Stabenow, Thompson Release Outlines For 2024 Farm Bill

2024 Election Agriculture (USDA)Aviation Fuel/Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)BioRefineries/Renewable Fuel Production Federal Agency/Executive Branch Federal Legislation Federal Regulation Government Resources Michigan Opinions Pennsylvania Policy Resources

May 02, 2024

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Erin Voegele (Ethanol Producer Magazine) U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., on May 1 released outlines for competing versions of the 2024 Farm Bill.

The Farm Bill is a package of legislation that is normally passed every five years. It covers a wide range of programs, including crop insurance, nutrition programs and programs that support bioenergy initiatives.

Congress most recently passed a Farm Bill package in 2018. That legislation was set to expire on Sept. 30, 2023. Lawmakers, however, extended the provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill for one year, through Sept. 30, 2024, as part of a stopgap bill approved on Nov. 14, 2024, to avoid a government shutdown. Work is currently underway to craft the 2024 Farm Bill.

The bill outline released by Stabenow is formally titled the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act. The legislative package contains more than 100 bipartisan bills and puts the 2024 Farm Bill back on track to being signed into law before the end of 2024, according to information released by Stabenow’s office.

The Energy Title of Stabenow’s Senate bill addresses a variety of programs that are important to the biofuels and bioenergy industries, including the Biobased Markets Program; the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance program (9003 loan guarantee program); the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels; the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program; the Rural Energy for America Program; the Feedstock Flexibility Program for Bioenergy Producers; the Biomass Crop Assistance Program; and the Carbon Utilization and Biogas Education Program. In addition, the bill adds definitions for lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), ultra-low-carbon bioethanol and zero-carbon bioethanol under the Energy Title. The Forestry Title of the bill also expects the Wood Innovations Grant Program and the Community Wood Facilities Grant Program.

Specific provisions included under the Energy Title of the Senate bill include those specifying that SAF is an eligible technology for the 9003 loan guarantee program and removing the requirement for 9003 loan guarantee projects to be technologically new. The 2024 Farm Bill also introduces several program changes under the Biobased Markets Program and REAP.

The bill outline released by Thompson is less detailed but includes some information on the House’s plans for the Energy Title. A summary indicates the Energy Title of the House bill aims to increase access to energy system and efficiency updates for farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses while encouraging growth and innovation for biofuels, bioproducts and related feedstocks. According to the summary, this includes increasing access to the REAP program; provisions to streamline program delivery and enhance program integrity for programs like the BioPreferred Program and 9003 loan guarantee program; and protecting investments in higher blends infrastructure.

An outline of the Senate bill is available on the Senate Committee for Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry website, while an outline of the House bill is available on the House Agriculture Committee website. READ MORE

Related articles

House Republican farm bill skirts climate change: Agriculture Chair Glenn Thompson's farm bill summary boosts conservation programs but avoids any mention of reducing greenhouse gases. (Politico Pro Greenwire)
GOP farm bill ensnares climate-minded Democrats (Politico's Power Switch)
House unveils $1.5 trillion farm bill after long delay (Politico)
Battle lines drawn as farm bill proposals take shape -- House Agriculture Chair Glenn Thompson’s detailed policy outline shows some overlap with — and sharp differences from — Democrats’ approach (E&E Daily)
Tell Congress: Support Family Farmers and Ranchers in the 2024 Farm Bill! (National Farmers Union)
House Releases Discussion Draft Of Its Version Of The 2024 Farm Bill (Ethanol Producer Magazine)
Left and right unite in panning House Republicans’ farm bill proposal (The Hill)
Committee OKs farm bill after scrap over climate-smart ag: The partisan vote on the House Republican-written farm bill foreshadows a tough route to enactment this year. (Politico Pro E&E Daily)
Farm bill outcome could hinge on November election results (Agri-Pulse)
House Farm Bill Includes SAF Provisions (Energy.AgWired.com)
Will Congress Pass a New Farm Bill in 2024? (AgWeb)

Excerpt from Politico's Power Switch: The $1.5 trillion farm bill that lawmakers are expected to advance this week is pitting Democratic climate priorities against the political realities of an election year.

About a dozen swing-district House Democrats are facing pressure from party leadership to oppose the bill, introduced last week by House Agriculture Chair Glenn “G.T.” Thompson of Pennsylvania. But jeopardizing timely passage of the five-year, must-pass policy package might not go over well with rural voters come November.

Thompson’s farm bill includes a number of bipartisan compromises — including a sizable boost to conservation funding and, notably, a reversal of a provision that banned low-income Americans with a felony drug conviction from accessing food assistance. But it would eliminate the climate focus of conservation programs that Democrats had won in President Joe Biden’s 2022 signature climate law, writes Marc Heller.

