Won’t pass --- existing proposals are just political messaging documents and unlikely to move until after the election

It’s time to think of the farm-bill drafts released by the four top leaders of the Senate and House agriculture committees not as legislative proposals, but as campaign documents.

In past years, battles over the farm bill have been conducted across regional lines and between the House and the Senate. But this year, it looks to be a purely partisan exercise. Now that Sen. John Boozman, the ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, has unveiled his framework for a farm bill, it’s clear that the Republican and Democratic proposals in each chamber have nearly identical political objectives—each aims to appeal to groups that committee members believe will vote their way in the November elections.

The Republicans are trying to appeal to big, mostly conventional farmers, as well as to voters and donors who believe spending on anti-hunger programs is out of control. The Democrats are trying to appeal to nutrition-program beneficiaries and their advocates, as well as environmentalists and small, organic, minority, and women farmers who depend on federal programs.

The stark differences between the bills make it unlikely that either side will be willing to compromise before the elections. That leaves the lame-duck session the best window for passage. Boozman told reporters that even though the current extension of the 2018 farm bill expires on Sept. 30, it won’t be necessary to consider another extension until the lame duck.

Both Boozman’s proposal and the bill written by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, approved by the committee in late May, emphasize improvements to the farm safety net. House Republicans estimated that their bill would spend an additional $53 billion over 10 years to raise the reference prices that determine farm-subsidy payments and increase crop-insurance subsidies. Their bill would cover the costs by suspending Title V of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, which gives the Agriculture secretary almost unlimited authority over how to use the department’s $30 billion per year line of credit at the Treasury to aid farmers. The Congressional Budget Office has said the savings from suspending Title V would amount to only $8 billion over 10 years, but Thompson is determined to convince CBO to raise that figure.

The House GOP bill also requires that future rewrites of the Thrifty Food Plan, which is used to determine benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, be budget neutral. CBO says that would save $27 billion over 10 years. House Republicans would devote those savings to other nutrition provisions and agricultural-trade promotion and programs for growers of specialty crops, including fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

The Senate GOP bill would raise reference prices that trigger subsidy payments and provide more crop-insurance aid, but Boozman has declined to say exactly how much that will cost.

The bill would also make the Thrifty Food Plan budget neutral. Boozman’s bill doesn’t suspend Title V of the CCC Charter Act, but he has said the bill would “rein in” CCC spending under Title V.

A Boozman aide said the committee staff believes that despite the bill’s $1.5 trillion price tag over 10 years, it will yield savings to pay for the Republican priorities.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow has released a framework that she says will also improve the farm safety net, but it would come with more strings, as it emphasizes aid to smaller farmers. Stabenow’s bill would not increase costs by more than the $5 billion that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has pledged to find for the farm bill. Stabenow would allow future Thrifty Food Plan rewrites to be used to raise SNAP benefits, on the grounds that USDA needs to use scientific evidence to determine if SNAP beneficiaries need more money to buy healthier foods. Stabenow also wouldn’t make changes to the CCC Charter Act, arguing that the Agriculture secretary needs the freedom to solve farm problems. Secretary Tom Vilsack has said he is willing to work with Congress to use the CCC to deal with farm-bill budget issues, but believes future Agriculture secretaries need unfettered access to the CCC.

Rep. David Scott, the ranking member on the House committee, hasn’t released as fulsome a proposal as the other three corners, but he has released a set of principles in line with Stabenow’s bill.

The parties are also split over moving the conservation money in the Inflation Reduction Act into the farm bill. The Republicans would remove the guardrails that require the money be spent on climate-related conservation initiatives. The Democrats would maintain the guardrails.

Whether any of these battles matter to voters in this age of tribalism is unclear. But neither Republicans nor Democrats seem likely to take any chances.