House takes up farm-program-only bill as many groups urge defeat, for-differing-reasons
July 11, 2013 | 11:36 AM
As the House began debate on the rule governing consideration of a farm bill that does not contain a nutrition title and would repeal current permanent farm law and make Title 1 — the commodity title covering crops, dairy and sugar — permanent law, groups with widely divergent views today urged the House to vote against the farm-program-only farm bill that the House is considering today.
On Thursday House leaders including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., urged farm leaders to support the bill.
Some farm groups reluctantly urged a “yes” vote, but a major farm lobbyist questioned why the House leadership had bothered to appeal to farm leaders to support the bill because they seemed determined to pass it in any case.
In early debate, House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, urged the House to vote for the rule while Democrats lined up to make short statements in opposition to the rule.
Citing a variety of problems with the bill including the lack of a nutrition title and the repeal of the permanent law, the American Farm Bureau Federation urged members today to vote no.
“We urge you to oppose the rule as well to vote against final passage of this attempt to split the farm bill and end permanent law provisions for agriculture,” the letter said.
The Environmental Working Group sent out an email listing 10 reasons to vote against the bill.
“This bill will only make the richest subsidies in history permanent, not many conservation and other programs authorized by the farm bill,” Scott Faber, an EWG senior vice president wrote.
“Because this is such a sweet deal for cotton, rice and peanuts, this bill would create a dynamic whereby the most powerful farm groups would be fighting against a new farm bill in five years, not fighting for a farm bill,” he added, asking “Does Republican leadership understand what this means?”
Heritage Action urged a “no” vote in an email today and said it would include the vote in its scorecard of members’ performance.
“Although the bill does not contain the $750 billion in food stamp spending like the previous FARRM Act, it does nothing to make ‘meaningful reforms’ to America’s farm policy,” Heritage said.
“Even worse, the bill would make permanent farm policies — like the sugar program — that harm consumers and taxpayers alike,” the group said.
“While many realize the bill would repeal the 1938 and 1949 permanent farm law, few realize it would also create new permanent law — the commodities title in H.R.2642 would become permanent,” Heritage continued. “As a result, lawmakers would not have a built-in check, in the form of a reauthorization, in the years ahead.”
“Instead, market-distorting programs would continue indefinitely, like the government-imposed tariffs on sugar imports and quotas on domestic sugar production, which cause Americans to pay two to four times higher prices for sugar than consumers in other countries,” Heritage added.
“The new, untested and expensive crop insurance provisions would become permanent, undermining the effectiveness of the Foxx amendment [offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.] which would have capped the costs of these new programs at 110 percent of the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates until the year 2020.”
Bread for the World also urged a “no” vote, citing the lack of a nutrition title and a cut to international food aid programs.
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities President Robert Greenstein in a blog post urged a “no” vote.
In a letter to members, National Farmers Union also urged a “no” vote.
The Food Research Action Center, an organization that lobbies for nutrition programs and is supported by foundations and the food industry, did not take an exact position on the bill, but said in a statement:
“To date the House majority leadership has used every opportunity to cut and weaken SNAP. FRAC opposes any legislation that does not protect SNAP and that leaves it vulnerable to cuts. With his latest effort to move a partial farm bill, even though Majority Leader [Eric] Cantor [R-Va.] hasn’t made his intentions particularly clear and his details remain vague on the process and the substance, this seems to be one more attempt to harm SNAP.”
FRAC added, “SNAP is a program that's been helping millions of low-income Americans — including some of the most vulnerable in our society — put food on the table. It must be protected from cuts to ensure it can give necessary food assistance to those who continue to struggle economically.”
The National Corn Growers Association, expressing disappointment in the bill and opposition to changing permanent law, urged the House to vote for it but said it would urge rejection if it is not changed in conference with the Senate.
“While we disagree with the policies of the legislation and are dismayed with the process that leads us to this sad situation, we see no other way to move the farm bill to a conference with the Senate unless the House approves the bill before it [leaves] today,” said NCGA President Pam Johnson.
“We urge members of the House to approve the bill and we expect immediate action by a conference committee to secure a five year farm bill we can support. However, our action in no way reflects our approval of its contents or the manner in which it came to the floor. Unless significant change is made to the bill in the conference committee, we will strongly urge its rejection by the Senate and the House.”
