Senator Debbie Stabenow, a longtime champion of programs that support farmers and increase access to nutritious food, launched Monday. a new version of the farm billa key piece of legislation typically renewed every five years that governs much of how the agricultural industry operates in the US.
Stabenow, who is retiring next month after representing Michigan in the Senate for 24 years, has built her career on her vision for a robust, progressive farm bill: one that, among other things, paves the way for farmers to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis.
The text of her bill comes nearly two months after the 2018 farm bill, which initially expired last year and was revived thanks to a one-year extension, expired for a second time on September 30. And it comes just weeks before the end of the year, when funding for several programs included in the farm bill runs out.
But more importantly, the bill comes after many months of infighting between Democratic and Republican lawmakers over what’s most important in the next farm bill — and just weeks before the current congressional term ends. To pass the bill, Stabenow would need to win the support of Republicans in the Senate Agriculture Committee and the House of Representatives, where Democrats lack the votes needed to pass their own version of the legislation.
It is likely, even expected, that this will not happen. Senator John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican who is likely to chair the Senate Agriculture Committee after Stabenow’s retirement, criticized her bill on X, calling it a “insulting 11th hour partisan proposal.” Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are reportedly hoping instead to pass another one-year extension of the farm bill, pushing negotiations on the new bill into next year. according to Politico. There is virtually no reason for Republicans not to prolong the process of knocking out the next farm bill, since they will have majority control of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of the federal government starting in January.
By proposing legislation that is all but doomed, Stabenow could compete to ensure her legacy as an environmental steward who understands how climate change is already impacting agricultural production, and why there needs to be more investment in climate initiatives that protect farmers now .
In a speech in which the details of her account are presented Stabenow told the Senate on Monday, “I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle for more than two years to pass my sixth Farm Bill, the third one of which I have either chaired or been the ranking member … the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.”
She stressed that farming is a risky business given its dependence on the weather. “But it’s getting even more risky now, because [of] what’s happening with the climate crisis, and we know it,” she said. “How many one-off storms or droughts do our farmers have to go through before we take this crisis seriously?”
Brendan Smialowski / Contributor / Getty Images
Certain advocacy groups praised Stabenow’s farm bill. Rebecca Riley, the managing director for food and agriculture at the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the bill reflects Stabenow’s “decades of leadership and commitment to strengthening America’s farmers and rural communities.” But other groups were slower to respond. In a statement, the American Farm Bureau Federation, an agricultural industry group, simply said, “We are reviewing Chairman Stabenow’s newly released 1,300 pages of farm bill text,” adding that it is “unfortunate that only a few legislative business days for the Congress is left to act.” (Stabenow’s office did not respond to Grist’s requests for comment.)
One of the key features of Stabenow’s farm account is funding for so-called “climate smart” agricultural practicesan umbrella term that broadly refers to techniques that help farmers sequester carbon in the soil rather than releasing more of it into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, nearly $20 billion appropriated in funding these practices, such as crop rotation and no-till. And in the spring, Stabenow introduced a framework that transferred leftover money from the IRA for “climate-smart” practices into a new farm account. (Soon after, Senate Republicans suggest another concept of the farm account without this provision.)
Climate is hardly the only focus of the text Stabenow introduced earlier this week, which, like all farm bills, seeks to address a dizzying array of agricultural and nutrition priorities. The most important provisions in her bill, titled the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act, are policies aimed at increasing access to crop insurance and making coverage more affordable by increasing premium subsidies. The bill also seeks to invest $4.3 billion in rural communities, with the goal of improving their access to health care, childcare, education and broadband Internet.
But other provisions indicate that Stabenow has long been thinking about how to further protect farmers from climate impacts like extreme weather — and also make the U.S. food system more diversified and resilient. She proposes creating a permanent disaster program that would establish a consistent process for providing aid to farmers after floods, wildfires and other disasters. Stabenow also seeks to bolster support for specialty crops — better known as fruits, nuts, vegetables and herbs — reminding the Senate during her press briefing that these crops are “almost half of what we grow.”
These details represent some of the divisions that run deep through congressional negotiations. Senator John Hoeven, the Republican congressman from North Dakota, was quick to reject Stabenow’s vision, write on X“Unfortunately, the Senate bill released today does not meet the needs of farm country and fails to keep farm in the Farm Bill.” Boozman signaled that he fully intended to override Stabenow’s bill at the last minute, telling reporters that Congress must press for another extension of the 2018 farm bill and meeting with agricultural industry groups to discuss their priorities.
Boozman and other Republicans’ concerns about the new farm bill likely stem, at least in part, from lobby groups representing large-scale industrial farmers who want to see fewer restrictions placed on how they do business. For example, the National Pork Producers Council, or NPPC, issued an immediate rejection of Stabenow’s farm bill text, call it “simply not a viable account” for “fail[ing] offer a solution California Prop. 12.” This proposal prohibits the sale of veal, pork and egg products by farm owners and operators who knowingly house animals.in a cruel way.” The NPPC has followed this issue closely, arguing that forcing pork producers to meet “arbitrary” animal housing specifications would wildly increase their costs (and prices for consumers). The group successfully advocated for a provision in the House Farm Bill which essentially takes away California’s power to enforce such a law – by preventing state and local government from placing conditions on the production of livestock sold in their jurisdiction (unless the livestock is actually within the state or local community produced).
Stabenow appears to be highly aware of the zero-sum framework with which many different actors view the farm bill. When she addressed the Senate, she mentioned that the version of the Farm Bill released by the House in May would have put “huge” resources into a small number of commodity farmers in the South. “I’m not saying these farmers don’t need support. They do,” she said. “But it cannot be at the expense of millions of other farmers and ranchers in this country,” including those who run smaller, diversified operations or grow fruit and vegetables.
In her speech, Stabenow repeatedly framed the text of her bill as a bipartisan project and projected an urgency to secure broader resources for more farmers now. Her vision, she says, “can pass and must pass.” But whether that’s true or not will depend a lot on her colleagues, who currently have no incentive to negotiate with her and other Democrats and can simply wait to push their own agenda. How long they wait remains to be seen.
