Source: POLITICO'S MORNING AGRICULTURE, 8/20/18

An unusual coalition of libertarians, free-marketers and environmentalists hoped this farm bill cycle would be the one to rein in subsidies for wealthy farmers. Despite years of methodical preparation, the issue was barely debated on the floor of either chamber, in part because of a continuing slump in the agricultural economy. In addition, a dispute over food stamps unintentionally united House leadership to fight off proposals to limit subsidies, reportsPro Ag's Catherine Boudreau.

"This wasn't a matter of being beaten. We were blocked," said Nan Swift, director of federal affairs for the National Taxpayers Union. "Let's have the fight."

Losses in both chambers: A fight over a House proposal to tighten work requirements in millions of participants in SNAP took up most of the political oxygen, leaving those seeking to cut back subsidies little opportunity to publicly make their case. Speaker Paul Ryan, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Ag Chairman Mike Conaway and ranking member Collin Peterson joined forces to defend the farm policy status quo. That included defeating a floor vote in the House over an amendment to overhaul the complex U.S. sugar program.

In the Senate, Senate Ag Chairman Pat Roberts and ranking member Debbie Stabenow worked together to shut down senators' proposals to limit farm subsidies by negotiating the inclusion of other priorities, Catherine writes.

One proposal gets through: The manager's amendment on the Senate side includes a provision from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would limit farms to having just one principal eligible for commodity subsidies, which are currently capped at $125,000 a year per person — and double for couples. Agriculture Committee leaders also agreed to lower the income test for receiving commodity subsidies to $700,000. It is not clear, however, if Grassley's language will make its way into the bill advanced by the conference committee. The disparate coalition of members looking to limit subsidies plan to pressure lawmakers into keeping those provisions, though they know their chances of achieving greater reforms are slim to none. The coming weeks should see more intense discussions on how to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill.