House Rules will return for more debate on farm bill
July 10, 2013 | 10:27 PM
After nearly an hour of debate on the farm-program-only bill without food stamps, the House Rules Committee has broken for votes on the House floor and will return for more debate when the votes are completed tonight.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said splitting the farm bill was not his first choice, but he is convinced it is now the way to proceed.
During the debate, Democratic members have said they have strong reservations about bringing up a farm-program-only bill.
Lucas said that the Agriculture committee would write a new nutrition title. If the House does not pass a new nutrition title, he said, the Senate Agriculture Committee could offer its nutrition title in conference.
But Lucas also noted that food stamp law is permanent, and that the Senate might not want to make any changes to it.
The repeal of the 1949 permanent farm bill law and the provision that would make the 2013 farm program bill permanent law would apparently mean that there would be no legislative trigger to rewrite a farm bill in the future.
Lucas told The Hagstrom Report that “markets change, circumstances change” and those issues would dictate rewrites in the future. A farm lobbyist confirmed that changing permanent law could have advantages or disadvantages. A rewrite might not be needed in 2018 if circumstances have not changed, but if the 2013 law passes and is not popular, there would not be as much negotiating leverage to rewrite it.
Lobbyists also noted that the 2013 law would make programs for sugar and soybeans permanent.
House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., did not attend the Rules hearing, and Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said Peterson said he had a previous commitment.
But House Rules ranking member Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said Peterson had been blamed for the farm bill’s failure, and that she does not believe that Peterson supports the farm-program-only bill.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said he is trying to figure out why the permanent law is supposed to attract more votes and what Republican members are getting that would convince them to support the new bill.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said splitting the farm bill was not his first choice, but he is convinced it is now the way to proceed.
During the debate, Democratic members have said they have strong reservations about bringing up a farm-program-only bill.
Lucas said that the Agriculture committee would write a new nutrition title. If the House does not pass a new nutrition title, he said, the Senate Agriculture Committee could offer its nutrition title in conference.
But Lucas also noted that food stamp law is permanent, and that the Senate might not want to make any changes to it.
The repeal of the 1949 permanent farm bill law and the provision that would make the 2013 farm program bill permanent law would apparently mean that there would be no legislative trigger to rewrite a farm bill in the future.
Lucas told The Hagstrom Report that “markets change, circumstances change” and those issues would dictate rewrites in the future. A farm lobbyist confirmed that changing permanent law could have advantages or disadvantages. A rewrite might not be needed in 2018 if circumstances have not changed, but if the 2013 law passes and is not popular, there would not be as much negotiating leverage to rewrite it.
Lobbyists also noted that the 2013 law would make programs for sugar and soybeans permanent.
House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., did not attend the Rules hearing, and Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said Peterson said he had a previous commitment.
But House Rules ranking member Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said Peterson had been blamed for the farm bill’s failure, and that she does not believe that Peterson supports the farm-program-only bill.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said he is trying to figure out why the permanent law is supposed to attract more votes and what Republican members are getting that would convince them to support the new bill.
