Lucas, Stabenow predict farm bill will pass House and Senate
January 28, 2014 | 01:17 PM
In a joint telephone news conference today, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., predicted that the farm will pass both the House and Senate and that President Barack Obama will sign the bill.
Meanwhile, endorsements for the bill poured in from all sectors of agriculture except the meat industry and some anti-hunger advocates. (See story below.)
“Even though it took us two and a half to three years, we have a really amazing bill here,” said Lucas, who chaired the conference committee. Considering the budget situation and “the political rancor we have had to deal with in Congress and across the country” he said, it is “not just a good farm bill, but almost a miracle.”
“This has been a joint effort, it has been bipartisan every step of the way,” Stabenow added, noting that the bill not only saves money and reauthorizes existing programs, but provides disaster assistance for both livestock producers and fruit growers and increases agricultural research.
Both said that the signals from the White House are that Obama will sign the bill, but Lucas added, “Debbie and I will not sleep well until the parchment is delivered to the National Archives.”
Even if the Club for Growth and Heritage Action urge conservatives not to vote for the bill, Lucas said his “gut feeling” is that it will pass the House.
Lucas said that the bill achieves both savings and reforms and that if it is not considered a “prototype” bill for congressional action to cut the deficit, he does not know what can be.
He added that he has always understood that the bill has to attract a coalition of the middle because some conservatives don’t want to spend money on anything and some liberals don’t want to spend money on rural America.
“I’ve always known that the folks at both ends of the spectrum would not support us,” Lucas said.
As if to make Lucas's point, Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., have come out against the bill because it cuts nutrition programs too much, while Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., said he will vote against it because there is not enough reform.
Stabenow said she is certain the bill will pass the Senate, even though some liberals have criticized the cut to nutrition programs because the nutrition cuts clean up “misuse” of the food stamp program, better known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Lucas added that the bill increases funding for commodity distribution programs that go to food banks.
On the controversial issues of repealing country-of-origin labeling for red meat and the amendment of Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, to forbid states from banning the sale of food products from other states due to objections over production methods, both said including either one would have blown up the bill.
Lucas said he understood the concerns of the meat industry, but the way to address repealing COOL is to start at the subcommittee level in Congress.
Stabenow added that if the World Trade Organization rules against the latest U.S. proposal, “then COOL will be suspended, changed or repealed.”
Lucas also acknowledged that he did not like conservation compliance for crop insurance, but said he believes the language in the bill is “workable.”
On payment limitations, Lucas said that Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., had been most vocal that the strict limits that were in the House and Senate bills would not work. The compromise was to put in an overall limit of $125,000 per farmer, doubled for married couples.
Stabenow said she endorsed that approach because it will allow farmers to make the most use of the programs that work best for them, rather than worry about payment limits on specific programs.
On the issue of compromises, Stabenow said, “In reality, in governing you have to put everything together.”
When other senators realized the bill was moving, they wanted to add more and more provisions until she had to ask them to stop. The attitude, she said, was that the people on the farm bill “are working together, let’s pass everything in the federal government in the farm bill.”
Meanwhile, endorsements for the bill poured in from all sectors of agriculture except the meat industry and some anti-hunger advocates. (See story below.)
“Even though it took us two and a half to three years, we have a really amazing bill here,” said Lucas, who chaired the conference committee. Considering the budget situation and “the political rancor we have had to deal with in Congress and across the country” he said, it is “not just a good farm bill, but almost a miracle.”
“This has been a joint effort, it has been bipartisan every step of the way,” Stabenow added, noting that the bill not only saves money and reauthorizes existing programs, but provides disaster assistance for both livestock producers and fruit growers and increases agricultural research.
Both said that the signals from the White House are that Obama will sign the bill, but Lucas added, “Debbie and I will not sleep well until the parchment is delivered to the National Archives.”
Even if the Club for Growth and Heritage Action urge conservatives not to vote for the bill, Lucas said his “gut feeling” is that it will pass the House.
Lucas said that the bill achieves both savings and reforms and that if it is not considered a “prototype” bill for congressional action to cut the deficit, he does not know what can be.
He added that he has always understood that the bill has to attract a coalition of the middle because some conservatives don’t want to spend money on anything and some liberals don’t want to spend money on rural America.
“I’ve always known that the folks at both ends of the spectrum would not support us,” Lucas said.
As if to make Lucas's point, Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., have come out against the bill because it cuts nutrition programs too much, while Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., said he will vote against it because there is not enough reform.
Stabenow said she is certain the bill will pass the Senate, even though some liberals have criticized the cut to nutrition programs because the nutrition cuts clean up “misuse” of the food stamp program, better known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Lucas added that the bill increases funding for commodity distribution programs that go to food banks.
On the controversial issues of repealing country-of-origin labeling for red meat and the amendment of Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, to forbid states from banning the sale of food products from other states due to objections over production methods, both said including either one would have blown up the bill.
Lucas said he understood the concerns of the meat industry, but the way to address repealing COOL is to start at the subcommittee level in Congress.
Stabenow added that if the World Trade Organization rules against the latest U.S. proposal, “then COOL will be suspended, changed or repealed.”
Lucas also acknowledged that he did not like conservation compliance for crop insurance, but said he believes the language in the bill is “workable.”
On payment limitations, Lucas said that Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., had been most vocal that the strict limits that were in the House and Senate bills would not work. The compromise was to put in an overall limit of $125,000 per farmer, doubled for married couples.
Stabenow said she endorsed that approach because it will allow farmers to make the most use of the programs that work best for them, rather than worry about payment limits on specific programs.
On the issue of compromises, Stabenow said, “In reality, in governing you have to put everything together.”
When other senators realized the bill was moving, they wanted to add more and more provisions until she had to ask them to stop. The attitude, she said, was that the people on the farm bill “are working together, let’s pass everything in the federal government in the farm bill.”
