Page 14 - Farm Bill Series_The 7 Things You Should Know

Stabenow had visited with ag committee members in late 2010 and early 2011 about what they
wanted to see in the new farm bill. There was general agreement that, from a political standpoint,
direct payments for farmers would continue in some form, according to a former staff member.

But with all of the focus on deficit reduction, it became clear before March of 2011 that direct
payments would have to be eliminated entirely.

“In a really short time, they were gone.” That meant relationships with creditors –
counting on those same payments for loan repayment – were also going to disappear,”
explained the former staffer.

“The focus on deficit reduction derailed the standard conversation,” the source added.
“And it should provide a stark reminder that – for future farm bills – anything might
happen under budget reconciliation.”

Another source agreed, noting: “If deficit reduction is on the table, nothing is ever safe
from a farm program perspective – especially when deals are made in back rooms by a few
congressional leaders without aggies in the room.”

Ultimately, the Super Committee failed to reach agreement and the ag committee leaders’ work
was scrapped. Their deal, which cut $23 billion out of a measure that was anticipated to cost
$480 billion over 10 years, was technically dead. Ag committee leaders noted that $23 billion
was about 2 percent of the $1.2 trillion that the Super Committee was supposed to cut.
House chair Lucas and Senate chair Stabenow issued a simple statement, saying – in part:

“We are pleased we were able to work in a bipartisan way with committee members and
agriculture stakeholders to generate sound ideas to cut spending by tens of billions while
maintaining key priorities to grow the country’s agriculture economy. We will continue the
process of reauthorizing the farm bill in the coming months, and will do so with the same
bipartisan spirit that has historically defined the work of our committees.”

The Super Committee process both helped and hurt future efforts to craft a new bill,
sources told Agri-Pulse.

The process allowed lawmakers to position the farm bill as something that has continually been
reformed and produced savings.

In an Oct. 14, 2011, letter to the co-chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, as
the “Super Committee” was officially known, Stabenow, Roberts, Lucas and Peterson wrote:

“Commodity program spending represents less than one quarter of 1 percent of the
Federal Budget, and actual Commodity Title spending has been almost $25 billion below
Congressional Budget Office projections at the time the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills were
passed.

“Crop insurance underwent $6 billion in reductions through the most recent renegotiation of the
Standard Reinsurance Agreement, $6 billion in cuts in the last Farm Bill and $2 billion in the
2002 Farm Bill. This totals $14 billion since the passage of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act
in 2000. Conservation has been cut by over $3 billion during the last five years. The

12 www.Agri-Pulse.com