Page 29 - Farm Bill Series_The 7 Things You Should Know

mirrored much of the farm provisions that had failed to pass the House in June. But the measure
also included a repeal of the so called “permanent law.”

For the first time since 1973, food stamps were not part of the farm bill.
“We wanted separation, and we got it,” said Stutzman.

Lucas called passage of the legislation “a huge step forward,” as the House did indeed pass a
farm bill.

During floor debate, Lucas appealed to his colleagues: “In the nature of making this place work,
pass the ‘farm’ farm bill so I can begin to work on the nutrition part of the farm bill next.”

On Sept. 19, the House passed the nutrition portion of the former farm bill, cutting nearly $40
billion out of the food stamp program over the next decade. Shaped largely be Cantor, H.R.
3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013, passed by a vote of 217-210.

The bill was strongly opposed by House Democrats and some Republicans who charged it would
increase hunger by ending benefits for nearly 4 million people in 2014.

After the vote, Vilsack said the bill “stands no chance of becoming law” and the White
House threatened a veto.

Path toward conference

The path forward was littered with potholes, but Lucas finally had another chance to craft a new
farm bill. Within days, Boehner said he would appoint conferees.
Senate leaders appointed farm bill conferees on Aug. 1, 2013. House leaders didn’t name
conferees until Oct 12.

But staff members had already been preparing and figuring out how to work through many of
differences between the House and Senate versions. Consensus on the conservation title was
relatively easy because there had been strong agreement from both sides during the debate. But
as 2013 was winding down, there were still several key areas where consensus was elusive.

1. Planted vs. base. After artfully guiding the passage of two farm bills through the Senate,
Stabenow had also grown increasingly skeptical of the commodity title provisions that Lucas
insisted on including: linking high target prices to planted acres, rather than base acres.

It was an ideological argument that bridged party lines and geographies. Stabenow was
supported by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., Mike Johanns of Nebraska,
and others because of fears that such language could have real-world trade implications.

For Stabenow, another World Trade Organization (WTO) challenge could ultimately threaten the
auto industry in places like her home state of Michigan. Yet, Lucas and Cochran, supported by
Chambliss and other Southern senators, were in lockstep on most of Title One and saw no reason
to change course.

2. Disagreements on the definition of “actively engaged” and payment limits were also
creating big regional tensions that lasted until almost the very end of the conference. Midwestern
Senators, such as Iowa’s Charles Grassley, wanted to tighten farm program payment limits and
www.Agri-Pulse.com 27