Stabenow mark likely to cut food stamps, curb crop insurance subsidies, contain chicken cage provision
May 06, 2013 | 08:32 AM
The chairman’s mark that Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., will present to the committee, probably this week, is likely to include provisions that would make a small cut to food stamps, curb crop insurance subsidies for high-income farmers and create national standards for the size of chicken cages for egg production.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said Friday that the mark would cut $4.1 billion from food stamps and Stabenow’s staff has told farm groups about the crop insurance and chicken cage standards, but Stabenow has not released a mark yet.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y
Gillibrand said in a news release Friday that she expects the committee to consider cutting food stamps by $4.1 billion over 10 years and that she will oppose that move.
The cuts to food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, “would result in an average benefit reduction of $90 per month for nearly a half a million households,” Gillibrand said in a news release.
“Under this proposal, New York state would lose nearly $300 million per year in SNAP funding, with New York City facing a loss of $206 million or 70 million less meals each year, according to analysis by Food Bank For New York,” she said.
Gillibrand is a member of the committee and has organized 32 other senators to sign a letter that they will oppose the cut. That is about the same number of senators who opposed all food stamp cuts in the farm bill in 2012. (See link below)
Stabenow’s mark will include the amendment that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., successfully pushed through the Senate last year to reduce insurance premium subsidies for farmers with adjusted gross income above $750,000, according to American Farm Bureau Federation lobbyist Mary Kay Thatcher, Agriculture.com reported on Friday.
“Stabenow has already said that and crop insurance (conservation) compliance will be in the bill,” Thatcher told Agriculture.com.
Forty groups including The Independent Community Bankers Association and National Crop Insurance Services said in a statement last week that they oppose any provisions that limit participation in crop insurance.
“Limiting crop insurance support to producers of a certain size creates barriers to participation for producers trying to obtain this risk management protection and impacts the financial health of the agricultural community,” the groups said in a letter to the Senate.
“Insurance products offered through federal crop insurance are key to food security, allowing farmers and ranchers to secure operating capital from lenders each year and produce food for consumers around the world,” the letter said.
“Agricultural producers keep the rural economy on track, purchasing needed inputs and equipment and supporting jobs throughout rural America. Without the risk protection provided by federal crop insurance, agricultural lenders would be forced to increase underwriting standards, increase costs to offset risk and reduce credit availability in some areas of the country to some producers.”
The Environmental Working Group released a study last week that said the crop insurance program proved too costly for crop year 2012, for which there have been more than $17 billion paid in indemnities.
“The findings should be a wake-up call to taxpayers and congressional leaders charged with taking up the farm bill again under serious pressure to cut spending,” the EWG said.
But NCIS said in a statement, “EWG fails to acknowledge that before farmers received a single dime in crop insurance indemnity payments, they shouldered $12.7 billion in losses as part of their crop insurance policy deductibles, and an additional $4.1 billion was paid out by farmers to purchase their policies.”
“Thus, farmers absorbed approximately $17 billion in uninsured losses and premium expenditures out of their own pockets before insurance,” NCIS said.
“Compared to ad hoc disaster relief, the private sector delivery system allows for indemnity payments to be made on a timely basis. With crop insurance, farmers are able to plant their crops for 2013 and stay in business. Contrast this to the experience of victims of Hurricane Sandy who struggled to get relief and then have waited for its distribution.”
Stabenow also apparently plans to include a bill introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, that would set national standards for the cages of egg-laying hens.
“Egg producers are struggling with a patchwork of regulations that vary from state to state, and having one uniform national standard is critically important to them,” said Cullen Schwarz, a Stabenow spokesman told Politico last week.
“We’re working with stakeholders and Agriculture Committee members to find a solution to help keep American egg producers in business and avoid losing jobs in the industry,” Schwarz said.
The bill is backed by United Egg Producers, but opposed by other egg producers and other farm groups including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Chad Gregory
“Egg farmers and the egg industry are an integral part of American agriculture … and we are major customers of corn, soybean and wheat farmers who have a stake in a thriving egg industry to sell their crops to,” Chad Gregory, president of the United Egg Producers, told FarmPolicy.com last week.
“Without this egg bill, interstate commerce in eggs will collapse, driving many egg farmers out of business and leaving our industry in chaos with a patchwork of conflicting and contradictory state laws on egg production and sales,” Gregory said. “That is bad for egg farmers, as well as our fellow farmers who want to continue to do business with us.”
“This is legislation that only applies to eggs,” Gregory added. “It is supported by an overwhelming majority of egg farmers nationwide, and UEP which represents over 90 percent of egg production in the U.S. For other sectors of American agriculture to oppose our egg bill — when it has no direct affect on them — is unconscionable. Egg farmers would never try to intercede against legislation that pork, beef or other farm groups needed to survive. We only ask that they give our egg farmers the same consideration.”
