Legislators optimistic about federal farm bill

WASHINGTON - The new 2013 version of the federal farm bill will be slimmer than before, and with several notable differences. And it also may hit the ground a lot earlier.

In a marked contrast to last year, the House and Senate last week jump-started work on a new farm bill and made considerable progress. Last year, the Senate passed its version of the bill on a strong bipartisan vote, but leaders in the Republican-controlled House never allowed a vote on it. Instead, the House simply passed an extension of the current bill, which expires at the end of September.

Final votes in both chambers are possible as early as June, although more likely it will be late summer before details are finalized. Proponents of the bill are pushing for a five-year version, instead of a year-to-year approach that farming advocates have criticized. Senators acted with speed last week largely because they simply took up last year's amended version of the bill, which already had bipartisan support.

“Right now, I'm feeling optimistic,” said Dale Moore, executive director of public policy at the Washington-based American Farm Bureau. “There is certainly an outside chance that we could see these bills reconciled before September.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, emphasized that the bill includes the same crop insurance provisions that have proved most popular with the farming industry.

“This is the No. 1 most-supported provision in the farm bill, from a farmer's perspective,” Stabenow said. “Everywhere we've gone, as I've traveled around the country, farmers have said, ‘We're willing to give up direct payment subsidies, we know from a taxpayer standpoint it doesn't make sense that we receive help in good times. But crop insurance is what works for us.' The mainstay for farmers in this country is, and has been, crop insurance.”

The main differences between last year's Senate farm bill and this year's $955 billion, 12-part version is in payment limits, which are being reformed; target prices, which are being added; and food stamp provisions, which are being cut. The bill reduces federal spending by about $24 billion. Similar to last year's version, the 2013 Senate bill would end the system of direct payments, which have been long criticized by senators from both parties. In its place would be a more revenue-based system.

“It's balanced, it's bipartisan, and it continues critical food, energy and rural programs while reducing federal spending. … I hope this time more moderate voices will be heard in the House,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, a senior member and former chairman of the Agriculture Committee who noted this was his eighth farm bill since being elected to Congress in 1975.

The payment limits changes were the idea of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and would cap the amount of money an individual farmer could receive in a year at $50,000 for all benefits besides marketing loans. Grassley said the reform would end abuses and close loopholes that have allowed corruption in the farm payment system.

Target prices are being added to level the marketplace for peanut and rice commodities. The House version of the bill included such a provision last year, although the Senate version did not. Both Grassley and Harkin oppose the idea.

Whatever version emerges of the new farm bill will have few provisions for wind energy subsidies, but the issue is mostly addressed through the federal tax code . Grassley wrote a 1992 law that introduced such subsidies - which now total $6 billion nationally - and he along with Gov. Terry Branstad have been actively pushing to prolong them.

The subsidies were renewed in January, but they will expire again at the end of December. Grassley noted they provide for about 7,500 jobs in Iowa and 75,000 nationally, and that Iowa is the second most-productive state in the country in producing wind energy.

Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley and Rep. Dave Loebsack said they will push House Republicans to allow a vote on the bill this year. Braley said he was fairly satisfied with the Senate version of the bill last year, particularly with the wind energy and crop insurance provisions.

“When you have a bill as large and complex as the farm bill with so many titles, you have to look at it in its entirety, and I was happy from the standpoint that so many people came together,” he said.

Loebsack noted that that the House version of the bill so far contains few wind energy subsidies, and he also took issue with the food stamp cuts - formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - that he said are “unacceptable.”

“Especially in what continues to be rough economic times for Iowans,” he said.

The food stamp cuts are shaping up as the largest looming fight. The Senate version of the current bill would cut food stamp provisions by $4 billion over 10 years, but the House version would cut $20 billion over the same time frame. Senators say their cuts were careful, while the House cuts are reckless.

“Way out of line,” said Harkin of the proposed House cuts to food stamp programs. “There's no way we're going to agree to that.”

Stabenow said she “absolutely rejects” the proposed food stamp cuts in the House version of the bill. She said her committee already addressed abuses in the program, but House Republicans would restrict eligibility beyond a reasonable point. She compared it to crop insurance.

“This is about providing help when it's needed,” she said. “This is about having support available during a disaster, whether it's for a farmer or a family. We've got to make sure we've got some help for them.”