On July 11, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill with unanimous, bipartisan agreement. The Senate Appropriations Committee skipped subcommittee markup this fiscal year, and the full committee’s unanimous approval took less than 10 minutes (59:00 – 1:07:54). This outcome in the Senate stands in contrast to what transpired in the House Appropriations Committee just a day earlier: a roughly two hour long markup (9:51:00 – 11:54:55) that – while significantly shorter than last year’s eight plus hour partisan grind – still resulted in the Committee approving the House’s FY25 Agriculture spending bill along party lines.
At a high level, the Senate bill sets FY25 Agriculture spending at $27 billion, an $821 million increase over FY24. This increase is primarily directed toward the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, although there are significant funding increases for agricultural research, rental assistance, and conservation programs. The bill also includes a $1 million increase over FY24 for enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act.
Meanwhile, the House bill sets FY25 Agriculture spending at $25.9 billion, which is $355 million below FY24 levels. In addition, the bill includes harmful policy riders that would prevent implementation of three rules designed to promote fair competition for livestock farmers under the Packers and Stockyards Act, as well as any similar rulemaking effort (Section 729), and prevents any funding for efforts related to Executive Order 13985, which looks to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities through the USDA (Sec. 755).
Conservation, Energy and Environment
One of the most notable areas where the House and Senate bills diverge in funding is for conservation technical assistance. In the Senate, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Operations account – 85% of which funds NRCS staff capacity and partnerships with third party conservation organizations through the Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program – comes in at $965.75 million. The bill reserves $839.995 million of the Conservation Operations funding for CTA. Conservation Operations saw a $26 million cut in overall funding from FY23 to FY24, and the proposed FY25 Senate funding level would bring Conservation Operations funding well above its FY23 levels, but still well below the $1.2 billion that NSAC and dozens of other conservation organizations requested.
Of those dollars, $20 million are reserved for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI), doubling its FY2024 funding level. GLCI – which promotes high quality livestock grazing techniques – was funded at $14 million in FY2022 and FY2023. The Senate’s number of $20 million is an important counter to the House proposal, which has worked to zero-out funding for GLCI the past two fiscal years, and NSAC is thrilled to see this strong support for such a valuable program. We hope that continued leadership in the Senate can lead to a restoration of GLCI funding to its historic levels of nearly $30 million in future fiscal years.
The Senate Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee – which drafts Agriculture spending bills – also included report language elevating the importance of conservation planning for small acreage operations:
“Streamlined Conservation Planning.—The Committee directs NRCS to develop a streamlined conservation planning and application process for small acreage operations to reduce the time and effort required by both the applicant and local NRCS staff to process conservation program applications.”
The House bill, on the other hand, funds Conservation Operations at $902.99 million, roughly $12 million below current funding levels and $63 million below the Senate proposal. It also rescinds an additional $50 million of unspent funding allocated in previous fiscal years through a rider (Sec. 765). Funding for CTA is $763.5 million, a $10 million cut from current funding levels, showing that the majority of funding cuts by House appropriators for Conservation Operations are directed at CTA. As noted above, the House continues to attempt to zero out funding for GLCI in FY25, despite the growing popularity of grass-based systems among new farmers and ranchers.
Research and Organics
The House and Senate bills do not differ quite as significantly on sustainable and organic research, though there are noticeable differences in report language and the Senate’s emphasis on sustainable and organic research programs playing an important role in fighting climate change and building agricultural resilience.
The Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program (SARE) receives $48 million in funding in the Senate’s proposal, level with FY24’s enacted level but still below SARE’s funding of $50 million in FY23. While NSAC is pleased to see no further funding cuts to SARE in the Senate proposal, we are disappointed that the Senate bill did not restore SARE’s funding to FY23 levels. While we understand that the Senate was operating under the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s caps, the failure to restore SARE’s funding has a compounding impact as applicants continue to be turned away for lack of sufficient funding. SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems, increase profitability, and build resilience to climate change. According to SARE’s 2023-2024 Biannual Report From the Field, less than half of Farmer Rancher Grant proposals were able to receive funding from 2022-2023, highlighting the significant lack of funding for farmer-led research. The Committee also included report language on SARE regarding its important work on soil health and climate resilience:
“Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education [SARE].—The Committee appreciates the work SARE has done to improve soil health through cutting edge research, education, and extension on cover crops, diversified rotations, and managed grazing. The Committee expects the funding provided to be focused on increasing agricultural resilience, including, where appropriate, interdisciplinary systems research and education, farmer and rancher research and demonstration grants, and graduate student research grants.”
Elsewhere within the purview of USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Mission Area, a number of priorities important to NSAC members received level funding in the Senate bill. The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) did not receive any discretionary funding on top of its mandatory authorization level of $50 million, continuing a trend in recent years. The Organic Transitions Program (ORG) received level funding of $7.5 million. The Committee also included report language highlighting the importance of ORG with regard to climate change and the need for more organic research across USDA REE.
“Organic Transition.—The Committee maintains funding for the Organic Transition Program and directs the agency to use this increase to focus specifically on research topics related to the role of organic agriculture with regard to climate change.”
