Farm-only bill up on House floor Thursday
July 10, 2013 | 11:53 PM
The House Rules Committee late tonight granted a farm bill that covers all farm programs a closed rule, setting the stage for consideration of the bill Thursday on the House floor.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., announced late tonight that the House would open for legislative business at 9 a.m., and that the farm bill would be only bill considered.
He said that the first votes would be held between 10:30 and 11:30 a.m. and the last votes between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m.
House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, will control debate on the rule for the Republicans and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who voted against it, will manage the debate for the Democrats.
The House is scheduled to leave for the weekend by 3 p.m. Thursday.
The rule passed the Rules committee on a party-line vote of 9 to 4 votes after Republicans rejected an amendment offered by House Rules ranking member Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., for an open rule.
The vote on final passage on the trimmed farm bill, which contains only farm programs and no nutrition programs, is expected to be highly partisan. House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., did not attend the hearing, but issued a statement late tonight.
“I still believe splitting the farm bill is a mistake in the long run,” Peterson said. “They are ignoring the advice of most of the groups affected by the bill and I see no clear path to getting a bill passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president.”
The White House issued a statement that the administration “strongly opposes” the bill.
“Legislation as important as a farm bill should be constructed in a comprehensive approach that helps strengthen all aspects of the nation,” the statement said. “This bill also fails to reauthorize nutrition programs, which benefit millions of Americans — in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a cornerstone of our nation’s food assistance safety net, and should not be left behind as the rest of the farm bill advances.”
It was unclear late tonight whether the House leadership had the 218 votes to pass the bill, although it appeared unlikely that the leadership would bring the bill to the floor if it did not have the votes to pass it.
The bill will be the same as all the titles in the farm bill that failed on June 20 except that it will leave out the nutrition programs and will add a provision that would repeal old permanent farm laws from the 1930s and 1949 and make Title I — the commodity title — of the 2013 bill the new permanent law.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., told the Rules committee that it was his personal “suggestion to modernize” the farm bill
Lucas said that farm bills have been unique in that they have been “temporary documents” to replace mostly the 1949 law that was based on allotments, quotas and parity — “things that are unthinkable in the modern world.”
“I requested that if we are going to do this, let’s step into the modern age with our policy,” Lucas said at the hearing.
The law would make the controversial sugar program permanent, and in response to a question from Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga., Lucas acknowledged that “there are those in the hallways who are very concerned about the sugar program.”
Lucas said the sugar program had been “ratified” by the failure of an amendment that would have altered it.
Without a nutrition title, it is unclear what would happen to the food stamp program in conference.
Lucas said he hopes his committee could write a new nutrition title that could pass the House, but if that doesn’t happen, the Senate could offer the nutrition title in its bill or the bill could make no changes to the food stamp program.
But if that happens, the tea party Republicans who campaigned to split the bill and make deep cuts to food stamps would have failed.
The Rules Committee action followed a day in which the Republican House leadership pushed hard to convince members to agree to vote for a farm-program-only farm bill, but farm groups continued to express concerns about the measure and conservative groups said that splitting the bill would not remove their objections to the programs in the bill.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, held a call with farm groups in which he urged leaders to support the bill as the only way to get to conference with the Senate, lobbyists told The Hagstrom Report.
Lucas’s staff also urged leaders of the American Soybean Association to tell House members to support the bill, even though the group has concerns about provisions such as one that would repeal permanent law and make the 2013 farm bill permanent law, an attendee at the meeting told The Hagstrom Report.
Although Lucas opposed splitting the bill, he came to see a farm-program-only bill as a way to get to conference, lobbyists said.
People who were on the Boehner call said there was no indication when or whether the House might take up a food stamp measure.
The Environmental Working Group said late tonight that the House should reject the “farm-only” bill.
“At a time of record farm income and record federal deficits, the House should reject a farm bill that increases unlimited insurance subsidies and price guarantees and locks in these giveaways by making the new farm bill ‘permanent law,’ ” said Scott Faber, an EWG senior vice president.
