Farm bill debate goes slowly
July 11, 2013 | 03:03 PM
In what has become the closest thing that in the House can amount to a filibuster, Democrats have managed to slow down the vote on the farm-bill-only farm bill.
It appears likely there will be a limit to the maneuvers, but Republican leaders have now told members they cannot count on leaving until 4 p.m.
In a series of parliamentary moves, Democratic members who have spoken against the farm bill have asked that their time not be counted against the time allotted to House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn.
Once the chair has ruled that out of order, the member appeals the decision of the chair and that leads to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas., R-Okla., being forced to call for a vote to table the appeal.
The House has allotted 15 minutes for the latest roll call vote.
These maneuvers have taken place after Peterson gave a fiery speech urging a “no” vote.
Noting that he believes the Republican leadership offered “poison pill” amendments, Peterson concluded, “You have managed to make me into a partisan, and that is a hard thing to do.”
Peterson said he does not see a clear path forward and that making Title 1 — the commodity title — permanent would make it likely that Congress will never consider another farm bill.
Peterson said the “beauty” of the 1938 and 1949 laws is that they have forced all groups to work together to pass a bill. But if food stamps, crop insurance and Title I are permanently authorized, he said, it will be difficult to get Congress to write a new bill that covers all the other areas such as conservation, rural development, research and energy programs.
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said, “This is not a farm bill. This is a leadership designed train wreck.”
“We had a farm bill,” Welch said. “It was bipartisan. It saved money. It provided farmers with more security. It provided conservation and it’s a way forward.”
“But instead what we have is the result of a failure of the leadership to work with their committee chair where they came on this floor and they unraveled intentionally, deliberately, and regrettably, effectively, a compromise that was reached by Republicans and Democrats who dealt with tough issues,” Welch said.
“America needs a farm bill not something that is designed for political consumption and for farm failure.”
Lucas and Rep. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, urged a vote for the bill. Conaway noted that the bill repeals direct payments, a program that his constituents like.
Rep. James Stutzman, R-Ind., urged a vote in favor.
“By splitting the bill we can give taxpayers an honest look at how Washington spends our money,” Stutzman said.
“We’ve made progress by eliminating direct payments but there’s more work ahead. Splitting the farm bill is the next logical step on the path to real reform, for farm policy and genuinely helping those who genuinely need help.”
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said that he had favored a comprehensive bill that would include food stamps and reforms to that program, but that the current bill is now the only choice before the House.
It appears likely there will be a limit to the maneuvers, but Republican leaders have now told members they cannot count on leaving until 4 p.m.
In a series of parliamentary moves, Democratic members who have spoken against the farm bill have asked that their time not be counted against the time allotted to House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn.
Once the chair has ruled that out of order, the member appeals the decision of the chair and that leads to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas., R-Okla., being forced to call for a vote to table the appeal.
The House has allotted 15 minutes for the latest roll call vote.
These maneuvers have taken place after Peterson gave a fiery speech urging a “no” vote.
Noting that he believes the Republican leadership offered “poison pill” amendments, Peterson concluded, “You have managed to make me into a partisan, and that is a hard thing to do.”
Peterson said he does not see a clear path forward and that making Title 1 — the commodity title — permanent would make it likely that Congress will never consider another farm bill.
Peterson said the “beauty” of the 1938 and 1949 laws is that they have forced all groups to work together to pass a bill. But if food stamps, crop insurance and Title I are permanently authorized, he said, it will be difficult to get Congress to write a new bill that covers all the other areas such as conservation, rural development, research and energy programs.
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said, “This is not a farm bill. This is a leadership designed train wreck.”
“We had a farm bill,” Welch said. “It was bipartisan. It saved money. It provided farmers with more security. It provided conservation and it’s a way forward.”
“But instead what we have is the result of a failure of the leadership to work with their committee chair where they came on this floor and they unraveled intentionally, deliberately, and regrettably, effectively, a compromise that was reached by Republicans and Democrats who dealt with tough issues,” Welch said.
“America needs a farm bill not something that is designed for political consumption and for farm failure.”
Lucas and Rep. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, urged a vote for the bill. Conaway noted that the bill repeals direct payments, a program that his constituents like.
Rep. James Stutzman, R-Ind., urged a vote in favor.
“By splitting the bill we can give taxpayers an honest look at how Washington spends our money,” Stutzman said.
“We’ve made progress by eliminating direct payments but there’s more work ahead. Splitting the farm bill is the next logical step on the path to real reform, for farm policy and genuinely helping those who genuinely need help.”
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said that he had favored a comprehensive bill that would include food stamps and reforms to that program, but that the current bill is now the only choice before the House.
