What is in this article?:
- 2012 Farm Bill Options: Extension, Stand Alone or Fiscal Cliff Results
The 2012 Farm Bill has become entwined with the debate over federal budget priorities at a time of large fiscal deficits, a debate commonly called the fiscal cliff. The 2012 Farm Bill process most closely resembles the 1991 Farm bill process, which also became entwined in a debate over budget priorities and deficits. This article briefly examines the current status of the 2012 Farm Bill process and offers a peek at future farm safety net issues.
In June 2012, the U.S. Senate passed the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012. In July 2012, the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture passed the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act. The full House has not taken up this bill. Potential next steps in the 2012 farm bill process include passage of a House-Senate compromise farm bill, either as a separate bill or as part of a larger package to address the fiscal cliff, or a short-term extension of all or part of the current farm bill. An extension probably will not exceed a year, and could be less.
Comparison of Existing Bills
Most provisions in the House and Senate farm bill drafts are similar. In terms of the crop safety net, both bills eliminate direct payments, retain marketing loans, make risk management the safety net's central focus, make individual crop insurance the central safety net program, enhance individual crop insurance coverage, add a county insurance Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), implement a multiple-year county revenue option as a complement to insurance, and give farms a choice over their multiple-year risk management program.
In my opinion, the major differences in the drafts are:
- The size of cuts to nutrition programs: $4 billion (Senate) vs. $16 billion (House) over 10 years.
- Whether or not the Farm Service Agency should administer a farm level risk management program.
- Whether or not the multiple-year risk management program should focus on price (House) or revenue (Senate) and have benchmarks that are fixed (House) or change with market conditions (Senate).
The last two differences are integral to the debate over the share of spending by crop; in particular the argument by Southern crops that a market oriented safety net does not work for them.