The Farm Bill Redux
What we can do: Protect Animal Welfare Laws and "Food for Peace"
The Farm Bill
In my last post (“A Test for the New Bipartisan Majority”) I did a shallow dive into HR 8467, the “Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024”.
HR 8467 is the House’s version of what is generally known as The Farm Bill. It was a shallow dive because a deep dive would necessarily encompass hundreds of pages of definitions, explanations and analyses. (HR 8467 is about a thousand pages long.)
Though limited to just three of the bill’s twelve titles, and only a few dozen paragraphs altogether, I was able to highlight a few of the more egregious features of the proposed legislation. There are many, many others. Unfortunately, the bulk of them are embedded in The Farm Bill’s very architecture, and will likely remain there until the whole structure is reformed.
But for now, it’s worth being attentive to revisions currently under consideration.
The only committee-approved text we have at this point is the one favored by House Republicans, HR 8467. It passed in the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 33-21, with four Democrats joining all 29 Republicans.
Those four Democrats are Reps. Don Davis (D-N.C.), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Eric Sorensen (D-Ill.) and Yadira Caraveo (D-CO).
The Senate Agriculture Committee, chaired by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), has released a detailed summary of the Democrats’ version of The Farm Bill, the “Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024” (RPFSA). But it has not yet been voted on by the full committee.
As we’d expect, there are several specific areas where the two proposed versions are significantly different. While they are far too many to list, a few deserve our attention.
The Senate bill includes:
protections for SNAP (food stamps) eligibility and benefit calculation,
protection for climate and conservation funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022,
expansion of conservation and environmental programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),
modest increase of “reference prices” for commodities (i.e. crop price supports) of around 5%
The House bill would
increase "reference prices" by as much as 20%,
limit executive authority to adjust SNAP benefits,
remove environmental protection guardrails from reallocated Inflation Reduction Act funding,
severely restrict flexibility of commodity purchases by the Food for Peace program.
eviscerate State animal welfare legislation, such as California’s Proposition 12.
Posts on Feathers of Hope are public, so feel free to share by clicking here.
“What can we do?”
Since agricultural policy is not something that piques most people’s interest, a post about The Farm Bill was not expected to generate much feedback. The intent had only been to provide members of our network with some background context for the coming floor debate. But the response has been surprisingly enthusiastic. People want to know more.
And what shouldn’t be surprising since Feathers of Hope is a network of activists, is one recurring question raised by old and new members alike over the last two weeks: “What can we do?”
To be honest, the question might as well be phrased “Is there anything we can do?” The enormous labyrinth of programs and policies for crop support, subsidies, conservation incentives, trade/international assistance, research, and more is simply overwhelming. Many provisions require a level of technical expertise that makes it impractical for us to advocate for needed improvements.
Unlike with our previous efforts, when we’ve lobbied individual House members for a specific vote, or to sign a discharge petition, The Farm Bill presents a more complicated challenge. If we are to do something, our efforts must necessarily be tightly focused. With that in mind, here are two sections of the bill that are easily understandable and have far-reaching implications:
1. Protect the Food for Peace program
2. Protect State farm animal welfare laws
1. Trade (Title III)
Subtitle A—Food for Peace Act
Among its many provisions regarding nutrition policy and domestic agriculture The Farm Bill also governs the implementation and operation of the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1722). This is the country’s premier international food assistance program, distributing American-grown commodities around the world.
In FY 2023, USAID, the government agency that administers Food for Peace, purchased and shipped more than 1.1 million metric tons of food from the United States, reaching 45 million people in 35 countries.
About 40% of Food for Peace funds pay for American farm commodities and ocean freight. The rest goes for storage and distribution costs. But the Republicans’ proposal would reserve a minimum of 50% of funds for the purchase of commodities and ocean freight.
While this sounds like a modest increase of 10%, the effect on the ground would be devastating. Simply put, the more money spent on commodities, the less money there is for everything else — including getting food where it’s needed most.
USAID itself has stated that this provision “…would actually result in USAID reaching 2.3 million fewer people at a time when global hunger is rising.”
Emily Byers, Save the Children’s managing director of global development policy, explained:
“I would imagine that this would hit the most vulnerable — the most remote, rural and farthest from the ports, which are usually the ones with the fewest resources. They would be first to be cut off if the money wasn’t there to get the food to where it needed to go. We need to be able to make that decision [on where to spend money] based on the program context, not based on what the spreadsheet here in Washington says.”
In a joint statement by Catholic Relief Services, CARE, Mercy Corps, Save the Children, and World Vision, the groups voiced their strong opposition to this proposal:
“(We) oppose the House Agriculture Committee Majority’s Farm Bill proposal for Food for Peace within Title III. Its provisions would effectively end our work to address the root causes of global hunger and malnutrition and seriously compromise humanitarian food aid programs.
. . . As implementers, we know that the new spending directives included in this bill would drastically change Food for Peace, subverting the program’s mandate to build resilience and undoing 20 years of measured, bipartisan improvements. The Chairman’s proposal would result in Food for Peace reaching 2.3 million fewer people. At a time of rising hunger and malnutrition, this is unacceptable.”
