Reps. Hartzler, Stutzman, Gibbs and Huelskamp have all benefited from crop subsidies. | AP Photos Farm subsidies test GOP frosh

Commodity prices are near all-time highs, an anti-spending mission dominates among the House majority and the House Agriculture Committee is packed with 15 GOP freshmen, some of whom were swept into office backed by a tea party movement that seemed poised to slash everything — including crop subsidies.

But it’s an open question whether these freshmen will move to slash the sacred cow of farm subsidies — as several of the rookies themselves have received hundreds of thousands in subsidies over the years, including some on the Agriculture Committee, which will debate a farm bill in the coming year.


One of the top subsidy recipients among GOP rookies is Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler, who with her husband, Lowell, received $774,489 from 1995 through 2009 for their family farm, according to USDA data compiled by the Environmental Working Group. Indiana Rep. Marlin Stutzman’s farm received $179,370.13 in the same period. Ohio Rep. Bob Gibbs’s farm got $27,304.59.

Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp, by any measure one of the party’s most conservative members, took a bit of federal cash — just $258 in a disaster relief payment. But according to the Environmental Working Group, H & H Farms, which is owned by Huelskamps’ parents, received $1,169,499 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009.

These freshmen, now on the Agriculture Committee, will bring these experiences to bear when deciding how and where to slash farm subsidies long derided by conservatives and good government groups as corporate welfare. With a GOP spending blueprint that the Budget Committee says should save $30 billion from the farm program over the next decade, the freshmen say they know cuts are coming — but they don’t want farmers to be disproportionately hit.

“You can’t just adopt policy [that says] ‘Well, farmers are fine, so you can just cut everything,’” said Rick Crawford, a freshman whose Arkansas district is one of the top recipients of subsidies according to the Environmental Working Group. Crawford says that in the anti-subsidy fervor, it’s easy to overlook the cost of production.

“We have to be really careful about that and make sure that we’re communicating that message to John Q. Public, because crop subsidies, farm subsidies may appear to be distasteful for a lot of taxpayers, but the truth of the matter is I could argue that subsidizing agriculture is a pass-through to ultimately helping consumers,” he said.

At issue is the estimated $15 billion to $20 billion the government spends in subsidies each year. Originally a Depression-era program, farm subsidies have evolved into a complex maze of economic assurances for farmers: direct payments, federal crop insurance programs, counter-cyclical payments (which trigger when commodity prices fall below a certain mandated level) and other programs.

The farm bill, which comes up on a five-year basis, typically inspires a Washington battle of the wills between the powerful special interests that support farm subsidies and those who would like to see them end. When the Agriculture Committee takes up the farm bill in earnest next year, the freshmen say they’ll be looking particularly at the $5 billion that goes to direct subsidies as a place to cut. As for counter-cyclical payments and crop insurance, the freshmen say they will take a lighter touch.

Stutzman, whose farm received direct and counter-cyclical payments, said they were useful for him when corn prices dropped in the 1990s. “It worked, and it helped a lot of us farmers survive,” he says. “That’s why I believe we need to make sure we have a strong crop insurance program, a safety net in place.”

Gibbs, a former hog farmer, also stressed the importance of a federal support structure for farmers. “I suffered some real bad years in the hog business when the price of food was really high. I do think it’s important that on the grain side there’s a safety net there,” he said.

But he, like Stutzman, supports cutting the direct payments for crops such as corn and soybeans. “Cuts to direct payments are long overdue. Commodity prices are at a long-time high. That discussion needs to happen, and I’m looking forward to it,” Stutzman said.

Other freshmen not on the Agriculture Committee have done even better by the feds. The farm owned by Tennessee Rep. Stephen Fincher and his wife, Lynn, has received $3,254,324 from 1995 through 2009. Racota Valley Ranch, owned by South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem’s family, received $3,058,152.

But with some early successes in cutting spending behind them, subsidy opponents say they’re cautiously optimistic that the freshmen — even those who have participated in the farm programs in the past — are ready to make real cuts.

“Certainly, many of the freshmen have made it clear that they want to do everything possible to reduce the deficit. To us, that would include farm program and subsidies,” said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, which organized a coalition of groups to oppose subsidies during the previous farm bill and plans to do it again next year. “It’s really a wait-and-see situation.”

A $17.25 billion agricultural and food safety appropriations bill expected to hit the floor next week is evidence of the intense debate that will meet any long-term cuts to spending. The bill, which cuts $2.6 billion from 2011 levels, contains $147 million paid to Brazilian cotton growers because of a trade dispute. The source of those cuts was hotly contested, with some conservatives arguing they should come from subsidies. The committee ultimately voted to target nutrition programs for women and children for cuts.

Powerful special interests aside, Schatz said the Republican willingness to propose entitlement restructuring gives him hope that they’ll look to farm subsidies, too.

“I’m more hopeful than I have been in a long time that these will be addressed,” Schatz said. “The circumstances and the substantive reasons for changing these programs are stronger than they have been in a long time. When you’re talking about a situation where a large amount of money goes to a small amount of programs, members might look at these things again.”

Crawford said the committee’s challenge will be to find the “pragmatic” approach to cutting subsidies.

“There will be some cuts. How much are those cuts, what will they look like, and how do we do it as responsibly as possible without creating a real problem for our food chain? That’s the approach we’re going to take,” he said. “We have to implement these cuts, but in a responsible way.”