House Ag Committee

Will Congressional Inaction Force Farmers to Choose Between Health Insurance and Their Farm Budget?

Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:16:10 GMT

Healthcare insurance plans for some U.S. farmers could double in 2026, as enhanced federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are scheduled to expire.

The impending cost surge could affect thousands of U.S. farmers who currently rely on the ACA marketplace for their health insurance, according to the non-partisan KFF (formerly Kaiser Family Foundation), a health policy organization.

KFF estimated in 2023 that 27% of “farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture managers” relied on individual ACA market coverage. Nationally, more than 22 million Americans rely on the ACA marketplace for insurance options.

Farmers ‘Don’t Have Many Options’
Iowa farmer Aaron Lehman, who testified before Congress last week, highlighted the severity of the potential cost increase on his family. He said he expects to pay double to purchase an insurance plan for 2026 that would be comparable to what his family had this year.

“That is an incredible cost for our family budget and for our farm budget,” Lehman stated. The fifth-generation farmer and president of the Iowa Farmers Union described how rising healthcare costs are colliding with already harsh economic realities in agriculture.

“Farmers right now are trying to make all sorts of decisions because commodity prices are low, because of the chaotic trade situation that we’re in and higher input prices. All these things have made a real crisis for a lot of our farmers,” said Lehman.

“Finding ways to deal with that, we just don’t have too many options. Farmers will buy less equipment or not make the necessary upgrades and equipment that they need to,” he added. “They’ll look at their input suppliers, and they’ll decide, ‘what can we do to get through just this year … to get a plan to put the crop in the ground?’”

Read the testimony of Aaron Lehman here. A portion of his testimony and discussion is also featured on a posting to YouTube .

Signup Deadlines For Coverage
The challenge for farmers trying to decide on what insurance policy to purchase is compounded by the deadline to enroll in ACA marketplace plans: People needed to choose their ACA plan by Monday for coverage to begin Jan. 1. Open enrollment continues in most states until Jan. 15 for coverage beginning Feb. 1.

Despite broad public support for an extension to the ACA tax credits — a KFF poll said 74% of Americans favor continuing the enhanced credits — a congressional standoff has so far failed to produce a solution:

Failed Votes: Both a Democratic plan to extend the enhanced tax credits for three years and a Republican proposal to replace them with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) failed to pass the Senate last week.
Impending Crisis: Nearly six in 10 enrollees (across all categories) told KFF they could not afford even a $300 annual increase in 2026 without significantly disrupting household finances.
Political Fallout: The issue of healthcare costs and expiring subsidies is highly polarizing, with some Republicans warning that a failure to address the problem could cost them legislative majorities in next year’s mid-term elections.

As the deadline for open enrollment closes and the Dec. 31 subsidy expiration date approaches, farmers must prepare for substantially higher health insurance costs in 2026 unless Congress acts to reach a last-minute agreement.

Young Farmers Need Better Options
During his testimony and ensuing discussion, Lehman stressed that healthcare isn’t just a personal household issue; it’s central to the future of American farming. With the average age of an Iowa farmer at 57, he said the sector desperately needs young and beginning farmers to return to the land. But without affordable, reliable health coverage, inviting the next generation back onto the farm becomes a far riskier proposition.

“You have to be very smart to figure out the plan that can bring the next generation on the farm,” he said, adding that many talented, innovative young people want to farm, but face daunting financial barriers — healthcare high among them. He noted that one of his sons works with him on their family operation, which is based in Polk County, Iowa.

Lehman framed affordable healthcare for farm families as an investment, not a handout: a way to make it possible for young farmers to feed their communities, support local and regional food systems, or continue larger family commodity operations.

“Extending the federal support for lowering the cost of health insurance is a true win for farmers and for all of rural America,” he said.

Breaking Down the Biggest Differences in the Big Beautiful Bill Proposals and Potential Impact on Agriculture

Fri, 20 Jun 2025 14:14:35 GMT

Senate republicans are racing against the clock to finish their version of President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. As the Senate continues to roll out its versions of the reconciliation bill, there are some differences between the House and Senate proposals when it come to agriculture.

The main variations come down to changes in the tax provisions, but it’s key to note proposed changes to the farm safety net are similar in both the House and the Senate.

What’s Next?
The House and Senate will now need to work out their differences in the two versions of the Big Beautiful Bill. President Trump said he wants to sign the legislation on July 4, but many reports cast doubt Congress can meet that approaching deadline. Politico even reported this week the Senate GOP’s version of the bill is “facing major headwinds in the House.”

Read More: Big, Beautiful Bill: What’s in it for Agriculture?

Farm CPA Paul Neiffer believes the July 4 deadline isn’t likely as the debate heats up, but he still remains optimistic the bill is close to the finish line.

“I think July is the date, but not July 4,” Neiffer says. “They’ll get it done before the August recess. I think they’re actually pretty close. The media out there talks about how they’re really far apart on Medicaid and state and local taxes. But I think when push comes to shove, the president has a lot of clout, and they’ll come up a compromise. So, I’m pretty optimistic they’ll get it done.”

Weighing the Differences Between the Senate and the House
Neiffer says he would grade the Senate’s overall budget reconciliation proposal as a “B” for ag, which is slightly below how he rated the House’s proposal. One reason is what the Senate is proposing for Section 199A:

The Senate has a Section 199A deduction of 20%, while the House’s version is 23%.
Both the House and Senate are calling for 100% bonus depreciation, but the Senate’s would be permanent. The House’s version would expire at the end of 2029.

“With the Senate making that permanent, that’s a really good deal for ag,” Neiffer says. “They would now have some certainty all of the assets that a farmer purchases — combines, tractors, buildings and everything but land — they can deduct 100%.”

