House and Senate Ag Committees Mark Up Very Different Farm Bills

The House and Senate Agriculture Committees marked up their respective Farm Bills this week. The conservation and energy titles (as well as some other major provisions) differ significantly between the two bills. EESI encouraged strong funding for conservation and energy programs, as well as provisions to strengthen conservation compliance and protect grasslands. The House bill ("Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013" (H.R. 1947)) would reduce overall spending by almost $40 billion over 10 years – mostly through reductions in nutrition programs, but also with $6 billion in cuts to conservation programs. The House bill would provide no mandatory funding for energy programs.

The Senate bill ("Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013" (S. 954)) would reduce overall spending by about $23 billion over 10 years, cutting conservation programs by about $5 billion. Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow’s (D-MI) draft would have provided $800 million of mandatory funds for energy programs over five years, but Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) was able to add an extra $100 million to the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) during the mark up, for a total of $900 million.

The Senate bill also requires that farmers who receive federal crop insurance subsidies comply with conservation plans, and it limits federal benefits for producers nationwide who engage in sod-busting practices. The House bill is silent on the conservation compliance requirement in order to receive federal crop insurance subsidies, and its anti-sod-busting provisions would be limited only to the northern plains rather than nationwide.

Both bills were reported out of committee with substantial bipartisan support (36-10 in the House and 15-5 in the Senate). The Senate is expected to begin floor debate next week (May 20), and the House bill is expected to come to the floor sometime this summer. Numerous amendments are likely to be proposed in both chambers during floor debate.

EESI Executive Director Carol Werner, in letters sent to the Agriculture Committees, observed that strong conservation programs are essential for "improving the sustainability of the nation’s agricultural production, as well as biofuel production. Effective conservation programs must develop and expand in concert with agricultural and biofuel production to restore and sustain soil conservation, water quality, biological diversity, wildlife habitat, and a stable climate."

She also observed that a strong energy title, with mandatory funding, "is key to creating strong, sustainable bio-based products and energy industries using America’s cutting edge technologies and working farms and forests. It can be a win-win for creating jobs and economic development, improving both local and national energy security, as well as reducing environmental pollution and harmful climate change."

Read EESI’s letter to the Senate Agriculture Committee on conservation provisions here.

Read EESI’s letter to the House Agriculture Committee on energy provisions here.

Read EESI’s letter to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry on energy provisions here.