That has prompted Democrats to rally around a competing bill put forward by Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, which includes the Inflation Reduction Act’s “climate-smart” agriculture funding, along with other climate provisions.

...

Stabenow told reporters last week that even with the climate stipulation in her farm bill, the majority of conservation projects farmers take on would remain eligible for federal funding.

Dismissing accusations that his bill is untenable, Thompson defended the measure, saying it “is the product of extensive feedback” from those with a direct stake in the bill.

He told POLITICO reporter Meredith Lee Hill in a recent interview that his proposal puts the “farm” back in the farm bill “in a serious way.”

But Democratic leaders have made it clear they will not support the farm bill as Thompson wrote it. That means farm-district Democrats — such as Angie Craig of Minnesota and Jim Costa of California — face the prospect of voting against the main agriculture policy bill. A tough spot, indeed. READ MORE

Excerpt from National Farmers Union: The United States House Agriculture Committee is set to consider the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 on Thursday, May 23.

Members of Congress and the Committee need to know that as a Farmers Union member or supporter, you support a farm bill that promotes a stronger farm safety net, builds fairer and more competitive markets, and creates better opportunities for the next generation of farmers.

The current draft of the bill includes several Farmers Union priorities, including improvements to crop insurance and other safety net programs. There are also areas that could be improved – notably, the bill does not include provisions to increase competition and transparency in the agriculture economy, and the current draft also includes nutrition program provisions that will make it harder for the most vulnerable to feed their families. While the draft retains some important new investments in voluntary conservation programs, it also removes important new opportunities for farmers to play a role in fighting climate change. READ MORE

Excerpt from Ethanol Producer Magazine: According to a summary released by the House Ag Committee, the Energy Title aims to increase access to energy system and efficiency updates for farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses while encouraging growth and innovation for biofuels, bioproducts and related feedstocks.

Specially, the bill affirms sustainable aviation fuel as an advanced biofuel, in line with provisions included in the Farm to Fly Act of 2023.

It also revises the USDA’s Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program (9003 loan guarantee program) by expanding eligibility for innovative biobased product manufacturing technologies and authorizing the agency to waive the requirement to demonstrate commercial viability for projects adopting commercially available technologies. Also regarding the 9003 loan guarantee program, the bill establishes a technical review agreement that outlines the specific objectives, outcomes and conditions by which the agency can determine if a project is technically feasible.

In addition, the bill increases access to the Rural Energy for America Program by increasing the maximum loan guarantee to $50 million increasing the federal cost-share to 50% for beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers. It also includes language to encourage underutilized technologies in REAP implementation and requires the agency to consider the potential improvements to the financial condition of a REAP applicant when scoring applications.

Other provisions of the bill reauthorize and improve the USDA’s BioPreferred Program, including via the development of NAICS and NAPCS codes and a study focused on the development of nationally uniform labeling standards for bioproducts.

Additional provisions of the bill reauthorize the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels and the Biomass Crop Assistance Program and maintain the authority for and investments in the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program. READ MORE

Excerpt from The Hill: The principal bone of contention is that Thompson’s proposed legislation contains tens of billions of dollars in subsidies that would overwhelmingly go to a few thousand of America’s wealthiest cotton, rice and peanut farmers — money that would likely come from either climate funding or food aid.

Heritage and Environmental Working Group (EWG) “may not agree on much, but we agree that farmers are sophisticated business leaders who should make their money in the market — not by becoming more dependent on federal support,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s vice president for government affairs.

“We agree that we need a farm safety net,” Faber added. “But what Chairman Thompson has proposed is more akin to a trampoline.”

The right and left have very different visions of the food system, which drive different ideas of why Thompson’s compromise is a problem.

For left-leaning groups and lawmakers — whose viewpoints hold a powerful sway in the Democratic-controlled Senate — cuts to food aid and climate funding are clear red lines, though such groups offered grudging support for House measures to increase resources for young or minority farmers or land grant universities.

To the right, including the House Freedom Caucus, cuts in general would be attractive in an era of rising deficits — but Heritage characterized Thompson’s proposal as an attempt to smuggle in permanent subsidy increases to America’s wealthiest farmers through the back door.

“There’s a reason you’re seeing so many groups from across the ideological spectrum in opposition — there’s not an economic justification for it,” David Ditch, a senior policy analyst at Heritage, told The Hill.

Increasing subsidies, Ditch added, would be understandable “if farmers were going bankrupt left and right.”

