Farm group coalition seeks permanent law, ‘meaningful’ nutrition title
October 29, 2013 | 06:14 PM
On the eve of the first farm bill conference meeting, more than 250 organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, sent a letter today to House and Senate agriculture committee members and congressional leadership encouraging passage of a five-year farm bill as soon as possible and continuation of current permanent law and a five-year cycle for all programs including nutrition programs.
The House version of the farm bill would make the commodity title of the new farm bill permanent and would put farm programs on a five-year cycle and nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, on a three-year cycle.
“For decades, the threat of reinstatement of the long-outdated policies of the 1938 and 1949 acts have served as strong motivation for Congress to enact new farm bills,” the groups said in the letter.
“Repealing those acts and making the 2013 farm bill commodity title permanent law could make it difficult to generate sufficient political pressure to adjust the commodity safety net provisions should conditions in production agriculture change.”
If Title 1 — the commodity title — of the 2013 farm bill is made permanent, “programs covering conservation, forestry, research, energy, rural development, horticulture, trade, etc., could be left to the will of the appropriations process, likely with limited funding and little opportunity to update or adjust to meet changing needs in agriculture and rural communities,” said the letter.
“We also fear that a farm bill without a meaningful nutrition title will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the House and Senate to reach a bipartisan agreement on a final version that can be signed by the president,” the groups added.
The House version of the farm bill would make the commodity title of the new farm bill permanent and would put farm programs on a five-year cycle and nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, on a three-year cycle.
“For decades, the threat of reinstatement of the long-outdated policies of the 1938 and 1949 acts have served as strong motivation for Congress to enact new farm bills,” the groups said in the letter.
“Repealing those acts and making the 2013 farm bill commodity title permanent law could make it difficult to generate sufficient political pressure to adjust the commodity safety net provisions should conditions in production agriculture change.”
If Title 1 — the commodity title — of the 2013 farm bill is made permanent, “programs covering conservation, forestry, research, energy, rural development, horticulture, trade, etc., could be left to the will of the appropriations process, likely with limited funding and little opportunity to update or adjust to meet changing needs in agriculture and rural communities,” said the letter.
“We also fear that a farm bill without a meaningful nutrition title will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the House and Senate to reach a bipartisan agreement on a final version that can be signed by the president,” the groups added.
