Big Beautiful Blog

By Amalie Lipstreu, Agriculture Conservation Regional Hub Director, National Healthy Soils Policy Network, and Chuck Anderas, Policy Director,  Michael Fields Agricultural Institute

You’ve probably heard about the “one big, beautiful bill” that’s working its way through Congress. But, what is it and how will it affect agriculture?

Overall, the bill:

• Contains deep cuts to SNAP 

• Increases subsidies for the largest 0.3% of farmers

• Further decreases the chances of a strong, bipartisan farm bill during this congress

What is “Budget Reconciliation”?

The “Big Beautiful Bill” is a budget reconciliation bill. Stay with me through this brief explanation. Budget reconciliation is a process that can only happen when the same party controls the White House and both houses of Congress. It’s a powerful tool for parties when they are in power because it only needs a simple majority in the Senate and so can’t be blocked by the opposition party.

The most recent example of a budget reconciliation bill was the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, passed by the Biden Administration. The IRA included almost $20 billion over 10 years for the four main working-lands conservation programs: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). The IRA also included historic funding for clean energy and infrastructure projects. 

The Trump White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate are working to pass their own budget reconciliation bill to push through their key legislative priorities. Right now, we know what was in the President’s budget, what passed in the House in May, and the draft bill being debated in the Senate now. Let’s take a look at what’s in it.

What’s the Same in the House and Senate Versions of the “Big Beautiful Bill”

The House passed their version in May, and the Senate is debating their version now with a “deadline” of July 4. There are several things that are the same in both versions. Both the Senate and the House versions would raise Price Loss Coverage (PLC) reference prices. The reference price is the floor for commodity prices. The government pays farmers when market prices fall below the reference price. One important statistic is important to note is that 3/10 of 1% (0.3%) of all farms would be the chief beneficiaries from these costly reference price increases. Those are primarily operations that produce rice, peanuts and cotton. Most speciality crop producers are excluded from these programs. Both bills increase payments to crop insurance companies for administering those crop insurance programs, mostly to higher risk states such as Texas. Those costly reference price increases are being paid for through cuts in nutrition benefits. Around 78% of all counties in the United States stand to see a net reduction in federal nutrition benefits.

The one bright spot in both of these bills is that they preserve the IRA conservation funding by including it with farm bill spending over the long term. That's going to mean a 36% increase in funding for CSP and a 55% increase in EQIP over 2018 Farm Bill spending based on what was passed in 2022.

What's Different Between the Senate and House Bills?

The Senate version changes how farmers benefit from the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) & Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs. If you aren’t familiar with ARC or PLC, according to the Farm Service Agency which administers both programs:

The ARC program provides payments when the actual revenue for a farm is less than a guarantee set based on historical data and market conditions. The PLC program provides payments when the effective price for a covered commodity falls below its effective reference price. These programs aim to protect farmers from significant income losses due to fluctuations in crop prices or revenue shortfalls.

In the past, farmers had to pick one or the other. The Senate bill would allow farmers to benefit from whichever program pays them the most regardless of what they signed up for.

Another key difference between the House and Senate that would benefit Midwest crop growers is that the Senate version allows farmers to buy supplemental coverage for crop insurance and still enroll in those commodity programs. The premium subsidy for that supplemental coverage would increase from 65% to 80% and the coverage level would be increased to 90%. The bottom line is that there's a lot of increased commodity and crop insurance spending for large scale crop producers. Again, this is largely paid for by SNAP cuts. 

Another important change is that this bill waives adjusted gross income (AGI) limits. In other words, there will no longer be a means test for farm subsidies. Previously, you couldn’t receive farm subsidies if your AGI was over $900,000 per year. The thought was that if you made about a million dollars or more a year, you don't really need taxpayer support or government bailouts. This bill completely exempts farmers who earn 75% or more of their income from farming from those mean tests or AGI limits when it comes to disaster or conservation program payments. For most farm households, 77% of their income comes from off-farm sources. This will in effect mean that the richest farmers who do not have to work off the farm will be competing with small-scale producers who rely on off-farm income. Removing those limits with where we’re at right now– when we have had increases in conservation funding coupled with dramatic staff reductions at NRCS–  increases the likelihood that states will prioritize working with larger farms, writing larger, often simpler contracts, so that they can get more money out the door faster, ultimately exacerbating a problem that we've already faced for years. 

Makes a New Farm Bill Unlikely In this Congress

The farm bill (last passed in 2018), typically passed every five years, has already been delayed two years. So much has changed in the last seven years: global market shifts, increased severe weather events, and increased need for technical and federal assistance. We don’t need a quick fix that will only benefit a small percentage of farms. We need the opportunity to write and pass a strong, comprehensive farm bill that strengthens our local food economy and supply chain resiliency.

The bill includes major farm bill components. That means that Congress has stripped farmers and the public from the chance to weigh in transparently on long-term farm bill legislation and needed reforms to benefit all of us. We need a full, fair farm bill that meets the diverse needs of all of American agriculture – this won’t get us there.

What Can I Do About It?

In all, this bill will increase hunger and threaten farmer livelihoods. It makes transparency and bipartisan cooperation on a comprehensive farm bill all but impossible. It increases the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion through tax cuts and subsidies that benefit a select few. It will make implementing good conservation projects very difficult. 

Pick the issues outlined in this blog that 1) matter to you and 2) your Senator will find important. Call or email them TODAY and ask them to vote “no” on the “Big Beautiful Bill.”  Click here for specific tips on making your call.

“A vote for this bill is not a vote for farmers. It's a vote to abandon them.” -Mike Lavender, Policy Director at National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)

Michael Fields Agricultural Institute is a member of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, an alliance of grassroots organizations across the nation that advocates for federal policy reform to advance the sustainability of agriculture, food systems, natural resources, and rural communities. Our shared vision of agriculture is one where a safe, nutritious, ample, and affordable food supply is produced by a legion of family farmers who make a decent living pursuing their trade, while protecting the environment, and contributing to the strength and stability of their communities.