WASHINGTON, D.C. — Agriculture’s attention is on the U.S. House, as representatives prepare to take up its half of the work toward crafting a farm bill to allocate federal funds for ag, nutrition and related programs during the next few years.

The Senate voted 64-35 June 21 to approve its Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012, 28 days after the bill was introduced into the Senate and less than two months after its Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry approved basic language to pass to the full chamber for debate. According to the Congressional Record, this debate included 304 amendments, only 72 of which went to final vote.

House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) plans July 11 as his committee’s start date. Once the House approves its legislation, the two versions will go to conference committee for reconciliation; then, the single version will be submitted for Senate and House votes.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated on May 24 that proposed Senate changes versus the current farm bill – which will expire Sept. 30 – would reduce direct spending on its included programs by $23.6 billion during the next decade.

According to an Associated Press article, that comes from replacing four farm commodity subsidy programs with one and consolidating 23 conservation programs into 13.

The article also stated the biggest change comes from eliminating direct payments to farmers whether they plant crops or not. The program, which costs about $5 billion a year, has lost much of its support at a time of $1 trillion federal deficits and when farmers in general are prospering.

Of the 72 amendments the Senate voted upon, 45 passed and 25 failed, according to the Congressional Record. Two others – including one to phase out the federal sugar program – were tabled. A few topics were the subject of more than one amendment, such as incentive bonuses paid to states for administration of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) proposed continued bonuses only to improve administration of SNAP benefits, whereas Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) called for an end to the incentives.

“One of the problems we have with the food stamp program, if you just think about it, is that all the money comes from the federal government but all the administration comes from the states,” Sessions said in debate. “They have no incentive to manage the program in a way to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. It really helps their economy if more money comes in from out of state. For the federal government to have a program that rewards states on top of their natural incentives would be wrong.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, chair of the Senate Ag Committee, backed her fellow Democrat. “We have seen a 43 percent drop in payment errors as a result of the program Senator Nelson has now strengthened with his amendment,” she said. “Those savings to taxpayers dwarf the costs of this incentive to States to improve their processes.” The Senate approved Nelson’s amendment and defeated Sessions’.

An amendment introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called for a limit of payments and subsidies only to farmers earning an adjusted gross income of less than $250,000 per year.

“Nine percent of farmers earn more than $250,000 worth of adjusted gross income. This would limit their payments,” Paul said. “Currently, 9 percent of the farmers – who are the well-off farmers – are receiving nearly a third of the benefits.”

Stabenow urged senators to reject the amendment, which they did. 

“The good news is, the people who were mentioned will no longer be able to get farm subsidies under this bill because of the reforms we have already put in place,” she said. “We have already lowered the adjusted gross income. We have put a $50,000 per-person cap on payments, which is less than half than what farmers currently receive.”

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the top Republican on the Ag Committee, agreed, adding this would impact conservation, rural development, insurance and dairy programs.

Another amendment limiting subsidies for millionaires was put forth by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). “Special rules allow the USDA to waive income limitations for certain programs, which it does on a regular basis. The result is millions paid to otherwise ineligible millionaires each year,” he said. “This amendment would prevent USDA from paying millionaires, by eliminating the ability to issue waivers that exempt program participants who have an (adjusted gross income) of $1 million or more from adhering to the program’s payment limit rules.” The amendment passed by a vote of 63-36.

Failed amendments include one to prohibit compulsory checkoff programs for commodities, offered by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. Another introduced by fellow Republican Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “from conducting aerial surveillance to inspect agricultural operations or to record images of agricultural operations,” also failed on a vote.

Three amendments addressed access to broadband for rural Americans; two were sponsored by DeMint to keep federal contribution at a certain level. In one, he asked the Senate to eliminate USDA authority to increase federal share of grants for such investments beyond 50 percent.

The other proposed keeping the current $25 million Rural Utility Service (RUS) funding for broadband expansion instead of doubling it to $50 million.

“The average spending over the last 10 years for that service is about $14 million,” DeMint said in debate. “The current level of spending is at $25 million. If anything, given our $16 trillion in (national) debt, one would think we would come in somewhat below that.”

Stabenow disagreed. “In the 1930s and 1940s we made a commitment to rural electrification and extended what was a fairly new technology to communities across the country. We had a boom in innovation and economic growth,” she said.

“Today, the Internet is the new dividing line. Too many communities still don’t have access to high-speed broadband Internet for businesses in these locations. It is a real competitive disadvantage for them, especially in a global economy.”

Both DeMint amendments failed, but one put forth by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), to improve access to broadband in rural areas, passed.