Neiffer says another difference is on state and local tax deductions.

The Senate is keeping the current $10,000 deduction and reducing the benefit of the pass-through entity tax deduction.
The deduction is at the $40,000 level in the House and retains the pass-through entity deduction in full for farmers.

Beefed Up Farm Safety Net
Under the Senate’s version, Neiffer says farmers would be paid the higher calculated payment rate under Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) during the 2025 crop year.

The Senate Ag Committee’s proposal also increases the reference price formula, and instead of having a floor based on 85% of the Olympic moving average marketing year price, the Senate is proposing an increase up to 88%.

“That actually results in a boost on the corn PLC price by about $0.15. And I think on soybeans, it’s about $0.35,” Neiffer says. “So, that’s very beneficial. Now, I was hoping they were going to boost the ceiling. Right now, the ceiling is 115% of the EFR. And they had talked last year about boosting it up to 120%. I think that was too much for the budget, so they kept it at 115%.”

The Differences on 45Z
When it comes to the 45Z Clean Fuels Production Tax Credit, there’s one major difference. The Senate allows foreign feedstocks to be eligible for the credit, just with a 20% “haircut.”

In the House’s version, only feedstocks produced or grown in the United States or Canada qualify for the tax credit. That change would help detour some of the used cooking oil imports from China.

“To me, a 20% haircut means there’s got to be some senators out there maybe pandering to somebody that I don’t know about. Because really, they should eliminate the whole foreign feedstock and just give you a credit based on domestic production,” Neiffer says.

The Bigger Issue with 45Z
Peter Meyer of Muddy Boots Ag says no matter what version of the 45Z tax credit makes the final cut, there’s a bigger issue at hand. The Trump administration needs to provide guidance and rules around 45Z — something the Biden administration failed to do during its time in office.

“We’re just clamoring for clarification, right? All I want is clarification. They can say all they want about extending this to 2030. That’s great. That’s a positive. But tell me what the rules are. We still don’t know the rules,” Meyer says.

Meyer knows there’s been so much talk about 45Z and sustainable aviation fuel, but little action in terms of demand. Meyer says the lack of action in terms of demand is largely because there’s no clarity around the tax credit.

“We need more demand for the ethanol they’re producing,” Meyer says. “Soybean oil can be converted to sustainable aviation fuel. But you just cannot produce sustainable aviation fuel without a credit. You can’t.”

Congress Approves CR, Includes $31 Billion in Farmer, Disaster Aid and Farm Bill Extension

Mon, 23 Dec 2024 16:50:13 GMT

With little if any drama like the House, the Senate easily cleared the 118-page continuing resolution (CR) early Saturday morning with a vote of 85-11 (four members did not vote). The measure funds the government through March 14. The CR includes nearly $110 billion in disaster and farmer aid ($21 billion ag disaster and $10 billion in farmer aid), and a one-year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Senate vote came hours after the House passed the measure on a 366-34 vote, well above the two-thirds majority threshold required under that chamber’s suspension of the rules procedure, with no Democrats voting no along with 34 Republicans. Texas Dem Rep. Jasmine Crockett voted “present”.

Debt Ceiling

GOP leaders dropped a two-year suspension of the statutory debt ceiling that was in a previous CR version and that helped push the bill through both chambers. Democrats opposed inclusion of the debt limit provision, arguing it would make it easier on Republicans next year to cut taxes and ram through other partisan priorities. Cutting the debt limit language was enough to convince Democrats to go along with the stripped-down bill, even though it excluded their priorities contained in an i nitial 1,547-page bipartisan measure .

One ag sector lobbyist said, “Ag groups need to start playing the game… those who always vote no on everything… why not actively oppose them… they don’t support farm bills anyhow.”

Breaking Down the Votes

Here is the list of House Republicans who voted no on the CR that contained $31 billion in ag sector assistance:

House no votes on CR

(House of Representatives)

Some notable representatives who voted against the CR include Nancy Mace (South Carolina), Thomas Massie (Kentucky), and Chip Roy (Texas). The reasons for voting against the CR varied among representatives, with some citing concerns about high levels of spending, lack of reforms, or opposition to giving the current administration additional funding.

Here is the list of Senate Democrats who voted no:

Senate no votes on CR

(U.S. Senate)

Farmer Aid in the CR

This is a breakdown of the $31 billion in farmer assistance via the CR:

Farmer aid breakdown

(House Ag Committee)

Possible Payment Amounts to Farmers

The farmer aid should be available 90 days after the legislation’s enactment. Farm CPA Paul Neiffer estimated per acre payment amounts via the Economic Loss Assistance program based on his knowledge of the provisions.

Possible payments as calculated by Farm CPA Paul Neiffer

(Lindsey Pound )

While USDA will make the final calculations, based on Neiffer’s estimates, producer payments look like this per acre, using the following calculation: (USDA’s Projected Cost of the Crop – National Projected Returns) x Eligible Acres x 26% = Total Payment.

Corn: $43.80
Soybeans: $30.61
Wheat: $31.80
Cotton: $84.70
Rice: $69.66

Neiffer says there is a payment limit of $125,000 dollars, which is down from the $175,00 originally proposed in the FARM Act. He says it’s also key to note with the updated relief, if 75% of your total gross income comes from farming, which includes wages and interest and dividends, then you qualify for the double payment.

Related Story: Poll Results: 71% of Farmers Say Congress Should Approve Economic Aid Before Year-End

House Ag Committee Fact Sheet Details Payments

The House Ag Committee released a fact sheet on the farmer economic assistance that is provided in the current Continuing Resolution (CR), modeled off of Rep. Trent Kelly’s (R-Miss.) FARM Act (HR 10045). There is a list of eligible commodities, a payment formula, administrative provisions, and estimated payment rates.

