018. By and large, this bill, at its best maintains programs that our members value at the same level that we saw in the 2018 Farm Bill. At worst, it cuts some of them. We see very little improvement from the baseline that we have been operating under for the past six years.
• Another vital area that we need to see improvement is in implementing payment limitations to ensure that Farm Bill programs benefit family farmers and ranchers. We have several ideas for implementing this concept but, unfortunately, this draft takes a different approach. We believe the lack of meaningful payment limitations will only hasten consolidation within the industry and continue the trend of ‘get big or get out’.

The Ugly

There are a few provisions within H.R. 8467 that are clearly in conflict with RMFU policy. For these reasons, RMFU took an ‘oppose’ position at this time.

• The House draft would make cuts to the Thrifty Food Plan, the program that determines Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rates by roughly $30 Billion. Not only would this hurt those experiencing hunger, but it would also take away important markets for farmers and ranchers. This provision makes it all but impossible for this bill to pass Congress. Jahana Hayes (D-CT) offered an amendment to remove the cost-neutrality provisions. But it lost on a party-line vote.
• Another area where RMFU has taken a firm stand is protecting the $20 Billion in investments that were created in the Inflation Reduction Act. This funding was devoted to climate-smart practices in four NRCS programs: EQIP, CSP, ACEP and RCPP. The House bill seeks to strip any climate-related requirements from this bill and siphon off some of the funds to offset other spending in the bill including increases to reference prices. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) offered an amendment to re-instate the climate sideboards in the IRA funding it also lost along a party-line vote. During he debate Representative Vasquez gave RMFU member Zach Withers a shoutout about ways that he utilizes the EQIP program.
• The last major bone of contention in the House bill involves removing USDA Secretary discretion over the use of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). In many ways, the CCC is a rainy-day fund that has been used in several ways over the decades. It is valuable because it allows an immediate response to a crisis. There are also criticisms that this authority has been abused by certain administrations. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) offered an amendment to strike the language that would repeal USDA’s authority to spend CCC funds but it also failed along a party-line vote.
• Another provision that is in clear conflict with RMFU policy surrounds language that would take away a state’s right to regulate the sale of animal products within its borders. This provision would undo several state laws including some that RMFU has supported.

What is missing?

• We are disappointed that the current bill lacks meaningful competition language. We know that consolidation in virtually every link of the food value chain hurts farmers, ranchers, agricultural workers, and consumers. We will continue to fight for stronger antitrust policies in the Farm Bill. This also includes creating better transparency in cattle markets and building stronger protections and reforms to the Packers and Stockyards Act.
• We have also been advocating for a bill called the OFF Act, a common-sense reform to check off programs. Check-off programs should benefit producers. They should have control of them, and the programs should be regularly reviewed for their efficacy.
• Right to repair agricultural equipment continues to be a priority for us and we are disappointed to see the Agricultural Right to Repair Act omitted from the bill text.
• Other priorities that are missing include the Small Farm Conservation Act, a bill that would create a tiered EQIP program, the Wholefarm Revenue Protection Improvement Act, a bill that would create better crop insurance options for small and diversified farms, and the Voluntary Groundwater Conservation Act, a bill that would allow for NRCS conservation easements for conserving groundwater.

All eyes on the Senate

There is a very low chance that the House bill will pass the chamber. In fact, many people believe that it won’t even come up for a vote. This puts more pressure on the Senate to pass a bipartisan, balanced bill. Unfortunately, there is very little time in the Senate calendar this summer making it likely that another extension will be necessary after the September 30^th deadline. At best, we will probably see the Farm Bill come to fruition after the election and before the inauguration. RMFU will continue to advocate for the priorities that you have set in our policy, and we hope to see the right Farm Bill pass as soon as possible.

Call to Action

Please consider joining us for the Annual Legislative Fly-In in Washington D.C. September 9-11. This will be an important opportunity to advocate for our priorities and connect with our legislators on these vital issues. If you are interested or want to learn more, reach out to RMFU Director of Government Relations, Tyler Garrett at tyler.garrett@rmfu.org.