House leaders’ proposal to split farm bill meets resistance
July 09, 2013 | 09:33 PM
The House Republican leadership’s proposal to split the failed farm bill into two parts appears to be in trouble. Whip counts show a low level of support, a conservative think tank said the proposal does not go far enough, farm groups expressed concern about the contents of the proposal, and Democrats said that splitting the bill could end the urban-rural cooperation that has ensured passage of farm bills in the past.
Early today, a House Republican leadership aide told reporters that the leadership was proposing splitting the farm bill into two parts, with a vote this week on the farm programs and a future vote on food stamps. But this evening, a House Republican aide told The Hagstrom Report that the whip count on the farm program-only bill had turned out low.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., had reluctantly supported the two-bill approach if it would allow the farm bill to pass the House and go to conference with the Senate, which has already passed a full farm bill. But House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., remained opposed to the approach and said he doubted the Republican votes were there to pass the bill.
Heritage Action hosted an event with Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., a key advocate for splitting the two bills, but Heritage Action CEO Michael Needman issued a statement later that splitting the bill is not enough.
Michael Needham
“The purpose of ending the unholy alliance that has dominated the food stamp and farm bill for decades is to allow substantive debate that would allow the House to show its conservative values,” Needham said.
“Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a naked attempt to get to a conference committee with the Senate,” he said. “The end result of such a conference would be a perpetuation of subsidies and government intervention that will continue to harm consumers and taxpayers alike.”
To get more votes from conservatives for the farm program portion of the bill that failed on the House floor, the leadership proposed adding a provision that would repeal the permanent farm laws from the 1930s and 1940s that force Congress to pass a new farm bill every five years. The leadership proposal would make the 2013 farm bill the new permanent law and was intended to get votes from conservatives, but farm lobbyists questioned the addition of that provision without any debate on it.
Leaders of the American Soybean Association, who happen to be in Washington this week, have scheduled appointments with House members on Wednesday afternoon, and from the sound of a meeting they held this afternoon seem likely to express grave concerns about the approach.
John Gordley, who lobbies for ASA in Washington, told members they should express concerns about a bill that would not be bipartisan like most farm bills, that would include provisions on the commodity title to which soybean growers have objected, and that would repeal the permanent law that has forced Congress to pass a new farm bill every five years or so.
He noted that endorsing a bill that would repeal permanent law and make the 2013 law permanent was questionable because the 2013 bill could contain provisions that could distort planting decisions.
Gordley urged ASA members to avoid saying directly that they oppose the two-bill approach so that the House leadership could not blame the group for preventing a farm bill from passing, but in their reactions ASA leaders from outside Washington sounded as though they would have a hard time sounding favorable or even neutral on a bill with so many loose ends.
Steve Censky
ASA CEO Steve Censky, who is based in St. Louis, noted that ASA policy says that “unless House leaders can produce a clear plan and vote counts on how splitting farm and nutrition programs into two separate bills attracts enough votes to pass, can be successfully conferenced with the Senate’s farm bill, and results in a final conference report that can be passed by both Houses of Congress, we believe splitting the traditional coalition of urban and rural lawmakers which has supported farm bills could result in neither farm or nutrition programs passing.”
Farmer members repeatedly asked Gordley and his staff about the bill’s failure on the House floor, and why Republican House members had won votes on amendments they sponsored and still voted against the bill.
Gordley noted that farm leaders had met at lunchtime to discuss the proposal.
Later National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson issued a statement that the NFU board of directors, acting in its capacity as the organization’s legislative committee, voted unanimously to maintain its long-time position on keeping farm programs and nutrition assistance as a single, comprehensive farm bill:
Roger Johnson
“Splitting farm programs and nutrition assistance into two separate bills is a disservice to farmers, ranchers, rural residents and consumers,” Johnson said.
“The bill needs to remain intact, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s efforts to provide safety net programs for both farmers and consumers facing hard times should not be pulled in opposite directions. Farmers produce the food upon which consumers across the country, including those in need of some assistance, rely. It stands to reason to have one unified piece of legislation that can garner support from members of Congress from rural and urban districts alike to deal with these related issues.”
“A mechanism must remain in place to ensure that Congress checks back periodically to see that agriculture and food systems are operating as they ought to, in order to serve the American people,” Johnson said. “Maintaining the existing permanent law provision provides an incentive for Congress to be engaged in agricultural policy.”
“These are long-standing positions of Farmers Union members. We encourage all members of Congress to pass a bipartisan, all-encompassing bill as it has been in the past and must be in the future.”
Two key Capitol Hill Democrats expressed fury that the House Republican leadership was planning to split the bill.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a former chairman of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, said, “The decision by House Republican leaders to drop nutrition and anti-hunger programs — most notably food stamps — from the farm bill puts the final nail in the coffin of the coalition that ensured farmers could make a living and struggling families could put food on their table.”
“Far from the days of Bob Dole and Jacob Javits, the current extreme group has done nothing but cut programs that fight hunger here at home,” DeLauro said. “Further, the bill continues to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at a crop insurance program that badly needs reform. I hope my colleagues reconsider this decision and bring forward a farm bill that supports both American families and producers.”
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who voted for the Senate farm bill even though it contained a cut to food stamps that she opposed, said in a statement, “Just as important
as the health of our agriculture industry is the health and nutrition of our children, seniors and military families who are struggling for their next meal.”