The 50% mandate is also opposed by an alliance of U.S. - based international aid agencies, Interaction:
“Not only is this requirement unworkable—it does not leave enough funding in the budget to ensure food can be transported beyond foreign ports and responsibly and effectively distributed to people in need, which would result in reaching 2.3 million fewer people. This change, along with other spending directives, risk crowding out funding currently being used to implement resilience-building programs that address the root causes of hunger and malnutrition.”
In addition to limiting the distribution networks for food aid, arbitrarily increasing the quantity of U.S. - grown commodities threatens to upset the delicate balance of food assistance and local agricultural markets. To make matters worse, the proposal attempts to micromanage the emergency purchase of locally produced commodities under disaster conditions.
2. Miscellaneous (Title XII)
Subtitle A - Livestock and Other Animals
Section 12007 of the House Republicans’ version of The Farm Bill would prohibit States from enforcing their own restrictions on confinement of farm animals. This provision is especially pernicious as it seeks to overturn the expressed will of voters in multiple jurisdictions.
Prop. 12 for example, passed by California voters in 2018, prohibits the sale of food products from farm animals locked in extreme confinement (particularly chickens and pigs). Massachusetts voters passed a similar measure, Question 3, in 2016.
HR 8467 would specifically prohibit any limitation on sales of such products if produced in another State — effectively rendering the law unenforceable. While Prop. 12 and Question 3 are probably the strongest of these laws, they are far from the only ones. Clearly the Republican bill is targeting them all, and any potential expansion of their scope.
The attached pdf file is a list (with links to summaries and/or legislative text) of existing State-level farm animal protection laws which could be undermined:
And this video illustrates what “confinement” looks like.
Posts on Feathers of Hope are public, so feel free to share by clicking here.
Don’t expect bipartisan cooperation in efforts to write a new Farm Bill.
The de facto cross-party alliance in the House of Representatives acts as a governing majority only when the consequences of not doing so would be catastrophic.
They’ve been able to pass the debt ceiling increase, and necessary appropriation bills to keep the government open. But even then, it happens only after the demands of MAGA extremists have been indulged.
A perfect example of this is playing out right now. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) funds our military forces and its passage every year is essential. With this in mind, the House Armed Services Committee worked to craft a bill free of divisive “culture war” provisions. On May 22 the Committee passed the NDAA by a vote of 57-1.
But once it was on the floor of the House, the far-right faction introduced one amendment after another, hitting all the usual targets: abortion, race, trans-gender, environment. In the end, the final version passed the House with almost exclusively Republican support. And it will be dead on arrival in the Senate.
Of course, all parties to this charade are well aware that it’s just empty gesturing. None of the amendments will ever become law, and the end result is nothing but more delay before the bill returns from reconciliation looking remarkably like it did on May 22.
The point is that urging a “Yes” or “No” vote on The Farm Bill is not an effective way to influence the final legislation. Far better would be to contact those who will be negotiating the details before the bill comes to the floor.
We can expect that both Representative David Scott (D-GA), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the Democratic Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee will be advocating for protection of SNAP benefits and the environmental guardrails of the Inflation Reduction Act. But unless we call it to their attention, the threat to Food for Peace and to animal welfare laws may well be overlooked.
To make your voice heard on these two elements of The Farm Bill — protection of the Food For Peace program and protection of State level farm animal protection laws — call or write to:
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI):
731 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 Ph: (202) 224-4822
Rep. David Scott (D-GA-13):
468 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Ph: (202) 225-2939
Ordinarily, after both Houses pass their version of a bill, a conference committee would be formed. This is a process whereby differences between the House and Senate versions are reconciled to produce a single version to be voted on by both houses. That would be the most opportune time to contact Republican negotiators to urge protection of the Food For Peace program and of farm animal protection laws. Once the conference committee members are named, we’ll post their contact information here.
However, there is a caveat. The Senate will not re-convene until July 8, so we’ll have to wait until at least then for their version to be brought to a vote. But it’s unclear whether there will even be a conference committee for The Farm Bill in this session of Congress.
Since the current Farm Bill expires on September 30, and the two versions differ in so many respects, it’s possible that both the Senate and House will pass simple extensions of the current law rather than come to agreement on a new bill in the next few weeks.
Either way, clearly the very best way to insure that future Farm Bills reflect progressive priorities is to work for the election of Democrats to the House, the Senate and the Presidency.
Find practical suggestions about what you can do here:
Simon Rosenberg’s Hopium Chronicles, particularly his June 19 post focused on 12 GOP-held seats that we could potentially help flip: Winning Back the House
Jessica Craven’s Chop Wood, Carry Water, a daily notification of EASY actions you can take to make a difference.
Robert Hubbel’s Today’s Edition Newsletter, a wise and inspiring commentary on news of the day, along with updates on the work of dozens of grass-roots election activist organizations
Bonus Video! John Oliver talks about Corn
25 minutes long (Thanks for the inspiration, Joyce Vance.)
This is a network of ordinary citizens. In a democracy, we exercise our power by raising our voices. To be silent is to be powerless.
The gutting of animal welfare laws needs to be emphasized. Many people in our country would not be on board with that.
Thank you for your action oriented newsletter and tireless defense of our democracy!