Though control of the House is still up in the air and Agriculture Committee Member Raphael Warnock is headed to a December runoff, we now have a reasonable idea of what the 2022 midterms will mean for the 2023 farm bill. Regardless of the outcome of Warnock’s runoff, Democrats will retain control of the Senate, and Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is expected to retain her position. Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who faced his most competitive election in decades, will likewise return.
More broadly, while a 51-49 majority gives Democrats more flexibility, the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote remains a viable path to enacting some legislation sans GOP support. This means little for the farm bill as a whole, which tends to garner widespread, bipartisan support and will require 60 votes to pass over a potential GOP filibuster. However, an additional vote may give Democrats leverage over simple-majority votes that can be wielded to influence farm bill policies. More importantly, a 51-49 majority will give Democrats more procedural power in committees, as they will be able to operate without the power-sharing agreement that is necessary when the Senate is equally divided.
On the House side, shakeups have been more significant. Control of the chamber came down to a handful of very close elections, leaving Republicans with a slim 221-214 majority. The change in leadership will elevate current House Agriculture Ranking Member G.T. Thompson (R-PA) to Chair just as 2023 farm bill hearings begin to ramp up.
House Agriculture Democrats lost three of six at-risk seats, while the two vulnerable GOP members Don Bacon (R-NE) and Brad Finstad (R-MN) managed to hang on to theirs. Notably, Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), chair of the Subcommittee on Commodity, Exchanges, Energy and Credit lost his seat to Republican Mike Lawler (R). Cindy Axne (D-IA) and Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ) were also unseated by their Republican opponents.
It’s not all bad news for vulnerable Ag Dems: three will be returning, including Jahana Hayes (D-CT), who chairs the Nutrition Subcommittee; Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), who chairs the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry; and Angie Craig (D-MN).
With a closely divided House, reaching a compromise on SNAP funding is likely to be key to the farm bill’s passage, as it was in 2014 and 2018. In fact, some have questioned whether the 2023 bill will pass at all given Republicans’ plans to sever the Nutrition Title from the farm bill, a move that delayed passage in 2018 (the 2018 farm bill passed only after Democrats took control of the House in that year’s midterm elections). Then, the sticking point was the high cost of SNAP, estimated at $326 billion over five years. Because SNAP is an entitlement program whose enrollment increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, continued administration will be more expensive. Between 2024-2028, SNAP is expected to cost over $530 billion.
Another salient question is whether climate change will be addressed in the 2023 farm bill, and if so, to what extent. Republicans in both the House and Senate have become increasingly vociferous in opposing explicit climate provisions, dismissing climate-centered practices such as regenerative agriculture as “buzzwords.” Popular voluntary conservations EQIP and CSP are likely to have bipartisan support; however, each received several million dollars in funding through the summer’s Inflation Reduction Act, which may impact their farm bill allocations.
Regardless of the ultimate composition of the House and Senate, the farm bill remains a massive undertaking that requires significant compromise between and within parties. FBLE will continue to advocate for policies and programs that will advance economic opportunity and socioeconomic justice, promote public health and nutrition, and mitigate climate change and responsibly steward public resources. For specific policy recommendations, read our 2023 Farm Bill Reports here.
