Farm Bill Remains in Limbo

After a bumpy summer, the uphill battle in Congress to pass a long-term Farm Bill continues and is expected to go down to the wire.

A five-year reauthorization seemed like a strong possibility as Congress began its debate earlier in the year. After a failed attempt in 2012, it appeared as though Congress was ready to put aside differences and pass a long-term agreement.

The Farm Bill reauthorizes the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP), a program strongly supported by the Big “I,” which continues to advocate on behalf of the thousands of crop insurance agents who work diligently to protect America’s farmers and ranchers. The Farm Bill has historically been a bipartisan effort supported by members from both sides of the aisle. At press time, the current Farm Bill was operating under a one-year extension until Sept. 30, 2013.

The Senate approved its five-year Farm Bill, S. 954, the “Agriculture Reform Food & Jobs Act,” in a 66-27 vote in mid-June. A bipartisan group of senators supported the bill, which would cut $24 billion from farm spending over 10 years, including a $4 billion reduction to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamp program).

The Senate bill transitions away from traditional income support programs like direct payments and focuses on risk management products like crop insurance. The Big “I” fended off additional cuts to the baseline of the FCIP during consideration of the legislation; however, a limit on farm subsidies for farmers making more than $750,000 was adopted.

The House began debating its version of a long-term bill in July. H.R. 1947, the “Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013” (FARRM or the House Farm Bill), would save taxpayers $40 billion over 10 years by consolidating more than 100 programs administered by the USDA.

The Big “I” launched a strong grassroots effort during the House debate by targeting an amendment by Reps. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) and Tom Petri (R-Wis.) that proposed to cut and cap the crop program budget baseline and slash the administrating and operating (A&O) payments that directly impact agents’ commissions. The Big “I” successfully helped defeat the Kind/Petri amendment as well an amendment that would take a straight cut of $400 million from the FCIP baseline.

One of the most contentious issues in the ongoing debate concerns proposed cuts to the Nutrition Title. Bills in both chambers contain reforms to SNAP, with the House version containing a major overhaul. Democrat opposition to the bill over proposed cuts to the SNAP program led to the House bill’s failure in the final hours of deliberation.

In an unprecedented turn of events, the House then split their Farm Bill into two bills. A bill solely focused on agriculture and farming programs passed the House along party lines and was sent to the Senate to begin an “informal conference.” The House leadership then indicated they would begin consideration of a “nutrition only” bill this fall that would tackle the controversial issue of food stamps.

Without a current House Farm Bill addressing both SNAP and agriculture programs, the fate of the legislation remains unclear. Some have speculated that the Senate will simply conference the completed portion of the House bill with its final version and include the Senate-passed SNAP language. However, some members of the House have indicated that they will refuse to move a bill that does not allow them to debate the Nutrition Title.

If both chambers don’t come to an agreement by the current deadline at the end of September, another extension of the bill is likely. The Big “I” supports a compromise that delivers stability to the agriculture marketplace and enables agents, as trusted advisors to America’s farmers and ranchers, the ability to provide safety and security to their livelihood and the country’s agriculture.

Margarita Tapia is Big “I” director of public affairs.