Stallman: Not sure Republicans have votes for SNAP bill
September 13, 2013 | 05:18 PM
American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said today it is still unclear whether the Republican leadership has enough votes to pass the bill to cut $40 billion over 10 years from the food stamp program, a measure that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., is planning to bring to the House floor next week.
“I’m not sure they have the votes to bring it to the floor,” Stallman said. Some moderate Republicans may not support such a “magnitude” of cuts, Stallman added.
Farm Bureau will not take a position on whether members of the House should vote for it or against it.
“We’re not going to get drug into that one,” he said.
As of late Friday afternoon, Cantor’s office had not announced the schedule of votes for next week and whether it would include the nutrition bill.
In July the House passed a farm-program-only farm bill. In June the House rejected a comprehensive farm bill that included the nutrition title. The Senate has passed a comprehensive bill and appointed conferees. The House leadership has not appointed conferees.
Bob Stallman
Stallman urged Congress to pass the farm bill this year, saying that farmers are getting “awfully nervous we may not get a five-year farm bill this cycle.” Some farmers are worried Congress will never again pass a farm bill, but Stallman said he is “not in that camp.”
The biggest issue on the farm bill is “whether we get to conference,” not the differences between the House and Senate bills, he said.
Resolving those differences, Stallman said, is “not insurmountable.”
Stallman also noted that the Farm Bureau has supported the Senate bill and the bill passed by the House Agriculture Committtee.
The Senate bill commodity title is centered on a “shallow loss” program that corn and soybean groups support, but the bill also includes an option with payments based on target prices and raises the target prices on rice and peanuts above current levels.
The House bill contains a shallow loss program, but makes the target price-based program the center with higher target prices for all crops.
Stallman said Farm Bureau also supports the higher target prices and the House plan for payments based on current planted acres up to the level of base acres. The Senate bill makes payments based on historic acreage, which the corn and soybean groups support.
Farm Bureau remains opposed to making the commodity title of the new farm bill permanent law, Stallman said, because it would make it harder to convince Congress to pass another farm bill.
The farm bill provides assistance to both taxpayers and consumers by stabilizing agriculture and prices, Stallman said. If there had not been crop insurance payments during last year’s drought, he said, there would have been “a wholesale upheaval in the countryside” with auctions of farm equipment.
Without modern technology, there would have been food shortages and price spikes, he added. “We would have had significantly less production without biotechnology,” he said. If the drought had occurred 20 years ago with the production methods at that time, “we would have had an unmitigated disaster,” he added.
Agriculture would survive without a farm program, he said, but operations would consolidate and people already say they “hate big ag.”
Despite the current glut of sugar that is causing the government to make payments for forfeited sugar and take other actions to try to raise the price, Stallman said he believes the sugar program will be reauthorized in the new farm bill because both the Senate and the House have voted for it. But he also said he expects the battle over the program to continue and noted that the votes this year had been close.
Farm Bureau also remains opposed to opening the U.S. market to Australian sugar in the Trans Pacific Partnership trade negotiations on the grounds that the issue was handled in the U.S.-Australian free trade agreement, which did not include more access for Australian sugar, Stallman said.
At the end of the negotiations, he said, countries will be able to protect their most sensitive groups.
When TPP is finished, Farm Bureau will decide whether it supports the agreement depending on its overall impact on American agriculture, he added.
Stallman also urged Congress to pass the Water Resources Development Act, which would modernize locks and dams. About 60 percent of U.S. exports travel through inland waterways, he noted. Some locks have not been updated for 50 years, he said. The Panama Canal has been modernized but not all U.S. ports can take large vessels, he added.
“There is a whole host of things we have done that create the neglect we have experienced on the inland waterways,” he said.
On the debate over arsenic and rice, Stallman noted that arsenic is naturally occurring in rice and that he does not consider it dangerous.
Stallman, who grows rice on his farm in Texas, said, “I have eight grandchildren and I encourage them to eat all the rice they can.”
“I’m not sure they have the votes to bring it to the floor,” Stallman said. Some moderate Republicans may not support such a “magnitude” of cuts, Stallman added.
Farm Bureau will not take a position on whether members of the House should vote for it or against it.
“We’re not going to get drug into that one,” he said.
As of late Friday afternoon, Cantor’s office had not announced the schedule of votes for next week and whether it would include the nutrition bill.
In July the House passed a farm-program-only farm bill. In June the House rejected a comprehensive farm bill that included the nutrition title. The Senate has passed a comprehensive bill and appointed conferees. The House leadership has not appointed conferees.
Bob Stallman
Stallman urged Congress to pass the farm bill this year, saying that farmers are getting “awfully nervous we may not get a five-year farm bill this cycle.” Some farmers are worried Congress will never again pass a farm bill, but Stallman said he is “not in that camp.”
The biggest issue on the farm bill is “whether we get to conference,” not the differences between the House and Senate bills, he said.
Resolving those differences, Stallman said, is “not insurmountable.”
Stallman also noted that the Farm Bureau has supported the Senate bill and the bill passed by the House Agriculture Committtee.
The Senate bill commodity title is centered on a “shallow loss” program that corn and soybean groups support, but the bill also includes an option with payments based on target prices and raises the target prices on rice and peanuts above current levels.
The House bill contains a shallow loss program, but makes the target price-based program the center with higher target prices for all crops.
Stallman said Farm Bureau also supports the higher target prices and the House plan for payments based on current planted acres up to the level of base acres. The Senate bill makes payments based on historic acreage, which the corn and soybean groups support.
Farm Bureau remains opposed to making the commodity title of the new farm bill permanent law, Stallman said, because it would make it harder to convince Congress to pass another farm bill.
The farm bill provides assistance to both taxpayers and consumers by stabilizing agriculture and prices, Stallman said. If there had not been crop insurance payments during last year’s drought, he said, there would have been “a wholesale upheaval in the countryside” with auctions of farm equipment.
Without modern technology, there would have been food shortages and price spikes, he added. “We would have had significantly less production without biotechnology,” he said. If the drought had occurred 20 years ago with the production methods at that time, “we would have had an unmitigated disaster,” he added.
Agriculture would survive without a farm program, he said, but operations would consolidate and people already say they “hate big ag.”
Despite the current glut of sugar that is causing the government to make payments for forfeited sugar and take other actions to try to raise the price, Stallman said he believes the sugar program will be reauthorized in the new farm bill because both the Senate and the House have voted for it. But he also said he expects the battle over the program to continue and noted that the votes this year had been close.
Farm Bureau also remains opposed to opening the U.S. market to Australian sugar in the Trans Pacific Partnership trade negotiations on the grounds that the issue was handled in the U.S.-Australian free trade agreement, which did not include more access for Australian sugar, Stallman said.
At the end of the negotiations, he said, countries will be able to protect their most sensitive groups.
When TPP is finished, Farm Bureau will decide whether it supports the agreement depending on its overall impact on American agriculture, he added.
Stallman also urged Congress to pass the Water Resources Development Act, which would modernize locks and dams. About 60 percent of U.S. exports travel through inland waterways, he noted. Some locks have not been updated for 50 years, he said. The Panama Canal has been modernized but not all U.S. ports can take large vessels, he added.
“There is a whole host of things we have done that create the neglect we have experienced on the inland waterways,” he said.
On the debate over arsenic and rice, Stallman noted that arsenic is naturally occurring in rice and that he does not consider it dangerous.
Stallman, who grows rice on his farm in Texas, said, “I have eight grandchildren and I encourage them to eat all the rice they can.”
