House passes farm-program-only farm bill, 216-208
July 11, 2013 | 04:05 PM
The House today passed the farm-program-only farm bill that did not include a nutrition title, but did include a provision to repeal the 1938 and 1949 permanent farm laws and make Title I — the commodity title — of the 2013 bill permanent law, if the bill can make it through conference and get President Barack Obama’s signature.
The vote was 216 to 208, with no Democrats voting for the bill. Fewer than 218 votes were needed for passage due to absences.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., criticized the House bill, but she said she would go to conference with the House.
“The bill passed by the House today is not a real farm bill and is an insult to rural America, which is why it’s strongly opposed by more than 500 farm, food and conservation groups," Stabenow said.
“We will go to conference with the bipartisan, comprehensive farm bill that was passed in the Senate that not only reforms programs, supports families in need and creates agriculture jobs, but also saves billions more than the extremely flawed House bill.”
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., led 17 senators in writing to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to urge him to keep the farm bill whole.
“The House’s unprecedented legislative maneuver disrupts a decades-long balance between urban and rural interests," the senators wrote.
“We believe that splitting the farm bill, while appearing to be politically expedient in the short-term, will undermine future efforts to pass robust agricultural policy that also protects the food safety net for millions of Americans,” the letter said.
“Reauthorizing the farm bill is clearly a top priority in the Senate, as demonstrated by the Senate’s successful passage of a bipartisan farm bill only a few weeks ago,” the group said. “The Senate farm bill was a negotiated bill that balanced a variety of interests and passed by wide margin (66 to 27). As we move forward, please ensure that the will of the Senate for a comprehensive farm bill is sustained.”
In a final floor speech, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., appealed for votes.
When the House voted down the comprehensive farm bill on June 20, Lucas said, “I got my chin bopped and maybe it needed it.”
Although he wanted a comprehensive bill, he added, he had concluded the farm-program-only bill was the way to go. It is the duty of the House members, he said, to complete the people’s business in “a dignified and orderly fashion.”
Lucas also said that the 1938 and 1949 permanent farm laws are “not workable language.” And he added, “yes, we can pass a new farm bill in five years or sooner.”
Speaking of the nutrition title that was taken out of the bill, Lucas concluded, “Pass the farm-bill farm bill so I can begin to work on nutrition.”
Lucas said the members have his “personal pledge” that he will lead the committee to work on the nutrition title but said he “can't guarantee what the product will look like.”
He also noted that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP or food stamps, is an “appropriated entitlement” and said that if the Agriculture committee and the House cannot address it, “our friends” on the Appropriations committee can deal with it.
In a reflection of the food stamp debate, however, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said earlier urged a “no” vote, saying that the farm program-only bill is a “ripping apart of our literal hearts.”
Noting that there is “no written commitment” to reauthorize the SNAP program, Jackson Lee said there would be a sound bite saying that Republicans “threw the children of American under the bus.”
Republican members booed and jeered Jackson Lee.
The vote was 216 to 208, with no Democrats voting for the bill. Fewer than 218 votes were needed for passage due to absences.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., criticized the House bill, but she said she would go to conference with the House.
“The bill passed by the House today is not a real farm bill and is an insult to rural America, which is why it’s strongly opposed by more than 500 farm, food and conservation groups," Stabenow said.
“We will go to conference with the bipartisan, comprehensive farm bill that was passed in the Senate that not only reforms programs, supports families in need and creates agriculture jobs, but also saves billions more than the extremely flawed House bill.”
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., led 17 senators in writing to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to urge him to keep the farm bill whole.
“The House’s unprecedented legislative maneuver disrupts a decades-long balance between urban and rural interests," the senators wrote.
“We believe that splitting the farm bill, while appearing to be politically expedient in the short-term, will undermine future efforts to pass robust agricultural policy that also protects the food safety net for millions of Americans,” the letter said.
“Reauthorizing the farm bill is clearly a top priority in the Senate, as demonstrated by the Senate’s successful passage of a bipartisan farm bill only a few weeks ago,” the group said. “The Senate farm bill was a negotiated bill that balanced a variety of interests and passed by wide margin (66 to 27). As we move forward, please ensure that the will of the Senate for a comprehensive farm bill is sustained.”
In a final floor speech, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., appealed for votes.
When the House voted down the comprehensive farm bill on June 20, Lucas said, “I got my chin bopped and maybe it needed it.”
Although he wanted a comprehensive bill, he added, he had concluded the farm-program-only bill was the way to go. It is the duty of the House members, he said, to complete the people’s business in “a dignified and orderly fashion.”
Lucas also said that the 1938 and 1949 permanent farm laws are “not workable language.” And he added, “yes, we can pass a new farm bill in five years or sooner.”
Speaking of the nutrition title that was taken out of the bill, Lucas concluded, “Pass the farm-bill farm bill so I can begin to work on nutrition.”
Lucas said the members have his “personal pledge” that he will lead the committee to work on the nutrition title but said he “can't guarantee what the product will look like.”
He also noted that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP or food stamps, is an “appropriated entitlement” and said that if the Agriculture committee and the House cannot address it, “our friends” on the Appropriations committee can deal with it.
In a reflection of the food stamp debate, however, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said earlier urged a “no” vote, saying that the farm program-only bill is a “ripping apart of our literal hearts.”
Noting that there is “no written commitment” to reauthorize the SNAP program, Jackson Lee said there would be a sound bite saying that Republicans “threw the children of American under the bus.”
Republican members booed and jeered Jackson Lee.
