The amount of food stamp benefits a household receives is based on its “countable income”: gross income minus certain deductions. The lower a household’s income, the greater its food stamp benefit. A household’s utility expenses can count as one such income deduction. Rather than having to compile every food stamp applicant’s utility costs, some states use what they call a “standard utility allowance.” Food stamp households that receive assistance from LIHEAP—no matter how much and regardless of whether they even pay a utility bill separate from their rent—can be automatically eligible for a “standard utility allowance,” which lowers the amount of their countable income, making them eligible for higher food stamp benefits. Households that pay utilities as part of rent get to deduct utilities from their income twice, once as part of the rental cost and a second time as a fictional utility deduction.
 Randy Alison Aussenberg and Libby Perl, “The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, May 13, 2013, http://frac.org/pdf/snap_liheap_conressvc_may2013.pdf (accessed March 25, 2014).
 California Senate, Office of Research, “The Agricultural Act of 2014: Highlights of Impacts to California,” February 2014, http://www.sor.govoffice3.com/vertical/Sites/%7B3BDD1595-792B-4D20-8D44-626EF05648C7%7D/uploads/Federal_Update--The_Farm_Bill.pdf (accessed March 25, 2014).
 See Greg Kaufman, “While Obama Talks Poverty, Stabenow Agrees to Another $8 billion in Food Stamp Cuts,” The Nation, December 6, 2013, http://www.thenation.com/blog/177495/while-obama-talks-poverty-stabenow-agrees-8-billion-more-snap-cuts# (accessed March 27, 2014).
 News release, “Lucas Praises House Passage of Farm Bill Conference Report,” Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, January 29, 2014, https://agriculture.house.gov/press-release/lucas-praises-house-passage-farm-bill-conference-report (accessed March 25, 2014).
 News release, “Governor Cuomo Announces New York State Will Preserve $457 Million in Snap Benefits for 300,000 Households,” Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/02252014-snap-benefits (accessed March 25, 2013).
 Douglas W. Elmendorf, director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable Frank D. Lucas, chairman, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, January 28, 2014, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr2642LucasLtr.pdf (accessed April 1, 2014).
 For a good discussion, see Ralph Chite, “The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, February 12, 2014, http://www.farmland.org/programs/federal/documents/2014_0213_CRS_FarmBillSummary.pdf (accessed April 1, 2014).
 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Act of 2014: Highlights and Implications, “Crop Commodity Programs,” March 19, 2014, http://www.ers.usda.gov/agricultural-act-of-2014-highlights-and-implications/crop-commodity-programs.aspx (accessed April 1, 2014).
 Farmers can choose between county ARC and individual ARC. To learn more about these options and how payments are calculated, see ibid.The Congressional Research Service explains the ARC revenue guarantee in this way: “Under ARC, the revenue guarantee is set at 86% of historical revenue (i.e., the producer absorbs the first 14% of the shortfall) at either the county or farm level (to cover more localized losses). The government then pays for the next 10% of the loss. Any remaining losses are backstopped by crop insurance if purchased by the producer.” See Chite, “The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L 113-79),” note 11.
 Elmendorf, letter to the Honorable Frank D. Lucas.
 Congressional Budget Office, CBO’s May 2013 Baseline for Farm Programs, May 14, 2013, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44202_USDAMandator%20FarmPrograms.pdf (accessed March 31, 2014).
 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, USDA Agricultural Projections to 2023, “U.S. Crops,” February 2014, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/oce-usda-agricultural-projections/oce141.aspx (accessed April 1, 2014).
 Rice is the smallest field crop of the four by far in terms of acreage, be it planted or harvested acres. Wheat, which is the third-largest field crop of the four (and overall) in terms of harvested and planted acres, has a projected harvested acreage of 48.5 million acres and a projected planted acreage of 57 million acres for 2014. In contrast, rice has a projected harvested acreage of 2.874 million acres and a projected planted acreage of 2.9 million acres. See ibid. The four commodities that are used in this analysis were selected because both the CBO and the USDA have 10-year projections for each of them, and they are all covered commodities under the PLC and ARC. See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, “2014 Farm Bill Fact Sheet: What’s in the 2014 Farm Bill for Farm Service Agency Customers?” March 2014, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20140311_insup_en_fbil.html (accessed April 1, 2014).
 The government payments in the FAPRI report are presented in terms of their costs by marketing year, which is inconsistent with CBO’s fiscal year approach. The most recent marketing year included from the FAPRI report was 2021–2022, which would equate to costs incurred for fiscal year 2023. The FAPRI recommended this approach to align the years through phone and e-mail communications with The Heritage Foundation in March 2014. See University of Missouri, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, U.S. Baseline Briefing Book: Projections for Agricultural and Biofuel Markets, March 2014, p. 50, http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2014/FAPRI_MU_Report_02_14.pdf (accessed April 1, 2014).
 See Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2642eh/pdf/BILLS-113hr2642eh.pdf (accessed April 1, 2014), and Elmendorf, letter to the Honorable Frank D. Lucas. Representative Virginia Foxx (R–NC) introduced an amendment to create a cap as part of H.R. 1947. The amendment passed, but the House voted down the bill. See Congressional Record, June 19, 2013, p. H3788, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2013-06-19/pdf/CREC-2013-06-19-pt1-PgH3787.pdf#page=2 (accessed April 1, 2014).The total cap of $16,956,500,000 is explained to be 110 percent of the CBO projections (through 2020). The language using the same cap amount was included in H.R. 2642, the farm bill that passed the House, as 1107(e). There should also be a cap through 2018, which would be the fifth and final year of the new farm bill. If it is based on 110 percent of the CBO’s cost projections for the programs under the new farm bill, it would be about $12,807,300,000.
 See Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013. In the House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2642), the shallow-loss program is called Revenue Loss Coverage (RLC), not ARC. The PLC and RLC programs would have worked slightly differently from what was passed with the final farm bill’s PLC and ARC programs.
 The cost cap should be made known to farmers before they participate in the PLC or ARCprograms. If the USDA determines that in an upcoming year the costs of the programs will exceed this cap, then the agency should communicate this to participating farmers as soon as is feasible. The remaining money should be allocated in a manner in which all recipients receive an equal prorated share of what they otherwise would have received.