House Ag panel staffers say please keep in mind that the payment rates in this document are estimates and “almost certain to change slightly once implemented. These rates are the best approximation based on the data cited in text. This does incorporate the minimum payment rate provision. You’ll see that those crops receiving payments via the minimum payment provision have an asterisk.”

The House Ag panel had the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M analyze the impact of the economic assistance provided through this provision. Their findings suggest that the funds will improve ending cash position on their Representative Farm system by nearly 20% by the end of 2025.

Farmer aid

(House Ag Committee)

Your Next Reads:

Poll Results: 71% of Farmers Say Congress Should Approve Economic Aid Before Year-End

Ag Gets Potential Christmas Gift from Congress: Continuing Resolution Includes $31 Billion in Aid for Producers

Expert Shares What Could Spark Progress On The Farm Bill

Wed, 25 Sep 2024 17:53:33 GMT

John Newton, former Senate Ag Committee economist and now executive head at Terrain, shares what will move the Farm Bill out of the Senate Ag Committee and toward finalization.

“Chairwoman Stabenow could release bill text whenever she’d like. On the Republican side, I was happy to be part of that team and we released our framework earlier this year,” Newton says. The ball is obviously in the chairwoman’s court to do something on the Senate side.”

In addition to no bill text on the senate side, there’s no floor vote scheduled in the house. But Newton highlights three priorities and a time frame for a final farm bill:

More “Farm” in the Farm Bill: “I was part of a team that put together a Republican Farm Bill framework based on feedback we have received from over 23 states that Senator Bozeman visited. And in every single one of those states, what farmers and ranchers said is we need more farm in the Farm Bill,” Newton says.
Improved Safety Net: “There are real needs in agriculture to make safety net tools better,” Newton says. He sees the need to enhance crop insurance and cites how many reference prices are more than a decade old.
Bipartisan effort: “I would hope that there would be a bipartisan agreement in the Senate to move a farm bill that recognizes the challenges farmers and ranchers are facing right now. Net farm income is down over $50 billion over the last two years, net cash farm income is seeing the steepest two years’ decline of all time,” he says.

As for when the farm bill could make progress, Newton expects next month’s campaign trips home to help with some momentum.

“Folks are going to go home during October, and they’re going to hear from farmers and ranchers on what their needs are,” he says. “I think they’ll come back motivated to get something done, whether that’s a short term bridge or whether that’s a full five-year farm bill over the finish line. I think members can be motivated to do that when they get back in November.”

Hear more from Newton on ARC and PLC programs as well as the nutrition and conservation titles in this AgriTalk segment:

Your next read: Ag Economist John Newton Named Executive Head of Terrain

CBO Estimate Shows House Ag Committee's Farm Bill Would Increase Federal Budget Deficit by $33B Over 10 Years

Mon, 05 Aug 2024 12:43:12 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as expected late Friday, Aug. 2, released an official House farm bill cost estimate indicating that the House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $33 billion over the next decade.

The CBO’s report estimates that the farm bill will cost $1.25 trillion over the 2025-2033 period, with a net increase in the federal budget deficit by $33 billion. The primary driver of this increase is the cost of several commodity program provisions, which are expected to rise significantly due to higher reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program and other enhancements.

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Provision

A contentious provision in the bill aims to suspend USDA’s use of Section 5 under its Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) spending authority. This section essentially acts as a revolving fund used by the USDA to address various agricultural challenges. House Agriculture Committee Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) proposed reallocating this authority to boost farm subsidies and crop insurance premium subsidies by between $50 billion and $53 billion over ten years.

However, CBO estimates potential savings from suspending this authority to be between zero and $8 billion, far short of the needed amount. The CBO’s skepticism stems from the provision’s ambiguous language, which could be interpreted in multiple ways, making it unclear whether it would effectively prevent USDA from spending funds under Section 5.

Political and Legislative Implications

The funding gap highlighted by the CBO could force House Republican leaders to either direct the CBO to revise its budget estimate or modify the legislation to align with budget constraints. Any attempt to direct CBO could lead to political backlash and is unlikely to be accepted by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The House bill includes several enhancements to existing programs:
• PLC and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programs: Expected to increase payments by $34.9 billion and $9.7 billion, respectively.
• Dairy Margin Coverage Program: Costs would rise by $300 million due to updates in eligible production amounts.
• Federal crop insurance program: Costs would increase by $3.5 billion due to higher premium subsidies and administrative funding.

Conversely, the bill proposes cuts to the nutrition title, saving an estimated $29.4 billion by imposing restrictions on future updates of the Thrifty Food Plan, which sets Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

Of note: CBO’s analysis of the House farm bill language would zero out the sugar program over time. “There was a technical, clerical error in the introduced bill that will be fixed prior to the bill moving to the floor,” said Rob Johansson, Director of Economics and Policy Analysis at American Sugar Alliance. Farm bill writers say efforts will be made to correct any misunderstanding if the House farm bill gets to the floor for debate and votes. The CBO score would then be $58 million.

Reaction:
Thompson expressed dissatisfaction with the CBO’s scoring, particularly regarding the savings from suspending Section 5 of the CCC Charter Act. Thompson believes the CBO’s methodology underestimates the potential savings and has criticized the CBO for what he sees as a history of underestimating CCC outlays. He argues that the House farm bill is designed to provide significant investments in various agricultural sectors, including the farm safety net, biosecurity, and trade promotion. Thompson insists that more work is needed to ensure the bill is financially sound and can be passed into law.
Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has been critical of the House Republican proposal. She argues the CBO score reveals the bill is not financially viable, relying on what she describes as “magic math and wishful thinking.” Stabenow emphasizes the need for a bipartisan agreement that includes realistic negotiations on funding investments for various components of the ag sector. She has called for her Republican colleagues to engage in serious discussions to find viable funding solutions and has expressed her willingness to explore creative funding options outside the traditional farm bill framework. Republicans stress that unlike the House, Stabenow has not officially filed a new farm bill in the Senate, just pages of summaries.

