Lawmakers crafting the bevy of budget reconciliation bills apparently can’t see the forest for the trees. At least that’s the only explanation we have for the actions of the House Agriculture Committee this week. With lawmakers on both sides of the aisle touting the need to help farmers and ranchers buffeted by natural disasters, the committee instead adopted a $66 billion reconciliation package that didn’t spend a dime, or even a word, on a valuable tool for mitigating the effects of natural disasters – agricultural conservation. Moving forward, Ag Committee members need to spend less time fighting over dollars and more time digging for change (to policy). The financial interests of the agriculture sector, and taxpayers, require a focus on increasing the farm sector’s resilience instead of dependence on federal subsidies.

Farmers and ranchers face a number of risks to their efforts to turn a profit. Lawmakers have historically responded by creating an (at times overly generous) alphabet soup of disaster programs and federally subsidized crop insurance to financially insulate these businesses from most of these risks. Yet ag lobbyists and lawmakers are responding to this year’s natural disasters with the same tired formula – namely, more after-the-fact “emergency” income subsidies for some farming and ranching businesses. The most recent iteration is a White House request for including $9 billion in agricultural disaster aid on a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown at the end of this month. This request actually builds back bigger on a bill the House Ag Committee endorsed on July 27^th seeking $8.5 billion in income subsidies for weather events in 2020 and 2021.

But lack of money isn’t the issue. Updated farm income numbers show that in spite of the pandemic, commodity and livestock sales in 2020 only decreased four percent from the previous year. And federal subsidies, for the pandemic, weather disasters, and farm bill programs – resulted in net farm income reaching $98 billion in 2020 – the highest since 2014. Even with an expected winddown in federal pandemic aid, a further uptick in most commodity prices means 2021 cash receipts are expected to increase by $74 billion, pushing net farm income to over $122 billion. Government subsidies are still expected to be $28 billion – making up one of every four dollars of income.

In a time when natural disasters are increasing in frequency and intensity, helping agriculture takes more than dollars, it requires change. Like in many other areas, federal policy needs to be reoriented to help “pre-spond” to potential agricultural disasters and climate risks. Disaster recovery, both physical and financial, will be a part of farm policy. But the best offense is a good defense. And in agriculture, that’s conservation.

Agricultural conservation practices, if implemented properly on the ground and continued from year to year, provide many benefits. Incorporating conservation practices can help farmers and ranchers increase efficiency, reduce operator costs, increase yields, and ultimately position themselves to be better prepared for the next disaster or financial challenge. This increased physical and financial resilience reduces dependence on federal income subsidies. However, current federal agriculture policies and subsidies – particularly crop insurance and “emergency” disaster aid – often discourage the uptake of smart conservation practices. These programs in turn over-insulate producers from the effects of climate change.

TCS previously recommended that the Agriculture Committee invest in effective, cost-saving agriculture conservation measures that promote climate resilience, innovation, and the best return on taxpayer investment. We also urged the Committee to promote responsible risk management strategies. As we’ve said before, simply sending checks with no strings attached or waiving requirements for producers to purchase taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance will do nothing to help agricultural producers help themselves in the long-run. Finally, our recommendations warned against caving to the biofuels lobby and expanding special interest bioenergy subsidies. In other words, the status quo wouldn’t work.

So, a reconciliation package with a primary goal of tackling climate change surely included a robust debate on how best to unlock the economic, environmental, and fiscal benefits of agricultural conservation, yes? No. The effort to secure yet more “emergency” funding for agriculture consumed much of the Ag Committee debate. Republicans offered amendments to replace the reconciliation bill with the WHIP+ Act (rejected) and railed against proposed tax code changes (not the Ag Committee’s jurisdiction). The bill also expands dead-end subsidies for biofuels infrastructure and may plant other long-term taxpayer liabilities.

But that wasn’t the worst part. The approved bill lacked any investments in dollars or policy changes for conservation. The approved package flat out lacked a Conservation title. To the chagrin of not just Republicans but also the Democratic Chair of the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee, the conservation title was entirely MIA. Chairman Scott (D-GA) tried to placate concerns with promises he was working with the Congressional Budget Office to get a $28 billion Conservation title inserted at some point, which would be a 60 percent increase in annual farm bill conservation spending. In Chairman Scott’s words,

“…you’ve got to understand we are in a process where we’ve got both the Senate and the House   moving ahead on these. And so, we’re not dealing in concrete just yet.”

Regardless, lawmakers approved the bill in a 27-24 vote sight unseen.

Moving forward, Congress needs to put the horse before the cart. Instead of advancing bills without first having written them, lawmakers must get to work to ensure the budget reconciliation package is fiscally responsible, does not plant future liabilities, promotes resilience, and does more than spend taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers deserve nothing less.