Similar to House GOP farm bill features with a few differences; Key charts show Boozman’s vision
Senate Republicans proposed a $1.51 trillion farm bill framework that seeks a 15% average increase in crop reference prices, aimed at providing additional price support for farmers. Ranking member John Boozman (R-Ark.) expressed hope for bipartisan negotiations to pass the bill. Link to short summary. Link to key priorities. Link to titles.
The framework, while comprehensive, will not be officially introduced by Republicans, who are the minority in the Senate. This proposal contrasts with Senate Democrats’ plan, which includes a 5% increase in crop reference prices. These prices are crucial for determining USDA subsidy payouts under programs like price loss coverage.
Key differences between the parties include the GOP’s push to tie food-aid benefits more closely to inflation and redirect climate change funds to general conservation. Democrats label these priorities as “poison pills,” complicating the likelihood of passing the bill before the end-of-year true deadline.
The GOP framework also proposes limits on the Commodity Credit Corporation’s discretionary spending, mandates the recovery of SNAP benefit overpayments, and focuses benefit increases solely on inflation. Democrats argue this would cut SNAP benefits by $30 billion over a decade.
The Senate GOP plan includes doubling funding for agricultural research and programs promoting agricultural trade.
The framework also:
- Increases crop insurance levels by increasing support for the Supplemental Coverage Option to 80% and the coverage level to 90% for more than 55 specialty and row crops.
- Reporting requirements for foreign purchase and ownership of farmland. Lawmakers are pushing for federal reporting requirements in the Senate GOP farm bill under Title XII, the miscellaneous section. “This modernization will help ensure compliance with reporting requirements and provides a clearer picture of the scope and scale of the issues foreign ownership of U.S. farmland poses to our country,” according to the framework.
- Doubles funding for land grant universities for research on topics such as fertilizer application, pesticides and labor, Boozman said, adding the investment in research will help with “getting agriculture into this century.”
- Outline for a SNAP Dairy Nutrition Incentives Program, or DNIP, which expands on the SNAP Healthy Fluid Milk Incentives (HFMI) program to include all varieties of milk, as well as cheese and yogurt and cultured products.
- Ensures any proposed changes to the Class I mover formula will be determined by USDA through the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) process currently underway.
- Promises cost surveys to ensure make allowances accurately reflect the cost of manufacturing dairy products.
- Makes the Dairy Forward Pricing Program permanent, thereby eliminating the possibility that forward pricing programs for Class II, III and IV proprietary plants and their producers will lapse if a new farm bill is not passed before the existing farm bill expires.
Specific cost estimates await Congressional Budget Office evaluations.
— Boozman’s farm bill framework shares several similarities with the House’s version but also has notable differences. Here is a comparison of the key priorities and provisions in both versions:
Similarities
- Farm safety net: Both frameworks aim to modernize the farm safety net to better support farmers facing economic uncertainty and challenges.
- Conservation programs: Both bills emphasize voluntary conservation programs and propose using funds from the Inflation Reduction Act to support these initiatives.
- Market access: Both versions include provisions to expand access to overseas markets, with a focus on doubling funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development Program (FMD).
- Animal health: Both frameworks prioritize animal health, including measures to protect the U.S. cattle herd from foreign animal diseases.
- Nutrition programs: Both bills propose a “cost-neutral” approach to the Thrifty Food Plan, which determines SNAP benefits, although this is a point of contention with Democrats.
- Other aspects of Boozman’s proposal that align with House legislation include:
- Increases premium subsidies for the Supplemental Coverage Option to 80% and raises the top coverage level to 90%.
- Mandates at least 50% of Food for Peace funding be used for procuring and shipping U.S.-grown commodities.
- Prohibits states like California from imposing production standards on livestock products from other states.
- Raising loan limits for direct and guaranteed operating and ownership loans.
Differences
Reference prices: Boozman’s framework proposes an average 15% increase in PLC reference prices to account for increased input costs, while the House version has different specifics for commodity price adjustments. Boozman declined to say how much the increase in reference prices would cost.
Note: The escalator provision for reference prices also would be modified. The effective reference price in any given year would be 88% of the five-year Olympic average market price for the commodity, capped at 20% above the statutory reference price. The escalator is currently capped at 15%.
- Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC): Boozman’s proposal restricts the Secretary of Agriculture’s authority to use CCC funds for emergency purposes, requiring Congressional authorization for disaster relief spending. This is a shift from the House version. The Senate bill does not officially “suspend” Title V of the CCC Charter Act like the House bill does. Boozman said his bill would “reign in” spending “through” Title V and increase transparency in the use of the CCC, USDA’s $30 billion line of credit at the Treasury which the Agriculture secretary can use to address a myriad of farm and trade problems. Boozman said the Biden administration had used the CCC to provide money to “entities that don’t have anything to do with farming.”
- Inflation Reduction Act funds: Boozman’s framework includes transferring funds from the Inflation Reduction Act into the farm bill’s conservation title, which is opposed by Democrats as it limits the use of these funds for climate-related practices.
- Includes FEED Act: Boozman’s proposal includes the FEED Act to speed reviews of feed ingredients that address environmental concerns or improve livestock production efficiency, which is not addressed in the House bill.
- SNAP benefits: Boozman said the bill would require that all future rewrites of the Thrifty Food Plan, used to set benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), be budget neutral.
- New and beginning farmers/base acres: Boozman’s framework envisions allowing new and beginning farmers to obtain acres using land removed from farm programs, differing from the House’s approach which includes a 30-million-acre limit on new base acres.
— Analysis and other comments:
- Boozman said the Senate Republican committee staff has text, but it will not be released. Apparently, they are waiting on a final score from the Congressional Budget Office, but savings would be found within the $1.51 trillion bill to pay for changes.
- Asked how much the bill would cost, Boozman did not provide details, but said, “We are using the Sen. Stabenow (D-Mich.) approach.”
- Boozman stressed that more funding is needed for the farm safety net and that the GOP bill would provide it.
- Next: With the Senate GOP framework, Boozman said he and other committee members “have to sit around the table like this and be serious about getting the farm bill done, or agree to disagree and start working on an extension” of the 2018 Farm Bill.
— Charts: A series of charts made clear the direction Boozman wants the farm bill to go, and why:
Boozman said the farm bill safety net needs to be improved because farm commodity prices are falling while input costs have risen and remain high. Also, farmers have relied on ad hoc disaster aid the past several years.
A chart obviously directed at Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s (D-Mich.) comments about the House bill’s significant increase in Title I farm safety spending. The chart shows what Stabenow does not note in her remarks: recent farm bill increases in food stamps and conservation versus commodity and related programs.
Reference prices: There are several ways to chart issues relative to reference prices, mostly depending on what you want to stress. Boozman’s chart on this topic:
Conservation program spending: Like the House bill, the Boozman’s framework would move the conservation budget authority — estimated at between $14 and $20 billion — in the Inflation Reduction Act into the farm bill, while removing the guardrails that require Inflation Reduction Act money be spent on climate-related conservation programs.
SNAP: One chart stresses that despite Democratic lawmaker charges to the contrary, GOP action regarding SNAP benefits means no cuts for the program. Another chart puts SNAP overpayments in perspective.