“It is unconscionable that House leaders have put forward a farm bill that provides unlimited subsidies to the largest and most successful farm businesses and guts programs to help the environment,” he said. “If passed, this bill would be the costliest farm bill in history. It should be rejected.”
Meanwhile, conservative groups reminded House members that they still want deeper cuts to the farm program.
Vincent Smith, an economics professor at Montana State University and visiting scholar at AEI, the conservative think tank and longtime critic of farm programs, said today in an email:
“The real question should be ‘why would any Republican or Democrat legislator want to vote for the House Agriculture Committee’s bill even if it only includes farm related legislation?’,” Smith said.
“That bill would still contain economically wasteful and potentially very expensive farm policy initiatives such as the Price Loss Coverage program,” he said. “It would fail to make reasonable reforms to the federal crop insurance and other programs that would meaningfully limit subsidies to millionaire farmers and reduce incentives for high risk farming practices. It is unlikely to make any contributions to reducing the federal deficit.”
Heritage Action said in an email late today that separating the farm bill into two bills would be a victory for reform, but “separation without substantive reform will lead us right back to the same bad policies we’ve seen before.”
The Club for Growth today sent out a message that it strongly opposes “the farm-only” bill, and that vote on final passage will be included in the group’s 2013 Congressional Scorecard.
“Breaking up the unholy alliance between agricultural policy and the food stamp program within the traditional farm bill is an excellent decision on behalf of House leadership,” the Club for Growth said in a statement.
“However, the whole purpose of splitting up the bill is to enact true reform that reduces the size and scope of government,” the group said. “Sadly, this ‘farm-only’ bill does not do that, especially under an anticipated closed rule. It is still loaded down with market-distorting giveaways to special interests with no path established to remove the government's involvement in the agriculture industry.”
At a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., praised her committee for passing the farm bill and shepherding it through, and added that the Senate should be considered a “role model” of bipartisanship for the House.
Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said he was “beaming with pride” that the Senate had passed the farm bill.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., announced late tonight that the House would open for legislative business at 9 a.m., and that the farm bill would be only bill considered.
He said that the first votes would be held between 10:30 and 11:30 a.m. and the last votes between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m.
House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, will control debate on the rule for the Republicans and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who voted against it, will manage the debate for the Democrats.
The House is scheduled to leave for the weekend by 3 p.m. Thursday.
The rule passed the Rules committee on a party-line vote of 9 to 4 votes after Republicans rejected an amendment offered by House Rules ranking member Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., for an open rule.
The vote on final passage on the trimmed farm bill, which contains only farm programs and no nutrition programs, is expected to be highly partisan. House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., did not attend the hearing, but issued a statement late tonight.
“I still believe splitting the farm bill is a mistake in the long run,” Peterson said. “They are ignoring the advice of most of the groups affected by the bill and I see no clear path to getting a bill passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president.”
The White House issued a statement that the administration “strongly opposes” the bill.
“Legislation as important as a farm bill should be constructed in a comprehensive approach that helps strengthen all aspects of the nation,” the statement said. “This bill also fails to reauthorize nutrition programs, which benefit millions of Americans — in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a cornerstone of our nation’s food assistance safety net, and should not be left behind as the rest of the farm bill advances.”
It was unclear late tonight whether the House leadership had the 218 votes to pass the bill, although it appeared unlikely that the leadership would bring the bill to the floor if it did not have the votes to pass it.
The bill will be the same as all the titles in the farm bill that failed on June 20 except that it will leave out the nutrition programs and will add a provision that would repeal old permanent farm laws from the 1930s and 1949 and make Title I — the commodity title — of the 2013 bill the new permanent law.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., told the Rules committee that it was his personal “suggestion to modernize” the farm bill
Lucas said that farm bills have been unique in that they have been “temporary documents” to replace mostly the 1949 law that was based on allotments, quotas and parity — “things that are unthinkable in the modern world.”