A spokeswoman for the National Association of Wheat Growers said, “Our officer team does not like the idea of splitting the bill or of repealing permanent law, but if Chairman Lucas feels this is the best way forward and will ultimately get us a five-year comprehensive bill, we are following his lead at this point.”
On Thursday House leaders including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., urged farm leaders to support the bill.
Some farm groups reluctantly urged a “yes” vote, but a major farm lobbyist questioned why the House leadership had bothered to appeal to farm leaders to support the bill because they seemed determined to pass it in any case.
In early debate, House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, urged the House to vote for the rule while Democrats lined up to make short statements in opposition to the rule.
Citing a variety of problems with the bill including the lack of a nutrition title and the repeal of the permanent law, the American Farm Bureau Federation urged members today to vote no.
“We urge you to oppose the rule as well to vote against final passage of this attempt to split the farm bill and end permanent law provisions for agriculture,” the letter said.
The Environmental Working Group sent out an email listing 10 reasons to vote against the bill.
“This bill will only make the richest subsidies in history permanent, not many conservation and other programs authorized by the farm bill,” Scott Faber, an EWG senior vice president wrote.
“Because this is such a sweet deal for cotton, rice and peanuts, this bill would create a dynamic whereby the most powerful farm groups would be fighting against a new farm bill in five years, not fighting for a farm bill,” he added, asking “Does Republican leadership understand what this means?”
Heritage Action urged a “no” vote in an email today and said it would include the vote in its scorecard of members’ performance.
“Although the bill does not contain the $750 billion in food stamp spending like the previous FARRM Act, it does nothing to make ‘meaningful reforms’ to America’s farm policy,” Heritage said.
“Even worse, the bill would make permanent farm policies — like the sugar program — that harm consumers and taxpayers alike,” the group said.
“While many realize the bill would repeal the 1938 and 1949 permanent farm law, few realize it would also create new permanent law — the commodities title in H.R.2642 would become permanent,” Heritage continued. “As a result, lawmakers would not have a built-in check, in the form of a reauthorization, in the years ahead.”
“Instead, market-distorting programs would continue indefinitely, like the government-imposed tariffs on sugar imports and quotas on domestic sugar production, which cause Americans to pay two to four times higher prices for sugar than consumers in other countries,” Heritage added.
“The new, untested and expensive crop insurance provisions would become permanent, undermining the effectiveness of the Foxx amendment [offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.] which would have capped the costs of these new programs at 110 percent of the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates until the year 2020.”
Bread for the World also urged a “no” vote, citing the lack of a nutrition title and a cut to international food aid programs.
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities President Robert Greenstein in a blog post urged a “no” vote.
In a letter to members, National Farmers Union also urged a “no” vote.
The Food Research Action Center, an organization that lobbies for nutrition programs and is supported by foundations and the food industry, did not take an exact position on the bill, but said in a statement:
“To date the House majority leadership has used every opportunity to cut and weaken SNAP. FRAC opposes any legislation that does not protect SNAP and that leaves it vulnerable to cuts. With his latest effort to move a partial farm bill, even though Majority Leader [Eric] Cantor [R-Va.] hasn’t made his intentions particularly clear and his details remain vague on the process and the substance, this seems to be one more attempt to harm SNAP.”
FRAC added, “SNAP is a program that's been helping millions of low-income Americans — including some of the most vulnerable in our society — put food on the table. It must be protected from cuts to ensure it can give necessary food assistance to those who continue to struggle economically.”
The National Corn Growers Association, expressing disappointment in the bill and opposition to changing permanent law, urged the House to vote for it but said it would urge rejection if it is not changed in conference with the Senate.
“While we disagree with the policies of the legislation and are dismayed with the process that leads us to this sad situation, we see no other way to move the farm bill to a conference with the Senate unless the House approves the bill before it [leaves] today,” said NCGA President Pam Johnson.
“We urge members of the House to approve the bill and we expect immediate action by a conference committee to secure a five year farm bill we can support. However, our action in no way reflects our approval of its contents or the manner in which it came to the floor. Unless significant change is made to the bill in the conference committee, we will strongly urge its rejection by the Senate and the House.”
A spokeswoman for the National Association of Wheat Growers said, “Our officer team does not like the idea of splitting the bill or of repealing permanent law, but if Chairman Lucas feels this is the best way forward and will ultimately get us a five-year comprehensive bill, we are following his lead at this point.”