Outlook: Thompson has indicated a willingness to work with CBO and the Budget Committee to clarify the interpretation of the CCC provision and address the funding gap. However, the top Democrat on the House Ag Committee, David Scott (D-Ga.), and Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) have called for abandoning the current version of the bill due to its budgetary implications.

Will Congress Pass a New Farm Bill in 2024?

Mon, 03 Jun 2024 18:25:19 GMT

The farm bill finally saw some movement in Washington last month, but the majority of agricultural economists still don’t think a farm bill will be passed until 2025, with some even saying it could be 2026.

The May Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , a survey of nearly 70 agricultural economists from across the U.S., asked economists when they believe Congress will pass a new farm bill. Sixty-eight percent of the economists replied they expect it to be passed in 2025.

Nineteen percent said it could be in 2024, which is an increase from the April survey when zero ag economists said 2024.

However, some ag economists think the farm bill will be passed in 2026. Thirteen percent responded 2026 in the latest survey, which is in line with the results from last month’s survey.

“If a bill is not completed in 2024, the dynamics could be very different in 2025. Regardless of the election results, the upcoming expiration of various tax provisions is likely to put pressure on Congress to reduce, or at least not increase, spending elsewhere,” said one economist in the anonymous survey. “Unless the filibuster is eliminated, even a Republican Congress could find it hard to finance increases in spending on farm programs by limiting spending on SNAP. Thus, I expect smaller farm program changes than are currently being discussed.”

The latest survey also asked economists what are the most important changes for producers in the next farm bill, and what potential changes in farm policy are being overlooked. Economists shared nine potential changes:

Higher subsidy levels for area-based products.
The wild card is milk pricing system.
Ongoing trends toward more environmental regulation from USDA agencies, supported by progressive elements in Congress.
The focus has been on changes to reference prices, and potential additional funding for export markets could be an important change.
Expect increases in crop insurance premium support (subsidy) levels for higher coverage levels and for area products.
Commodity program changes will ultimately be modest, but will favor cotton, rice and peanuts. Despite that, the safety net will be more significant across the board in the next few years because of the recent price history and the moving average calculations.
Constraints on the Secretary’s CCC spending will affect administrative programs and proposals going forward.
Based on what has been released so far, it seems like reference price changes are going to be the big change that impacts producers. A potential change in farm policy that is being overlooked is the need for a base acre overhaul (not just voluntary).
Reference price increases will be the most important change.

What’s Next for the Farm Bill?

As Farm Journal Washington Correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer reported two weeks ago , the House version of the farm bill made it out of committee just before Congress broke for a week-long recess. The contentious House Ag Committee markup of a new $1.51 trillion farm bill began on Thursday, May 23, and went into early Friday morning with four Democrats joining all 29 panel Republicans in voting for the measure, bringing the final tally to 33-21.

There a couple different paths to move the bill forward, but nothing has been set. House Speaker Mike Johnson could bring it to the House floor once he’s certain there are enough votes.

House Ag Committee Chairman GT Thompson recently stated that of the 435 members of Congress, more than half have never debated or voted on a farm bill before. He called it a unique challenge that requires a lot of education to bring people up to speed.

However, Wiesemeyer also says it could go to the House Rules Committee first, and there, the bill faces a couple of roadblocks for passage, including not only getting enough Democrats to support the bill, but also finding the support of hard-right Republicans.

The Senate version is a different story, as the the Senate Ag Committee hasn’t released the complete bill, only a preview of what is in it. What are the key differences in both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill? Wiesemeyer broke it all down here .

As Farmers Look to Cut Costs for 2025, Machinery and Technology Could Take the Biggest Hit

A Margin Squeeze is Setting in Across Row-Crop Farms, and 80% of Ag Economists Are Now Concerned It’ll Accelerate Consolidation

A Contentious House Ag Committee Markup of a New $1.51 Trillion Farm Bill Passes Out of Committee

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

House Agriculture Committee Set to Mark Up 942-Page Farm Bill Draft

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

Tue, 21 May 2024 22:22:21 GMT

The House bill favors production ag while the Senate bill puts lid on food stamp/TFP, conservation and CCC program changes.

The House on Friday released text and other information regarding its 942-page farm bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. (Here’s a link to text of the bill, the updated title-by-title summary can be found at this link and here’s a l ink to our Special Report on the measure.)

The Senate has not released text of its measure, only some summary details of what some charge is a “hodge-podge” of some 100 different bills from farm-state lawmakers.

Of note: We keep stressing that one of the keys in this debate will be official scoring of different aspects of the two bills. Those will show the House approach maintains the $1.51 trillion ten-year farm bill baseline, while the Senate appears to go over it by at least $5 billion and perhaps around $20 billion or more. So, the House approach is budget neutral, and the Senate is not. The official scoring will also show how the two chambers got to their total spending levels and how much funding is being made for various titles. That will answer the equity questions Democrats usually like to talk about on other issues, but not the farm bill.

The House Ag Committee on Thursday (May 23) will mark up the House farm bill. House Ag Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) told Agri-Talk on Friday that his panel will have the votes to clear the panel, but he has yet to receive any firm Democratic member commitments to vote for the House approach. But Thompson said those voting against it “do so at their own peril,” with many hailing from rural districts where a no vote could prove a political liability this fall.

House floor debate strategy, Thompson said, depends on what occurs during this Thursday’s markup session. Thompson said a panel vote along party lines would be “unfortunate,” but added, “we’ll still find a pathway to the floor.”