But while prices of farm supplies are going up, commodity prices have increased more. “It’s a distortion of markets,” he said of the proposed increases.

Rather than providing aid for farmers on the margins, he said, “this is like locking in historically high revenue levels for farming operations that are very financially stable, and who have access to credit markets for when times are tough — operated by households with dramatically above average income and wealth.”

Of particular concern to both left- and right-wing opponents of the bill is the increase to what are called “reference prices,” a U.S. Department of Agriculture program that pays farmers when commodity prices drop below a certain level.

The higher that level is set, the higher the potential payment from the program, and the greater the likelihood that farmers will get it.

The increase to reference prices for the three chosen commodities — rice, peanuts and cotton — under the new House proposal mean that farmers of those crops would get automatic payments for each of the five years a new farm bill would be in effect, because levels would be set so high that farmers would get payments no matter what, according to an EWG report.

EWG also found that between 2021 and 2023, thousands of farmers had “triple-dipped” by using distinct federal programs to cover the same drop in prices — amounting to a total cost to taxpayers of $55.2 billion.

The bill would also increase subsidies for insurance for farmers of major commodities, such as corn and wheat — programs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found pay America’s wealthiest farmers about $2 for every dollar they put in.

In a November report, the GAO suggested saving billions by cutting that proportion to more like $1.59 to $1 — a proposal Thompson called “not worth the paper it is printed on.”

The office, he said, “completely ignores the benefits of Federal crop insurance, which is one of the most successful examples of a public-private partnership in existence.”

The programs, he added, “bolster rural economies by ensuring that producers can pay back their lenders, retain their employees, and get back on their feet to farm again the following season.”

Rather than cutting support, Thompson’s bill would raise coverage levels, increase the federal share of premiums and lower the amount of losses needed for farmers to claim a payment.

The issue of payment is another place where right and left both see problems — on one side, because of the increase in spending, and on the other, because of what would be cut to cover it.

Because the farm bill’s total is capped, Thompson would need more than $90 billion in cuts to cover the proposed price tag and crop insurance increases, according to trade journal Dairy Herd Management.

Thompson told Agri-Pulse that cuts to the Commodity Credit Corporation — which makes loans according to administration priorities like trade or climate change — would net $53 billion; the Congressional Budget Office, however, says that number is more like $8 billion.

Part of the projected shortfall would be made up by freezing the list of foods covered by nutritional aid programs — a change Thompson has said would cut $30 billion from farm bill spending over the next decade.

Some of the rest of the shortfall could be made up by cuts and creative reallocations to the approximately $19 billion in funding for agricultural programs to slow the onslaught of climate change, Ditch of the Heritage Foundation said.

“If we go down the line, those reference prices are still going to be higher level, but won’t have [Inflation Reduction Act] money to use as an offset,” he said.

That last bargain is unattractive for conservatives, because it would use a one-time package to pay for an increase in reference prices and crop insurance that is functionally permanent, Ditch said.

He also noted that it would also violate a clear red line for Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). “I’m very skeptical that the Senate is interested in that particular tradeoff.”

Progressive farm groups such as the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) have argued that the existing structure of “safety net programs” like crop insurance and reference prices effectively protect unsustainable forms of agriculture from the need to adopt a more resilient, diversified approach — at taxpayer expense.

Though NSAC acknowledges that Thompson’s bill would also add support and subsidies to help smaller and more diversified farms access insurance — a longtime demand of farm groups — the group argues that it would do little to actually bring such aid to fruition.

While the proposed legislation would require studies of challenges that small producers face, for instance, the NSAC said “those barriers and corresponding solutions are already well documented” in similar studies ordered in the last farm bill. READ MORE

Excerpt from Energy.AgWired.com: The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 that advanced out of the House Agriculture Committee last week includes provisions for Sustainable Aviation Fuel under the Energy Title (IX).

The title “(a)ffirms sustainable aviation fuel as an advanced biofuel” as seen in H.R.6271 – Farm to Fly Act of 2023.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Coalition Executive Director Alison Graab called the provision “a good first step in the further advancement of SAF” since it will make SAF eligible for USDA programs and help develop new markets for crop and agricultural waste feedstocks. “Although more work remains, the provisions of the bill affirming SAF as an advanced biofuel and providing for greater USDA collaboration regarding SAF underscore the significant role of SAF — not just in providing a clean and reliable jet fuel — but in also supporting rural economic development, creating a new market and economic opportunities for farmers, and ensuring American energy security,” said Graab.

The legislation also reauthorizes the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels and the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, and maintains investments in the Higher Blends Infrastructure Incentive Program. READ MORE

Excerpt from AgWeb: 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.” READ MORE