“I requested that if we are going to do this, let’s step into the modern age with our policy,” Lucas said at the hearing.
The law would make the controversial sugar program permanent, and in response to a question from Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga., Lucas acknowledged that “there are those in the hallways who are very concerned about the sugar program.”
Lucas said the sugar program had been “ratified” by the failure of an amendment that would have altered it.
Without a nutrition title, it is unclear what would happen to the food stamp program in conference.
Lucas said he hopes his committee could write a new nutrition title that could pass the House, but if that doesn’t happen, the Senate could offer the nutrition title in its bill or the bill could make no changes to the food stamp program.
But if that happens, the tea party Republicans who campaigned to split the bill and make deep cuts to food stamps would have failed.
The Rules Committee action followed a day in which the Republican House leadership pushed hard to convince members to agree to vote for a farm-program-only farm bill, but farm groups continued to express concerns about the measure and conservative groups said that splitting the bill would not remove their objections to the programs in the bill.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, held a call with farm groups in which he urged leaders to support the bill as the only way to get to conference with the Senate, lobbyists told The Hagstrom Report.
Lucas’s staff also urged leaders of the American Soybean Association to tell House members to support the bill, even though the group has concerns about provisions such as one that would repeal permanent law and make the 2013 farm bill permanent law, an attendee at the meeting told The Hagstrom Report.
Although Lucas opposed splitting the bill, he came to see a farm-program-only bill as a way to get to conference, lobbyists said.
People who were on the Boehner call said there was no indication when or whether the House might take up a food stamp measure.
The Environmental Working Group said late tonight that the House should reject the “farm-only” bill.
“At a time of record farm income and record federal deficits, the House should reject a farm bill that increases unlimited insurance subsidies and price guarantees and locks in these giveaways by making the new farm bill ‘permanent law,’ ” said Scott Faber, an EWG senior vice president.
“It is unconscionable that House leaders have put forward a farm bill that provides unlimited subsidies to the largest and most successful farm businesses and guts programs to help the environment,” he said. “If passed, this bill would be the costliest farm bill in history. It should be rejected.”
Meanwhile, conservative groups reminded House members that they still want deeper cuts to the farm program.
Vincent Smith, an economics professor at Montana State University and visiting scholar at AEI, the conservative think tank and longtime critic of farm programs, said today in an email:
“The real question should be ‘why would any Republican or Democrat legislator want to vote for the House Agriculture Committee’s bill even if it only includes farm related legislation?’,” Smith said.
“That bill would still contain economically wasteful and potentially very expensive farm policy initiatives such as the Price Loss Coverage program,” he said. “It would fail to make reasonable reforms to the federal crop insurance and other programs that would meaningfully limit subsidies to millionaire farmers and reduce incentives for high risk farming practices. It is unlikely to make any contributions to reducing the federal deficit.”
Heritage Action said in an email late today that separating the farm bill into two bills would be a victory for reform, but “separation without substantive reform will lead us right back to the same bad policies we’ve seen before.”
The Club for Growth today sent out a message that it strongly opposes “the farm-only” bill, and that vote on final passage will be included in the group’s 2013 Congressional Scorecard.
“Breaking up the unholy alliance between agricultural policy and the food stamp program within the traditional farm bill is an excellent decision on behalf of House leadership,” the Club for Growth said in a statement.
“However, the whole purpose of splitting up the bill is to enact true reform that reduces the size and scope of government,” the group said. “Sadly, this ‘farm-only’ bill does not do that, especially under an anticipated closed rule. It is still loaded down with market-distorting giveaways to special interests with no path established to remove the government's involvement in the agriculture industry.”
At a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., praised her committee for passing the farm bill and shepherding it through, and added that the Senate should be considered a “role model” of bipartisanship for the House.
Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said he was “beaming with pride” that the Senate had passed the farm bill.