The real reason Thompson wants to get a markup session vote this week is that come June, new farm bill scoring forecasts will come from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and a new baseline would take additional time to work through, with likely different forecasts and implications for farm bill spending.

Democratic complaints in the House and Senate are unified and deal with House GOP efforts to reform the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), but not take any existing funding from the program, nor for the SNAP/food stamp program. Thompson’s bill would restrict what factors can be considered in future updates of the TFP, which is used to set benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A 2021 update conducted by the Biden administration resulted in a more than a 20% benefit (over $250 billion) increase, drawing criticism from Republicans over the methodology used and the result.

TFP changes would net $27 billion, House aides said. Some $12 billion to $16 billion would be “reinvested” in nutrition programs, while the balance would be shifted to other programs under the purview of the House Ag Sub./committee on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture, including the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) programs that are set to see funding doubled.

Aides say the money freed up from the TFP should not be viewed as a cut or as savings given the CBO projections assume future updates to TFP along the lines of the exceptionally large changes brought by the 2021 revamp. They also said the changes would lock in current nutrition program benefit levels set by TFP, preventing a future administration from conducting an update that results in lower ones.

Democrats are also in ideological lockstep against taking off any guardrails they insist on relative to conservation program spending — the House farm bill would remove climate guardrails from $13 billion in Inflation Reduction Act (IRA/Climate Bill) conservation funding. House Republicans note the bill removes the IRA’s climate sideboards to restore the locally led nature of conservation programs and provide flexibility for States — even if the conservation practices involved are not deemed “climate-smart.” Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has proposed keeping the funds focused on climate and within the four programs originally defined under the IRA: the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), and Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Republican aides said Thompson wants “to make sure that these programs remain flexible and can answer whatever natural resource problems are occurring.” They said casting a wider net with the funds will put more focus on the quality of projects — climate-smart or otherwise — rather than using incentives to boost the volume of projects using the more limited set of climate-smart practices. House aides emphasized that shifting the IRA funds into the bill would result in a permanently higher conservation funding baseline. “This is a long-term investment that increases conservation spending in Title II (Conservation) by about 25% in perpetuity,” they said.

CCC issue. Dems are also opposed to the House GOP push to suspend USDA’s Section 5 spending authority under the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a $30 billion borrowing authority fund (that Congress replenishes each year) that was used to pay for farmer aid during the Trump trade war with China, and billions of dollars USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack tapped out of CCC for various spending, including over $3 billion for “climate-smart” ag funding.

Some media say the House Ag bill has a significant funding gap, but sources say that is not the case. The issue: The CBO estimates that the suspension of Section 5 authority would save $8 billion over 10 years, but that is considerably less than the $53 billion needed to cover the cost of changes to commodity programs and even more for changes to crop insurance. Efforts to get CBO to alter their low-ball forecast led to Thompson asking and getting help from House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) who directly called CBO leadership about the matter. Says one farm bill contact: “Arrington has the power to do directive scorekeeping. Some farm bill analysts apparently do not understand this. I know that Arrington and staff are sure that everything is defensible. After Trump and Biden, does anyone believe that the Ag secretary will only use his discretion to spend less than $1 billion per year of CCC funds? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.”

House aides said they expect the cost of the Title I moves to be scored at between $50 billion and $53 billion, and when combined with crop insurance updates in Title II, the price tag rises to around $90 billion.

Democratic leadership in meetings have been lobbying against House farm bill proposals. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Stabenow reportedly have urged House Ag Democrats to vote against the farm bill during this Thursday’s markup session.

Stabenow made her views known about the House farm bill in a statement, offering some hope but also listing major differences:

“I’ve had several conversations with Chairman Thompson encouraging him to get his ideas on paper so that we can move this process forward. I’m glad his Committee released the Food, Farm, and National Security Act, and it appears that our visions for the 2024 Farm Bill have a lot in common.

“I remain deeply concerned that his proposal will split the broad, bipartisan coalition that has always been the foundation of a successful Farm Bill. It makes significant cuts to the family safety net that millions of Americans rely on, and it blocks USDA’s ability to provide real time assistance to farmers through the CCC to address emerging challenges. Even with these shortsighted cuts, it is unclear to me how they will pay for their proposal.

“Democrats have made clear from the beginning that we will not walk away from our commitment to the most vulnerable among us or from our farmers battling the effects of the climate crisis every day. The Food, Farm, and National Security Act clearly crosses those bright red lines and turns back the clock on decades of progress for farmers and families.

“The only path forward is holding together our broad coalition of farmers, hunger and nutrition advocates, rural communities, conservationists, and the climate community. That has always been how we ensure that our country’s farmers, families, workers, and rural communities have the certainty of a bipartisan, five-year farm bill.”

House Ag ranking member hammers House farm bill approach. “The discussion draft released by Chairman Thompson confirms my worst fears: House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America’s hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis,” said House Ag Ranking Member David Scott (D-Ga.). “The funding proposal that the Chairman has put forward does a disservice to American agriculture because it doesn’t provide a path forward to getting a bill passed on the House Floor,” Scott concluded.

Of note: Scott’s comments regarding a floor vote seems to acknowledge the measure will clear the Ag Committee, but a warning that a failure to secure Democratic support could be insurmountable on the House floor.

We will have more analysis of the Thursday House Ag markup vote later this week.

COMPARING THE TWO FARM BILLS. The following is not an exhaustive review of both House and Senate farm bills, but a digest of some key issues in various titles. Check the House and Senate Ag Committee web sites for additional information.

KEY FARM BILL SAFETY NET PROGRAMS:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Higher Reference Prices: Increases reference prices for all eligible commodities under PLC/ARC between 10% and just over 20%, enhancing the safety net for producers. Also, by increasing the statutory reference prices, the maximum effective reference price is also increased.