“This unacceptable and unprecedented plan by House Republicans to split this bill into two parts jeopardizes the rural-urban connection in the farm bill and puts critical food assistance for our children, seniors and military families at risk of even more draconian cuts in the House,” Gillibrand said. “Hungry children deserve better than this complete dysfunction from the House turning a long -standing and bipartisan coalition upside down.”
Early today, a House Republican leadership aide told reporters that the leadership was proposing splitting the farm bill into two parts, with a vote this week on the farm programs and a future vote on food stamps. But this evening, a House Republican aide told The Hagstrom Report that the whip count on the farm program-only bill had turned out low.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., had reluctantly supported the two-bill approach if it would allow the farm bill to pass the House and go to conference with the Senate, which has already passed a full farm bill. But House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., remained opposed to the approach and said he doubted the Republican votes were there to pass the bill.
Heritage Action hosted an event with Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., a key advocate for splitting the two bills, but Heritage Action CEO Michael Needman issued a statement later that splitting the bill is not enough.
Michael Needham
“The purpose of ending the unholy alliance that has dominated the food stamp and farm bill for decades is to allow substantive debate that would allow the House to show its conservative values,” Needham said.
“Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a naked attempt to get to a conference committee with the Senate,” he said. “The end result of such a conference would be a perpetuation of subsidies and government intervention that will continue to harm consumers and taxpayers alike.”
To get more votes from conservatives for the farm program portion of the bill that failed on the House floor, the leadership proposed adding a provision that would repeal the permanent farm laws from the 1930s and 1940s that force Congress to pass a new farm bill every five years. The leadership proposal would make the 2013 farm bill the new permanent law and was intended to get votes from conservatives, but farm lobbyists questioned the addition of that provision without any debate on it.
Leaders of the American Soybean Association, who happen to be in Washington this week, have scheduled appointments with House members on Wednesday afternoon, and from the sound of a meeting they held this afternoon seem likely to express grave concerns about the approach.
John Gordley, who lobbies for ASA in Washington, told members they should express concerns about a bill that would not be bipartisan like most farm bills, that would include provisions on the commodity title to which soybean growers have objected, and that would repeal the permanent law that has forced Congress to pass a new farm bill every five years or so.
He noted that endorsing a bill that would repeal permanent law and make the 2013 law permanent was questionable because the 2013 bill could contain provisions that could distort planting decisions.
Gordley urged ASA members to avoid saying directly that they oppose the two-bill approach so that the House leadership could not blame the group for preventing a farm bill from passing, but in their reactions ASA leaders from outside Washington sounded as though they would have a hard time sounding favorable or even neutral on a bill with so many loose ends.
Steve Censky
ASA CEO Steve Censky, who is based in St. Louis, noted that ASA policy says that “unless House leaders can produce a clear plan and vote counts on how splitting farm and nutrition programs into two separate bills attracts enough votes to pass, can be successfully conferenced with the Senate’s farm bill, and results in a final conference report that can be passed by both Houses of Congress, we believe splitting the traditional coalition of urban and rural lawmakers which has supported farm bills could result in neither farm or nutrition programs passing.”
Farmer members repeatedly asked Gordley and his staff about the bill’s failure on the House floor, and why Republican House members had won votes on amendments they sponsored and still voted against the bill.
Gordley noted that farm leaders had met at lunchtime to discuss the proposal.
Later National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson issued a statement that the NFU board of directors, acting in its capacity as the organization’s legislative committee, voted unanimously to maintain its long-time position on keeping farm programs and nutrition assistance as a single, comprehensive farm bill:
Roger Johnson
“Splitting farm programs and nutrition assistance into two separate bills is a disservice to farmers, ranchers, rural residents and consumers,” Johnson said.
“The bill needs to remain intact, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s efforts to provide safety net programs for both farmers and consumers facing hard times should not be pulled in opposite directions. Farmers produce the food upon which consumers across the country, including those in need of some assistance, rely. It stands to reason to have one unified piece of legislation that can garner support from members of Congress from rural and urban districts alike to deal with these related issues.”
“A mechanism must remain in place to ensure that Congress checks back periodically to see that agriculture and food systems are operating as they ought to, in order to serve the American people,” Johnson said. “Maintaining the existing permanent law provision provides an incentive for Congress to be engaged in agricultural policy.”
“These are long-standing positions of Farmers Union members. We encourage all members of Congress to pass a bipartisan, all-encompassing bill as it has been in the past and must be in the future.”
Two key Capitol Hill Democrats expressed fury that the House Republican leadership was planning to split the bill.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a former chairman of the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, said, “The decision by House Republican leaders to drop nutrition and anti-hunger programs — most notably food stamps — from the farm bill puts the final nail in the coffin of the coalition that ensured farmers could make a living and struggling families could put food on their table.”
“Far from the days of Bob Dole and Jacob Javits, the current extreme group has done nothing but cut programs that fight hunger here at home,” DeLauro said. “Further, the bill continues to throw billions of taxpayer dollars at a crop insurance program that badly needs reform. I hope my colleagues reconsider this decision and bring forward a farm bill that supports both American families and producers.”
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who voted for the Senate farm bill even though it contained a cut to food stamps that she opposed, said in a statement, “Just as important
as the health of our agriculture industry is the health and nutrition of our children, seniors and military families who are struggling for their next meal.”
“This unacceptable and unprecedented plan by House Republicans to split this bill into two parts jeopardizes the rural-urban connection in the farm bill and puts critical food assistance for our children, seniors and military families at risk of even more draconian cuts in the House,” Gillibrand said. “Hungry children deserve better than this complete dysfunction from the House turning a long -standing and bipartisan coalition upside down.”