“Organic Research.—USDA’s National Organic Standards Board [NOSB] has identified key organic research priorities, many of which would help to address challenges that have limited the growth in organic production in this country. The Committee en-courages NIFA to give strong consideration to the NOSB organic research priorities when crafting the fiscal year 2025 Request for Applications for AFRI and the Organic Transition Program. Given the growing demand for organic products, the Committee also en-courages USDA to increase the number of organic research projects funded under AFRI and the Specialty Crop Research Initiative.”
The Senate bill does not provide any additional discretionary funding for the Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach Grant Program (FOTO), which includes both the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program and Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (Sec. 2501). While FOTO receives $50 million in mandatory funding that is unaffected by annual appropriations, the program has also received additional discretionary appropriations each year between FY20 – FY23, which NSAC members have strongly supported.
As opposed to the Senate’s approach to mostly level-fund key sustainable and organic research and education programs, NSAC is disappointed to see SARE receive $45 million in funding through the House proposal, a $3 million cut to FY24’s enacted level and a $5 million cut compared to FY23. Over the past several years the House has continuously worked to cut funding for SARE, despite the program’s wide popularity among farmers and ranchers. In House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris’ (R-MD-1) home state of Maryland, over 8,000 farmers have participated in SARE since 2019.
The House bill treats OREI and ORG the same as the Senate, and includes some report language around increasing organic research at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and acknowledging the increasing demand for organic products, and therefore the need for more organic research, in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI):
“Organic Agriculture Research.—The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 for organic agriculture research in the Northern Drylands regions and encourages ARS to consider breed and cultivar development, food safety, and the economic and ecological impacts of the organic production system when conducting this research.”
“Organic Agriculture Research.—The Committee encourages NIFA to consider the USDA National Organic Standards Board organic research priorities when crafting future AFRI Requests for Applications. Given the growing demand for organic products, the Committee also encourages NIFA to continue organic research projects funded under AFRI.”
Similar to the Senate, the House bill does not provide any additional funding for FOTO.
Local and Regional Food Systems
The House and Senate bills also diverge in funding for local and regional food systems.
The Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP), created in the 2018 Farm Bill, combined previously existing programs – the Value-Added Producer Grant Program (VAPG) and the Farmers Market & Local Food Promotion Program (FMLFPP) – under a single umbrella in an effort to stabilize funding and coordinate USDA’s local market investments. The Senate bill would provide $7.4 million for FMLFPP and $11.5 million for VAPG grants, both level with FY24.
The Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP) receives $7 million in the Senate proposal, level with FY24 but a drop from $8.5 million in FY23. While OUAIP is relatively new, it has demonstrated the capacity to manage multiple grant programs, a national advisory committee, and coordinate resources across USDA. Since it first received funding in FY2020, it has invested over $73 million in 182 grants and 120 cooperative agreements to support community food security through producer networks in urban, suburban, and rural communities. While NSAC is pleased to see level funding for the program as compared to the Senate and House bills zeroing out funding for the Office last fiscal year, we recommend significant increases in funding levels to meet the overwhelming interest in the program, and to do so without diverting funding from the Conservation Operations account.
The House bill would provide $7.4 million for FMLFPP (level with FY24) but includes a dramatic cut to VAPG, reducing funding by over 50% from $11.5 million in FY24 to $5 million in FY25. VAPG directly supports farmers seeking to diversify their markets and income streams through new product development. Recent Agricultural Census data further shows how value-added products can greatly increase farm revenue. In 2022, roughly 38,000 farms reported sales of value-added products totaling $5.7 billion in value. This has increased from approximately 33,000 farms selling roughly $4 billion in products in 2017. NSAC is deeply disappointed to see this unprecedented and unjustified cut to VAPG.
The House bill also reduces funding for OUAIP. While the initial bill completely eliminated funding for OUAIP, the program received a modest $4 million via the Manager’s amendment thanks to the leadership of Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-9). While NSAC was heartened to see slightly increased funding for OUAIP included in the Committee-passed House bill, the funding amount represents a $3 million cut from FY24 funding levels and $5.5 less than FY23. This widely popular program must be funded at higher levels in order to fund beyond a mere 22% of eligible applicants.
What’s Next
As the calendar turns to August, both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees have already passed their respective FY25 Agriculture bills, meaning the next step would be “floor action” for both bills, or consideration and vote by all members in each respective chamber. The House was initially expected to bring the FY25 Agriculture bill to the House floor this week, but House Republicans just announced that they will leave town midday Thursday, beginning their August recess more than a week early.
Taking into account the upcoming Congressional schedule, Congress is only in session for less than 20 days between now and the end of the government fiscal year, September 30, 2024. This is an incredibly tight window for floor action, particularly given that the Agriculture spending bill is one of 12 total appropriations bills that Congress must pass by September 30 to keep the government funded.
A continuing resolution – which would continue government funding at FY24 levels – seems most likely, though not certain, before the September 30 deadline. It remains to be seen whether Congress will be able to strike an agreement beyond that.
For detailed information about appropriations, visit NSAC’s Agriculture Appropriations Chart.
The post FY25 Agriculture Spending Bills: What You Need to Know appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.