(Farm Journal)
Annual Election Maintained: Keeps the annual choice between PLC/ARC programs.
Increased ARC Coverage: Boosts ARC coverage from 86% to 90% of benchmark revenue and raises the payment band from 10% to 12.5%.

(Farm Journal)

Source: Combest-Sell Associates

(Farm Journal)

Source: Combest-Sell Associates
Expanded Base Acres: Provides an opportunity to add new base acres to farms that have no base, or that have been planting in excess of existing base acres. This provision does not modify or impact existing base acres. Expands base acres based on 2019-2023 plantings exceeding current base, including non-covered crops up to 15% of total acres. Includes provisions to establish payment yields on the additional base acres.
Higher Pay Limits: 1) Ends the disparate treatment of pass-through entities and 2) Raises pay limits for producers that get 75% or more of their income from farming and eligible for a payment limit of $155,000 (up from $125,000) that is indexed to inflation, and including LLCs and other farm structures.
Increased Loan Rates: Increases loan rates with more flexible repayment options and allows redemptions during government shutdowns. Provides for a more substantial increase in loan rates for commodities that did not receive an increase in the 2018 Farm Bill.

(Farm Journal)
Textile Mill Assistance: Enhances Economic Adjustment Assistance for Textile Mills. To account for persistent inflation and support the domestic textile industry, increases the payment rate from 3 cents to 5 cents under the program.
Sugar Policy Improvements: Increases loan rates for sugar beets and cane, and makes other policy improvements. The House farm bill would increase the national average loan rate to 24.00 cents for raw cane sugar; sugar beets: 136.55% of the loan rate per pound of raw cane sugar. The 2018 Farm Bill increased the national average loan rate to 19.75 cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 25.38 cents per pound for refined beet sugar. These rates are adjusted regionally to reflect marketing cost differentials.
Makes improvements in U.S. dairy policy: Including restoration of the “higher-of” formula in calculating Class I fluid milk price and forward pricing authority. Increases cap on Tier I for Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program to 6 million pounds. Provides opportunity to update production history for DMC. Provides a 25% discount on DMC premiums for operations that enroll in coverage for the life of the 2024 Farm Bill. Mandates biennial cost surveys to ensure make allowances accurately reflect the cost of manufacturing dairy products. Ensures the Dairy Forward Pricing Program does not expire.
Enhances standing disaster programs: Including the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), the Tree Assistance Program (TAP), and authorizes any future ad hoc assistance to be delivered via block grants to states. Increases payment rate of LIP to 100% of fair market value of the animal if the loss is caused by an attack by a federally protected species. Allows for a supplemental indemnity payment for the loss of unborn livestock if the loss of the gestating animal qualifies for assistance. Ensures farming operations are eligible for assistance under LIP, ELAP, TAP, Livestock Forage Production Program (LFP), and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) if the operation derives 75% or more of its income from farming, ranching, or forestry.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Reference Price Increase: 5% increase in reference prices for crops not benefiting from the 2018 Farm Bill escalator, including rice, peanuts, and seed cotton.
Base Acres for Underserved Producers: Opportunity to establish new or additional base acres if recent planting exceeded base for underserved producers.
Prohibition on Payments: No commodity payments on land owned by persons/entities with an AGI of $700,000 or greater, affecting tenants who cash rent or sharecrop the land; lowers AGI eligibility for commodity programs from $900,000 to $700,000.
ARC/PLC Election: Maintenance of the annual election between ARC/PLC.
PLC Payment Band: Introduction of a 20% payment band on PLC, similar to the 10% payment band on ARC, which is maintained.
ARC Coverage Increase: Increase in ARC coverage from 86% to 88%.
Marketing Loan Rates: Authorization to increase marketing loan rates by up to 110% of their current levels based on production costs.
Textile Mill Assistance: Increases in Economic Adjustment Assistance for Textile Mills.
Sugar Policy Improvements: Undisclosed increase to sugar loan rates and other policy improvements.
Dairy Pricing Authority: Extension of forward pricing authority for dairy.
Livestock Disaster Programs: Improvements to livestock disaster programs (LIP, TAP, ELAP) and authorization for a standing disaster program, pending appropriations.
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance: Modifications including eliminating AGI testing and increasing pay limits.

CROP INSURANCE:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Increases premium support under crop insurance for beginning producers and veteran producers for a 10-year period.
Encourages R&D on improved risk management tools for specialty crops.
Increases SCO and WFRP coverage to 90%, with 80% premium support under SCO.
Requires development of certain new policies to meet the risk management needs of producers.
Addresses private sector delivery concerns by re-establishing an annual inflation adjustment for A&O, eliminating the current flaw that harms specialty crop A&O, and by ensuring states with high losses the A&O necessary to accurately adjust the higher volume of claims in a timely fashion.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Increases premium support for beginning producers and veteran producers akin to the House farm bill.
Increases premium support for SCO at 80% and increases coverage level to 88%.
Includes performance-based discounts for climate and other environmental practices.
Expands native sod regulations from Prairie Pothole Region to the entire country.
Increases support for Whole Farm and Micro Farm insurance policies to serve small and underserved producers. Provides frequent review of rating and actuarial soundness of policies.
Prioritizes underserved producers and crops for new policy development.
Codifies the cease-and-desist order of RMA relative to cancelation of policies, etc.
Allows FCIC to bypass private sector delivery to deliver certain crop insurance policies.
Overhauls A&O, including providing a total A&O on all A&O, and
Provides for a seat at the table for agent groups in any new SRA renegotiation.