NPPC noted in an update to its members that the bill is based on an agreement between United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States and said it “would set a dangerous precedent allowing Congress and federal bureaucrats to regulate all on-farm animal production practices.”
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said Friday that the mark would cut $4.1 billion from food stamps and Stabenow’s staff has told farm groups about the crop insurance and chicken cage standards, but Stabenow has not released a mark yet.
Food stamps
Gillibrand said in a news release Friday that she expects the committee to consider cutting food stamps by $4.1 billion over 10 years and that she will oppose that move.
The cuts to food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, “would result in an average benefit reduction of $90 per month for nearly a half a million households,” Gillibrand said in a news release.
“Under this proposal, New York state would lose nearly $300 million per year in SNAP funding, with New York City facing a loss of $206 million or 70 million less meals each year, according to analysis by Food Bank For New York,” she said.
Gillibrand is a member of the committee and has organized 32 other senators to sign a letter that they will oppose the cut. That is about the same number of senators who opposed all food stamp cuts in the farm bill in 2012. (See link below)
Crop insurance
Stabenow’s mark will include the amendment that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., successfully pushed through the Senate last year to reduce insurance premium subsidies for farmers with adjusted gross income above $750,000, according to American Farm Bureau Federation lobbyist Mary Kay Thatcher, Agriculture.com reported on Friday.
“Stabenow has already said that and crop insurance (conservation) compliance will be in the bill,” Thatcher told Agriculture.com.
Forty groups including The Independent Community Bankers Association and National Crop Insurance Services said in a statement last week that they oppose any provisions that limit participation in crop insurance.
“Limiting crop insurance support to producers of a certain size creates barriers to participation for producers trying to obtain this risk management protection and impacts the financial health of the agricultural community,” the groups said in a letter to the Senate.
“Insurance products offered through federal crop insurance are key to food security, allowing farmers and ranchers to secure operating capital from lenders each year and produce food for consumers around the world,” the letter said.
“Agricultural producers keep the rural economy on track, purchasing needed inputs and equipment and supporting jobs throughout rural America. Without the risk protection provided by federal crop insurance, agricultural lenders would be forced to increase underwriting standards, increase costs to offset risk and reduce credit availability in some areas of the country to some producers.”
The Environmental Working Group released a study last week that said the crop insurance program proved too costly for crop year 2012, for which there have been more than $17 billion paid in indemnities.
“The findings should be a wake-up call to taxpayers and congressional leaders charged with taking up the farm bill again under serious pressure to cut spending,” the EWG said.
But NCIS said in a statement, “EWG fails to acknowledge that before farmers received a single dime in crop insurance indemnity payments, they shouldered $12.7 billion in losses as part of their crop insurance policy deductibles, and an additional $4.1 billion was paid out by farmers to purchase their policies.”
“Thus, farmers absorbed approximately $17 billion in uninsured losses and premium expenditures out of their own pockets before insurance,” NCIS said.
“Compared to ad hoc disaster relief, the private sector delivery system allows for indemnity payments to be made on a timely basis. With crop insurance, farmers are able to plant their crops for 2013 and stay in business. Contrast this to the experience of victims of Hurricane Sandy who struggled to get relief and then have waited for its distribution.”
Egg bill
Stabenow also apparently plans to include a bill introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, that would set national standards for the cages of egg-laying hens.
“Egg producers are struggling with a patchwork of regulations that vary from state to state, and having one uniform national standard is critically important to them,” said Cullen Schwarz, a Stabenow spokesman told Politico last week.
“We’re working with stakeholders and Agriculture Committee members to find a solution to help keep American egg producers in business and avoid losing jobs in the industry,” Schwarz said.
The bill is backed by United Egg Producers, but opposed by other egg producers and other farm groups including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
“Egg farmers and the egg industry are an integral part of American agriculture … and we are major customers of corn, soybean and wheat farmers who have a stake in a thriving egg industry to sell their crops to,” Chad Gregory, president of the United Egg Producers, told FarmPolicy.com last week.
“Without this egg bill, interstate commerce in eggs will collapse, driving many egg farmers out of business and leaving our industry in chaos with a patchwork of conflicting and contradictory state laws on egg production and sales,” Gregory said. “That is bad for egg farmers, as well as our fellow farmers who want to continue to do business with us.”
“This is legislation that only applies to eggs,” Gregory added. “It is supported by an overwhelming majority of egg farmers nationwide, and UEP which represents over 90 percent of egg production in the U.S. For other sectors of American agriculture to oppose our egg bill — when it has no direct affect on them — is unconscionable. Egg farmers would never try to intercede against legislation that pork, beef or other farm groups needed to survive. We only ask that they give our egg farmers the same consideration.”
NPPC noted in an update to its members that the bill is based on an agreement between United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States and said it “would set a dangerous precedent allowing Congress and federal bureaucrats to regulate all on-farm animal production practices.”
