WASHINGTON, D.C. — After briefly postponing a vote on markups of its version of the 2012 farm bill to address member concerns, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry last Thursday passed the bill by a 16-5 vote.

“We examined every program in the farm bill, and we reformed, streamlined and consolidated to get perhaps the most significant reforms in agricultural policy of any farm bill in recent memory,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), committee chair.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill – known as the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 – would reduce the deficit by $24.7 billion over the next 10 years, “saving U.S. taxpayers money by eliminating direct payments and emphasizing the need to strengthen risk management tools for farmers.”

Drafted by Stabenow and Ranking Member Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the bill is supposed to “eliminate unnecessary subsidies, consolidating programs to end duplication and cracking down on food assistance abuse,” while “strengthening initiatives that help farmers, ranchers and small business owners create American jobs.”

“This bill proves that by working across party lines, we can save taxpayer money and create smart, cost-effective policies that lay the foundation for a stronger, more prosperous economy,” Stabenow said.

Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Neb., said while closing the loopholes is a critical step, the next step is to apply those limits to uncapped premium subsidies for federal crop insurance – the most expensive element of the farm program.

“If one corporation farmed every acre in America,” he said, “the federal government would pay 60 percent of its crop insurance premiums on every acre, every year. Crop insurance subsidies are highest in times of high prices, when they are needed least. That’s because it costs more to insure $6 corn than $4 corn. Crop insurance costs have doubled in the last five years and quadrupled in the last 10 years.”

Under the proposed bill, 23 existing conservation programs would be consolidated into 13 programs, while maintaining the existing tools farmers and landowners need to protect and conserve land, water and wildlife.

The bill replaces the existing direct and counter-cyclical, ACRE and SURE programs with a more beefed-up crop insurance package. It adds a new Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program to partially offset revenue losses between 79-89 percent of benchmark revenue, while maintaining the existing non-recourse marketing loan program.

The bill would also purportedly expand export opportunities and help farmers develop new markets for their goods, and invest in research to help commercialize new agricultural innovations. The committee also approved $800 million in mandatory biofuels-related funding for the proposed energy title in the farm bill.

The bill would grow biobased manufacturing (businesses producing goods in America from raw agricultural products grown in America) by “allowing biomanufacturers to participate in existing USDA loan programs, expanding the BioPreferred labeling initiative” and “strengthening a procurement preference so the U.S. government will select biobased products when purchasing needed goods.”

Proponents claimed the bill would also spur advancements in bioenergy production, supporting advanced biomass energy production such as cellulosic ethanol and pellets from woody biomass for power.

In addition, the bill would increase accountability in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by stopping lottery winners from continuing to receive assistance, ending misuse by college students and eliminating gaps in standards that result in overpayment of benefits.

Moreover, the bill is supposed to help family farmers sell locally by increasing support for farmers’ markets and spurring the creation of food hubs to connect farmers to schools and other community-based consumers. It also extends rural development initiatives to help rural communities upgrade infrastructure and create small business growth.

But four Republican senators from the South on the committee – Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and John Boozman of Arkansas – and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) voted against the bill, saying it cuts nutrition and other crucial programs.

“The farm bill in front of us attempts to shoehorn all producers into a one-size-fits-all policy,” Chambliss said.

“Producer choice is a better course to follow and I regret the commodity title does not recognize its power.”

While Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), House Agriculture Committee chair, commended Stabenow and Roberts for getting the bill this far, he said he was disappointed by the Senate bill’s commodity title because “it doesn’t work for all of agriculture.

“It fails to provide producers a viable safety net and instead locks in profit for a couple of commodities,” he said. “I have made it clear that my chief priority is making certain that the commodity title is equitable and provides a safety net for all covered commodities and all regions of the country. “A shallow-loss program is not a safety net. It does not provide protection against price declines over multiple years and it does not work for all commodities.”

The measure will now go to the full Senate for consideration. To view a copy of the proposed bill, including the amendments that were accepted by the committee, visit www.ag.senate.gov/ issues/farm-bill