CONSERVATION:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Summary: Maintains and extends the new investment in the Conservation Title made under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act (IRA/Climate Bill) by making the new funding baseline permanent rather than subject to a Sept. 30, 2031, expiration as is currently the case. The funds may also be used for all conservation purposes rather than just climate initiatives, so the funds are available to all producers and program efforts are locally led.
CRP: 1) Maintains current 27-million-acre CRP acreage cap and requires state allocations be based on historical allocations. 2) Incentivizes enrollment of marginal lands by basing rental rates on land capability classification and paying high rental rates for land capability classes III through VII than other eligible lands. Class I and II soils would receive up to 85% of the county’s average rental rate, while class III soils would receive 100% of the county’s average rental rate. Classes IV through VII would go up to 155%. 3) Increases payment limitation from $50,000 to $125,000 per year.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Summary: (1) Maintains IRA dollars in permanent budget baseline; (2) permanently authorizes conservation programs (i.e., the programs would not require a farm bill to continue but would be treated effectively akin to SNAP); the Commodity Title would be the only farm bill title with significant mandatory funding that would require reauthorization every 5 years or so in a farm bill; (3) continues IRA-mandated climate strictures on funding and reorients RCCP, EQIP, and CSP to focus more on climate; (4) new mandatory spending —some believe about $13 billion above and beyond IRA funding — would occur with regard to CRP, ACEP, and CSP, and the bill also proposes to codify the $5 cover crop program where there is a state match.
CRP: Gradually increases CRP acreage cap from current 27 million acres to 29 million acres.

TRADE PROMOTION & FOOD AID:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Trade promotion: Doubles funding for the Foreign Market Development and Market Access Program.
U.S. Food Aid Prioritization:
* Emphasizes U.S. food donations over cash in international food aid programs.
* Requires at least 50% of aid to be actual U.S. food.
* Enhances USDA’s role in delivering U.S. food aid programs.
* Streamlines the procurement process for U.S. food to address immediate crises, ensuring effectiveness of U.S. food aid.

SENATE FARM BILL:

(1) Preserves current funding levels for MAP and FMD, (2) Preserves U.S. commodity donations as an option under U.S. food aid programs, generally at current levels.

FOOD STAMPS/SNAP, TFP AND DIETARY GUIDELINES:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Maintains current nutrition title programs, increasing benefits in certain cases.
Reforms the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) update such that the provision may not be used by the Ag Secretary in the future to increase SNAP benefits in the manner that it was done in August of 2021 (i.e., an increase of more than $250 billion) but also prevents the provision from being used to decrease benefits of that magnitude. Apart from removing the possibility of huge increases or huge cuts in the future, as well as a few instances where there are increase, SNAP benefits remain unchanged.
Reforms Dietary Guidelines for Americans process to remove the politics and emphasize good science and transparency.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Maintains current TFP process; and

Increases funding of an estimated nearly $8 billion for SNAP, TEFAP, Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and Community Food Projects.

ANIMAL DISEASE PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE EFFORTS, MODIFIES EFFORTS SUCH AS CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 12:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Invests new funds in programs designed to protect livestock and poultry from catastrophic animal diseases.
Clarifies that states and local governments cannot impose, directly or indirectly, as a condition for sale or consumption, a condition or standard on the production of covered livestock unless the livestock is physically located within such state or local government.

* Provides clarity to national markets by ensuring producers must only comply with applicable production standards imposed by their own state or local government.
* Protects producers from having to comply with a patchwork of state-by-state regulations.
* Protects the rights of states and local governments to establish standards as they deem necessary, but only for those raising covered livestock within their own borders.
* Only covers production (excluding domestic animals raised for the primary purpose of egg production), and does not include the movement, harvesting, or further processing of covered livestock.
Requires USDA to report on its preparedness to support livestock producers and poultry growers facing economic losses due to animal disaster outbreaks.

SENATE FARM BILL:

New mandatory funding for historically underserved producers
New funding for local and regional food systems
New funding for programs that address animal diseases
Authorizes additional climate initiatives, including climate hubs
Creates a USDA Special Investigator for Competition
No comparable language regarding Prop 12, etc., that is in House farm bill

OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING LOANS:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Updates and increases limits under guaranteed and direct operating and ownership loans to reflect the modern costs of planting, growing, and harvesting a crop and raising livestock.
Includes provisions to ease securing credit for beginning producers.
Increases loan limits for the Farm Service Agency

* Guaranteed farm ownership loan limits would increase from $2.24 million to $3.5 million
* Guaranteed operating loan limits would increase to $3 million
* FSA direct ownership would go from $600,000 to $850,000
* FDA direct operating loans would go from $400,000 to $750,000
* Eligibility requirements for FSA direct real estate loans would be lowered to one year of experience

SENATE FARM BILL:

Updates guaranteed and direct operating and ownership loans on par with the House proposal except guaranteed operating loans are lower under the Senate version.
Seeks to ease securing credit for beginning producers.

BROADBAND:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Strengthens rural broadband by working to connect those areas still without service while improving those areas with service that is poor by requiring higher standards of providers in exchange for financial assistance.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Strengthens rural broadband and increases funding for the Rural Partnerships and Prosperity and Investments in Rural Infrastructure programs.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Invests mandatory funding in agricultural research facilities and other research title initiatives.
Invests mandatory funding in specialty crop research initiatives.
Invests mandatory funding in 1890s land grants.
Establishes a commission to improve the accuracy and efficiency of NASS data collection and reporting.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Increases funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, 1890s land grants, agricultural research facilities, and Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research.

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Renews and makes improvements to renewable energy programs, including the Rural Energy for America Program.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Includes extensions and modifications of the suite of energy title programs but the Senate summary does not provide great detail. The Senate bill does increase funding for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical and Biobased Product Assistance Program, Biobased Markets, and the Bio Preferred Program.

