Other Ag News: Digging into the House Farm Bill: Part 1

Editor’s Note: This is the first post in a multi-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on May 24. This post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole, as well as its likely (or unlikely) path to becoming law. Subsequent posts provide a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems, farmers’ access to land and capital, beginning and other underserved producers, conservation and climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research, among other issues. 

In the early morning hours of Friday, May 24, 2024, the House Committee on Agriculture reported the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 (FFNSA, HR 8467) out of committee by a vote of 33-21. This vote – nearly five and a half years after the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) was signed into law – was the first concrete step that the 118th Congress has taken toward passing a new farm bill. 

The journey to a new farm bill is never straightforward and always unique – and the path to a new farm bill in 2024 has been no exception. This reauthorization has already included a year-long extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, with another extension likely later this year. It has included familiar debates between funding the farm safety net and nutrition assistance, alongside new debates about protecting generational conservation and climate investments from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This is also the first farm bill since the COVID-19 pandemic, creating an important opportunity to reflect on lessons learned as we build the future of local and regional food systems. Unlike the 2018 Farm Bill, however, when the House, Senate, and Administration were all Republican-controlled, all of these debates have unfolded amidst a divided government.

The nearly 1,000-page FFNSA – first unveiled seven days before the May 23 Committee markup – was met with competing choruses of opposition and support. NSAC’s initial analysis of FFNSA found that the bill “misse[d] the opportunity to move agriculture forward.” This multi-part blog series supplements that initial review with a deep dive analysis of FFNSA’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems, farmers’ access to land and capital, beginning and other underserved producers, conservation and climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research, among other issues. The remainder of this post summarizes the FFNSA markup, big-picture issues impacting the likelihood of passage, and where the process goes from here.

Summarizing the Markup

The FFNSA markup kicked off shortly after 11:00 am EDT on May 23 and did note conclude until just shy of 12:30 am EDT the following day – more than thirteen hours in total. The first five and a half hours were consumed by five-minute opening statements from every member of the Committee. The remainder of the markup focused on the debate of a variety of amendments offered by policymakers from both political parties.

Historically speaking, committee markups have been a relatively meaningful opportunity to improve the underlying bill by offering amendments. However, while there were more than sixty amendments filed to FFNSA, only five amendments received stand-alone votes. Below is a full list of votes taken during the House Committee on Agriculture’s markup of FFNSA:

• Manager’s Amendment – a collection of mostly technical and uncontroversial edits to a bill. Approved by voice vote.
• En Bloc Amendment – an en bloc amendment packages multiple – typically uncontroversial – amendments together for simultaneous consideration. During markup, nearly 20 amendments spanning almost every title of the farm bill were packaged together in the en bloc. Approved by voice vote.
• Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM-2) amendment to reinstate the IRA climate-focus by establishing percentages of funding for climate-smart practices within four key working lands conservation programs. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (29) opposed – all Democrats (25) in favor.
• Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC-7) amendment to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to eliminate the water-quality protections of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Pesticide General Permit, ultimately allowing direct discharge of pesticides into water bodies without any notification of guardrails for human health or the environment. NSAC opposed. Approved by voice vote.
• Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT-5) amendment to strike FFNSA’s privatization of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) workforce and the Thrifty Food Plan’s (TFP) cost neutrality provision. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (29) opposed – all Democrats (25) in favor.
• Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA-2) amendment to strike the FFNSA’s limitation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) in order to maintain USDA’s flexibility to respond to emergent agricultural needs. NSAC supported. Failed by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (29) opposed – all Democrats (25) in favor.
• Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX-35) amendment to require the USDA to halt contracting with meat processing firms or subcontractors who have been found guilty of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
  • In response, Rep. David Van Orden (R-WI-3) quickly offered a second degree amendment to instead require a Government Accountability Office study on the subject of FLSA violations in meat processing, obviating the Casar amendment. Approved by roll call vote along party lines, all Republicans (29) in favor – all Democrats (25) opposed.
• Vote on final House Committee on Agriculture passage of the FFNSA. NSAC opposed. Approved by roll call vote 33 in favor – 21 in opposition.

Passage? Where to from Here…

Given that the Committee markup resulted in no meaningful changes to improve the FFNSA, NSAC’s initial analysis that the bill fundamentally fails to meet the moment stands unchanged. The remainder of this blog series reveals the extent to which key NSAC farm bill priorities are impacted by FFNSA’s proposals, or lack thereof. More broadly, however, the FFNSA has major challenges that must be resolved before any attempt at passage on the House floor, let alone the Senate. 

Due to the unique nature of Congressional budgeting rules, any farm bill cannot cost more than the most recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline. Or, if it does, that money must be offset by some other source of funding. With that in mind, Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA-15) ultimately chose to include two major provisions in FFNSA – one that cuts SNAP benefits and the other to restrict USDA’s CCC fund – to be able to dramatically increase funding for some programs in the bill – commodity programs, for example.

First, the FFNSA restricts the USDA from using the CCC to address emerging agricultural issues – such as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza or African Swine Fever – instead requiring USDA to receive Congressional approval for any use of the CCC. This could deal significant blows, both now and in the future, to initiatives such as the Regional Agricultural Promotion Program, the Organic Market Development Grants, the Fertilizer Production Expansion Program, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program, and the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities. The CCC restriction rests on the assumption of at least $45 billion in savings. However, at the time of posting, that massively overestimates the cost savings this ill-advised restriction would create.

Second, FFNSA requires that much-needed future updates to the TFP – on which SNAP benefits are based – be budget neutral. This would amount to a roughly $27 billion cut to SNAP benefits over a decade, drastically reducing support for the tens of millions of people facing food insecurity. For context, the 2021 TFP update raised the average SNAP benefit from about $4.80 to about $6.20 per person per day. Under FFNSA, modest future per person benefit increases such as this would be impossible. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), House Committee on Agriculture Ranking Member David Scott (D-GA-13), and countless stakeholders have signaled that they oppose any bill that includes these cuts.

At the time of posting, neither the House Committee on Agriculture nor CBO have publicly released a score of the FFNSA, making it impossible to truly understand the scope of the cuts named above and the entirety of the bill itself. The score, or projected cost, of any bill is an essential aspect of understanding the impact of its provisions, both individually and collectively.

Ultimately, these two provisions – in addition to the removal of the climate-focus from the IRA investments – highlight precisely why FFNSA, as approved at markup, will not become law. Currently, House Republicans cannot afford to lose a single Republican vote on the House floor if they choose to attempt to pass a Republican-only bill, something that has recently proven incredibly difficult if not impossible. The obvious strategy would be to instead craft a House farm bill that can garner genuine bipartisan support on the House floor – yet these three provisions, not to mention the underwhelming underlying bill, make that a near impossibility.

From here, action is likely to shift back to the Senate, where the farm bill will need sixty votes in order to pass. This means that, by definition, a 2024 Senate farm bill must be bipartisan. Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow has already outlined a pragmatic proposal, and now all eyes will look to see just how eager Senate Republicans are for a 2024 farm bill.

The post Digging into the House Farm Bill: Part 1 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.