Mike Orlando is a law student in the HLS Food Law & Policy Clinic and a guest contributor to this blog.
On February 14, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, head of the USDA, testified in front of the House Agriculture Committee (the “Ag Committee”). He urged the Ag Committee to act quickly to pass the next farm bill, noting that delays will lead to continued uncertainty for farmers and producers. During the hearing, Vilsack fielded questions from members of Congress regarding the future of multiple USDA programs, discussed in greater detail below.
Debate swirls around the USDA’s conservation efforts
Throughout Vilsack’s testimony, Congressional Republicans emphasized their frustration with the USDA’s recent administration of its conservation programs. Chairman of the Ag Committee, Glenn Thompson (R-PA) criticized Vilsack for “demon[izing] farmers who don’t adhere to the climate agenda.” Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) asserted that “the majority of farmers are not on board with…[the] climate cult agenda.” Their comments reflect efforts by Congressional Republicans to cut funding to farm bill climate initiatives, in favor of programs that provide farmers direct payments or subsidized crop insurance. Vilsack responded by informing the Ag Committee that USDA conservation programs are both (1) entirely voluntary and (2) experiencing demand from farmers that far outstrips their capacity to enroll eligible applicants.
What are the conservation programs, and how do they work?
The USDA offers two main programs aimed to help farmers adopt climate-friendly practices on working lands: EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) and CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program). EQIP provides targeted support to reduce costs for farmers implementing a specific conservation goal. CSP takes a broader approach, encouraging comprehensive, whole-farm changes that improve carbon sequestration. As Vilsack stated, both programs are entirely voluntary. Farmers must apply and be selected to participate.
Are farmers interested?
Application data for EQIP and CSP supports Vilsack’s claims that conservation program demand exceeds capacity. Roughly 75% of applicants to both programs are turned away – reflecting a huge amount of unmet interest. Based on their own actions, it appears that farmers are clamoring for more spending on conservation programs – not less.
It looks like Vilsack has the right side of this debate.
Getting creative with the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”)
Though Vilsack mentioned he respects the members of the Ag Committee, he admitted that he thinks “these hearings are a wasted opportunity.” He lamented the fact that the Ag Committee is not thinking outside the box to imagine new opportunities to help farmers. Vilsack highlighted the CCC as one potential avenue where the Committee could “get creative” and “think[] about creating additional markets, better markets, more markets, new markets.”
What is the CCC?
The CCC is a government-owned corporation run by the USDA. The corporation funds a multitude of farm bill programs, including (unsurprisingly) many of the major commodity subsidies. The CCC borrows money directly from the US Treasury, but also may access capital via bonds and private lending markets.
Getting creative
Vilsack’s suggestion begs the question: how exactly can Congress “get creative” with the CCC? Vilsack probably isn’t asking the Ag Committee to join the CCC’s board in Joshua Tree for a Vision Quest (although it would likely do them some good). Given this ambiguity, I figured I’d pitch an idea.
Vilsack said that the CCC should help create new markets for farmers. Why not run a promotional campaign, designed to encourage the consumption of less popular rotation crops in the American diet? Celebrity chefs like Alice Waters and Dan Barber have been banging this drum for years: turn “humble” rotation crops like rye, beans, and radishes into something people want to eat, and all of the sudden, farmers have a new market. If it caught on, it could provide farmers with greater financial incentives to adopt diverse growing habits and crop rotations – actions that benefit the soil and the climate. The CCC already administers projects to help expand foreign export markets to commodities. Now, it should try its hand in developing new domestic markets too, for the benefit of farmers, eaters, and the climate.
Is Congress biting?
Despite Vilsack’s pleas, it appears that Congress doesn’t feel too creative. The Ag Committee has pitched several “riders” to attach to the appropriations bill that would curtail the CCC’s flexibility. These riders would limit the CCC’s spending discretion, forcing it to focus on funding mandatory programs. CCC restrictions sit among other appropriations proposals that will affect USDA’s recent efforts to support climate-friendly agriculture and equity across the Department. Specific proposed cuts include slashing the National Resource Conservation Service budget, and kneecapping efforts to create a Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer within the USDA.
Overall, it seems like Vilsack and the Ag Committee have some ground to cover before aligning on a final vision for the farm bill.
The views and opinions expressed on the FBLE Blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FBLE. While we review posts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the reliability and completeness of any legal analysis presented; posts on this Blog do not constitute legal advice. If you discover an error, please reach out to contact@farmbilllaw.org.