HORTICULTURE:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Renews and makes improvements to horticulture programs, including new investment in the Specialty Crop Block Grant program, the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program, Organics, etc.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Includes renewal of programs but also funding increases for Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, Organics, etc.

Chapter 12 Bankruptcies Don’t Fully Reveal the Pain in Farm Country

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:08:01 GMT

The pain in dairy country is escalating, as brutal winter weather forced Mitch Thompson to dump milk for the first time ever.

“As a young farmer, I never have (dumped milk) in my career, but in talking with my dad, he never had, either,” said Mitch Thompson, a dairy farmer and forage harvester from Lewiston, Minn.

The headache and heartache in dairy country is not new, as waning milk prices have caused dairies to disappear at a historic pace.

“There are a lot of people that have a lot of doubt on everything and are really down,” said Thompson. “There are a lot of good farmers that have left the industry, and that’s hard to see.”

While states like Minnesota and Wisconsin are seeing an uptick in Chapter 12 bankruptcies, the situation isn’t consuming agriculture everywhere. Economists at The Ohio State University recently dug into the number of farm bankruptcies, with the findings published in ag lender Farmer Mac’s Spring Edition of “The Feed.”

“One of the things they found digging through all of the U.S. court Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings is that, yes, all those news stories are true, the number of bankruptcies is up in 2018, but it’s not an alarming increase,” said Jackson Takach, economist with Farmer Mac.

The Ohio State University economist Robert Dinterman co-researched the trends, discovering averages over the past few decades.

“Since 2005, we’re kind of at a range that on average we probably see around 450 to 500 bankruptcies filed for farmers each year,” said Dinterman.

Dinterman said the U.S. saw 498 Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings in 2018 and 501 in 2017, which is right in line with average, and well below the uptick agriculture saw in 2011. One major reason why there isn’t a surge in filings is land values.

“We’re not seeing a large decline in farm farmland values across the United States,” said Dinterman. “There are particular regions in the U.S. where we have seen declines in farmland values and where we do see farmland values declining that’s where we also see a little bit of spikes in bankruptcies as well.”

Dinterman says while some states are seeing Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings rise, filings are nowhere near levels produced in the 1980s.

“We’re not seeing anything that is historically anywhere close to massive stress in the farming industry,” he said. “To give you a couple of numbers, back in the 1980s when the Chapter 12 code became an available option for farmers, we saw roughly 7 to 10 farmers per 10,000 farms filing for Chapter 12. What we saw the past two years is something closer to 2.5 farmers.”

But Dinterman said just looking at the number of Chapter 12 filings isn’t an accurate measure of the farm economy today.

“I would actually say that the bankruptcies are more of a ‘canary in the coal mine’ type situation,” said Dinterman. If you’re going to act if you’re going to assess their cultural economy you don’t want to just look at bankruptcy. You want to look at all different measures, so you look at the price indices, look at how commodities are kind of trending over time, look at yields, look across farmland values.”

The reality is lower commodity prices means financial stress is mounting for many in agriculture, and one attorney said it’s showing up with many farmers that don’t qualify for Chapter 12 today.

“Many farmers have debt that’s greater than you can file using a chapter 12 bankruptcy; the limit is $4,411,400,” said Joe Peiffer, attorney and owner of Ag & Business Legal Strategies in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Peiffer specializes in bankruptcies. He said the $4.1 million cap for bankruptcy is too low.

“I have a farmer who filed about a year ago, and he was bucking the limit then, which is a little less, not much less, and he’s farming about 1400 acres, all but 80 which is rented,” said Peiffer.

Stories like this are something Peiffer says are way too common. Legislation introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers was recently introduced in Congress called the Family Farmer Relief Act would raise the debt limit for Chapter 12 bankruptcies to $10 million – a move Peiffer says can’t come soon enough.

“It’s important to give farmers an escape hatch if they have to downsize in order to make it work,” said Peiffer. “Otherwise, the taxes will be an impediment that will stick with them a long time.”

Peiffer says filing for Chapter 12 bankruptcy isn’t an “easy out” for an operation carrying the burden of negative margins. Instead, it gives producers a fresh start.

“Chapter 12 is not easy; no, bankruptcy is easy,” said Peiffer. “You have to list every debt you have, you have to list every asset you have every creditor, your list is given notice of what’s gone going on. And they have the opportunity to come in and examine you about what happened and where you’re going.”

If a producer is in a dire situation to pay mounting debt, Peifer thinks quick action is key.

“The people who are decisive and make decisions and change are the ones that have the best opportunity to stay in the game,” said Peiffer. “Those who continue doing what they’ve always done if they’ve been losing money on corn and beans for many years and they don’t change anything, will continue losing it until they lose the farm.”

Mark Greenwood, chief diversified markets officers for Compeer Financial, sees first-hand the financial stress some producers are facing. He said it’s vital producers take an accurate financial snapshot of their operation by examining their financial position.

“It’s kind of like doing a physical checkup every year,” he said. “You need to see where am I at today, am I getting tight on working capital and could I do some things to help with some liquidity,” said Greenwood.

Greenwood said a couple of ways producers can reduce debt include chipping away at pricey land rents or even eliminating non-performing assets. Any farmer faced with negative margins and climbing input costs, Greenwood suggests thinking outside the box.

“The one thing we often hear from farmers is healthcare benefits, and what they have to pay for insurance and it’s exorbitant,” said Greenwood. “But all of a sudden if one of those family members can get off-farm income to help defer some of those expenses, what we’ve seen there is that does help the bottom-line, but I know those decision are difficult.”

Price pain that doesn’t seem to be improving for most, but Greenwood said a proactive approach and being honest and transparent with any lender, can go a long way in ensuring the longevity of your livelihood.

Related Stories: