Stabenow Finally Releases Full Text of Senate Farm Bill; Here’s What It Means for Agriculture

Stabenow unveiled 1,397-page details of her long-awaited farm bill Monday morning. This comes as early Sunday evening Pro Farmer broke the news that Senate Ag Chairwoman (D-Mich.) had briefed Democrats but not Republicans on her coming farm bill text, which was expected to be released Monday.

Stabenow said in a news release and summary of the bill, “The foundation of every successful farm bill is built on holding together the broad, bipartisan farm bill coalition. This is a strong bill that invests in all of agriculture, helps families put food on the table, supports rural prosperity, and holds that coalition together.”

The Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act includes $39 billion in new resources “to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong.” The bill builds on the proposal Stabenow released in May by investing new resources and including innovative, new ideas to deliver the assistance farmers need faster.

It provides farmers with the certainty of a 5-year farm bill and the immediate help they need to manage the urgent needs of the present. It doubles down on our commitment to rural communities, ensures that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) keeps up with the realities of American life, and brings the historic investments in climate-smart conservation practices into the farm bill. These new investments include:

• $20 billion to strengthen the farm safety net to support all of agriculture and establishes a permanent structure for disaster assistance so emergency relief reaches farmers faster;
• $8.5 billion to help families make ends meet, put food on the table, and improve access to nutrition assistance;
• $4.3 billion to improve quality of life in the rural communities that millions of Americans call home.”

Senate GOP Ag Committee Ranking Member Reacts

Senate Ag Committee ranking member John Boozman (R-Ark.) on X wrote: “An 11th hour partisan proposal released 415 days after the expiration of the current farm bill is insulting. America’s farmers deserve better.”

Meanwhile, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) issued the following statement:

“Though America’s pork producers appreciate Chairwoman Stabenow’s efforts to publish Farm Bill text, this is simply not a viable bill, as it fails to provide a solution to California Prop. 12,” said NPPC President Lori Stevermer, a pork producer from Easton, Minn. “Pork producers have continually spoken up about the negative impacts of this issue, and it is a shame these conversations were disregarded.”

In May, NPPC secured 100 percent of pork producers’ priorities in the House Agriculture Committee-passed bipartisan 2024 Farm Bill. In June, producers once again secured all policy priorities in Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member John Boozman’s 2024 Farm Bill framework.

NPPC said it urges both chambers of Congress to swiftly consider and pass a Farm Bill this year that includes a fix to California Proposition 12, a state law that places arbitrary housing standards on the pork industry, creating uncertainty for pork producers as they look to continue their operations to the next generation.

Additional Impact on Agriculture from Farm CPA

In a post this morning, Paul Neiffer of Farm CPA Report included a quick preview of the items that jumped out at him relative to the farm bill details released by Stabenow.

• Reference Prices: The House proposal raised reference prices by approximately 10-20%. The Senate proposal appears to raise reference prices by a flat 5% (rounded). Although it appears that Cotton only went up by 4% instead of 5%.
  
• Increase in Base Acres
  
  • Only underserved and disadvantaged farmers may increase base acres
  • Based on average of 2018-2022 plantings
  • Includes prevent planted acres
  • Maximum increase of 160 acres per farm
  • If disadvantage farmer does not farm acres during 2025-2029, then increased base acres are eliminated
  • Special 2023 and 2024 ARC/PLC election
  • Automatic election to be paid the highest amount for 2023 and 2024 crop year even if the farmer originally elected ARC or PLC.

• Limit on PLC Payment: The maximum amount of payment for PLC will be 15% of the effective reference price. As example, assume a farmer has a PLC yield of 200 bushels for corn and the effective reference price is $4.30 and the final corn harvest price is $3.50. Under the old PLC rules, the farmer could receive 200 bushels times 80 cents per bushel or $160. Under this proposal, the farmer is limited to 65 cents or $130 per acre.
  
• Partial PLC Payments: Instead of waiting until after October 1 to collect a PLC payment, the farmer, in certain situations may elect to receive up to 50% of the crop beginning February 1. This is based on firm projections by USDA that the final harvest price will be below the effective reference price. If USDA pays too much, then the farmer must pay it back.
  
• Agricultural Risk Coverage: As expected, the Bill increases the guarantee from the current 86% to 88%, less than the 90% in the House Bill. However, not expected, the Bill increases the maximum payment to 12.50% of benchmark revenue, matching the House Bill and makes this retroactive to the 2024 crop. 2023 crop remains at 10%.
  
• Partial ARC Payments: Provides same mechanism for partial payments as under PLC.
  
• Increase to Marketing Loan Rates: For 2025 crops and subsequent years, the loan rate will be the lesser of 110% of current loan rates or an adjustment based on current input costs versus a five-year average.
  
• Sugar Program: Increase sugar cane payment to 24 cents per pound for 2025-2029. Sugar beet growers will receive 136.5% of sugar cane payment rate.
  
• Permanent ERP: Emergency Relief Program would be made permanent (at least until next farm bill). Payment limits of $500,000 for specialty crops and $250,000 for all other crops.
  Terms appear similar to old ERP programs, but it does not mandate how USDA will administer it, etc. Also, no extra payment limit if you can prove you are a farmer. This may still be messy for CPAs to help farmers calculate their claim. Also, requires farmers to insure all acres.
  
• Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limits: AGI limits dropped from $900,000 to $700,000.
  
  • Increases AGI limits to $1.5 million for specialty and high-value crops.
  • What happens if a farmer grows both? The Bill does not address this, other than likely leave it up to USDA to come up with rules.
  • Waiver of AGI rules available to economically distressed producer.
  • It appears that no payments will be allowed if the land is owned by someone or an entity whose AGI is over $700,000. This means that a farmer who is cash renting that ground will not qualify for any payment on that ground. Under current rules and the House Farm Bill proposal, any farmer who is cash renting the ground and their AGI is under the limit will qualify for a payment. This is a major change and will create the law of unintended consequences. They seem to want to not have an incentive for wealthier individuals to purchase land since their high AGI will not qualify them for any payments but under current rules they get no payment anyway.

• Increase in CCC Scoring: Section 1708 indicates that for purposes of CBO scoring, the restrictions on utilizing CCC funds shall be $6.7 billion per year for 2024-2033. The last scoring by CBO was $400 million per year.

CRP Rentals Limit Increased to $125,000 from current $50,000

• Crop Insurance Changes: Increases subsidies for beginning and veteran farmers and ranchers to essentially match House proposal.
  
  • Increases SCO to allow for payment at 88% instead of 86% of guarantee. House was at 90%.
  • Increases premium subsidies.
• Makes improvements to Whole Farm and Micro Farm insurance plans.

Comments:

Several contacts, asked to respond to Stabenow’s late farm bill details, used the same words: “Wow, finally, but too late.” Stabenow is departing Congress after this session ends, and veteran farm bill watchers say this late-entry farm bill is not a positive chapter in her long career. Most are asking why she chose today in releasing the details, and why she took a partisan approach in briefing about the matter.