The House bill would cut around $4 billion a year from food aid and farm spending, while the Senate bill would trim roughly $2.4 billion. Those reductions include more than $600 million in yearly savings from across-the-board cuts that took effect earlier this year.
Much of the savings in the House and Senate bills comes from eliminating annual direct payments, a subsidy frequently criticized because it isn't tied to production or crop prices. Part of those savings would go toward the deficit reduction, but the rest of the money would create new programs and raise subsidies for some crops while business is booming in the agricultural sector.
The Senate bill would eliminate direct payments immediately, while the House bill would phase out payments to cotton farmers, who rely on the program, over the next two years.
Like the Senate bill, the House measure also includes concessions to Southern rice and peanut growers who also depend on direct payments. The bills would lower the threshold for rice and peanut subsidies to kick in when prices drop.
There are protections for other crops as well. Both bills would boost federally subsidized crop insurance and create a new program that covers smaller losses on planted crops before crop insurance kicks in, favoring Midwestern corn and soybean farmers, who use crop insurance most often.
The committee made no changes to the subsidy programs in the bill Wednesday, and Lucas made no apologies for broadening some farm programs.
"Let's give certainty to an industry that has been a bright spot in an otherwise dismal economy," he said as he opened the committee meeting.
The farm bill passed the Senate last year but the House declined to take it up after conservatives in that chamber objected to the cost and insisted on higher cuts to food stamps. This year, Republican leaders have said the full House will consider the bill.
The House committee also:
— Voted to keep a new, voluntary risk management insurance program for dairy producers in the bill. Those who choose the new program would have to participate in a market stabilization program that could dictate production cuts when oversupply drives down prices. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has called the program "Soviet-style."
— Voted to require the Agriculture Department to allow the organic industry to organize and promote itself as an industry, similar to familiar campaigns like "Got Milk?" and "Beef: It's What's For Dinner." Some supporters of traditional agriculture opposed the amendment.
— Voted to finance a public-private partnership to attract community investment in helping retailers stock healthier foods.
— Voted to bar California and other states from exporting cage standards and other restrictive laws to agricultural producers in other states. Amendment sponsor Steve King, R-Iowa, says California's law violates the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states.
Follow Mary Clare Jalonick on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mcjalonick