House leaders back bill; Grassley, Roberts critical
January 27, 2014 | 09:13 PM
In a sign that the House leadership will whip members to vote for the farm bill conference report early Wednesday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, today issued statements of support for the farm bill.
“I congratulate [House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank] Lucas [R-Okla.], the House Committee on Agriculture, and the farm bill conferees on their hard work in finalizing a five-year farm bill, which will be voted on by the House of Representatives on Wednesday,” Cantor said in a news release.
“This was not an easy task, and it took hard work to arrive here — for that our conferees should be commended,” Cantor said.
“Despite the Senate’s unwillingness to challenge the status-quo and include all of the critical reforms to important programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the finalized farm bill will include a new initiative that allows states to implement work requirements for able-bodied adults as well as initiatives to help move individuals from dependence to self-sufficiency and independence.”
“I thank Congressman Steve Southerland [R-Fla.] for his hard work on SNAP reform, and congratulate this bipartisan effort to extend these important agriculture programs, achieve deficit reduction, and help give many Americans an opportunity to achieve independence and get back to work.”
About half an hour later, Boehner issued a statement saying “The House-Senate agreement announced this evening is a positive step in the right direction. The measure will not only save taxpayers approximately $23 billion, it also includes important reforms to both farm and food stamp programs.”
“While I hoped many of these reforms would go further, the status quo is simply unacceptable,” Boehner said.
“I have voted against the last two farm bills because, in my view, they made farm and food stamp policy worse rather than better. This legislation, however, is worthy of the House’s support. Chairman Lucas and his colleagues should be commended for the important reforms they secured in this agreement.”
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, criticized the payment limitation provisions, but did not say whether he will vote for the bill.
“It appears the payment limit and actively engaged reforms, which Congress overwhelming approved, have been watered down to the point they will likely have little to no effect,” Grassley said in a statement.
“It’s bad for agriculture, it’s bad for taxpayers who are worried about the debt, it’s bad for our credibility with trading partners, and it’s bad for the future of farm programs.”
Grassley added, “Getting the farm program back to its original intent was supported by a majority of both the House and the Senate. It’s one of the few areas where Republicans and Democrats have come together.”
“Yet, a select few are allowing the farm program to be exploited by putting wealthy, so-called farmers ahead of small- and medium-sized farms and young and beginning farmers. This is an example of why Congress has a 12 percent approval rating.”
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., announced he would oppose the conference report.
Roberts, who chaired the House Agriculture Committee when the 1996 “Freedom to Farm” bill was passed, said “When you look at the policies of this report, we have a return to government subsidies and farmers planting for the government. While we all want to provide certainty to producers, the conference has missed an opportunity for greater and necessary reforms to our nation’s farm programs, federal nutrition programs, and burdensome regulations. I cannot march backwards and deliver more spending, more regulations and more waste.”
Roberts again reiterated concerns with the new target price program or Price Loss Coverage Program (PLC).
“The new Price Loss Coverage Program repeats a classic government subsidy mistake – setting high fixed target prices — which only guarantees overproduction with long periods of low crop prices, leading to expensive farm programs funded by the taxpayers,” Roberts said.
“This program simply creates planting and marketing distortions, instead of letting our producers respond to the free market and decide their crops based on supply and demand.”
“I congratulate [House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank] Lucas [R-Okla.], the House Committee on Agriculture, and the farm bill conferees on their hard work in finalizing a five-year farm bill, which will be voted on by the House of Representatives on Wednesday,” Cantor said in a news release.
“This was not an easy task, and it took hard work to arrive here — for that our conferees should be commended,” Cantor said.
“Despite the Senate’s unwillingness to challenge the status-quo and include all of the critical reforms to important programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the finalized farm bill will include a new initiative that allows states to implement work requirements for able-bodied adults as well as initiatives to help move individuals from dependence to self-sufficiency and independence.”
“I thank Congressman Steve Southerland [R-Fla.] for his hard work on SNAP reform, and congratulate this bipartisan effort to extend these important agriculture programs, achieve deficit reduction, and help give many Americans an opportunity to achieve independence and get back to work.”
About half an hour later, Boehner issued a statement saying “The House-Senate agreement announced this evening is a positive step in the right direction. The measure will not only save taxpayers approximately $23 billion, it also includes important reforms to both farm and food stamp programs.”
“While I hoped many of these reforms would go further, the status quo is simply unacceptable,” Boehner said.
“I have voted against the last two farm bills because, in my view, they made farm and food stamp policy worse rather than better. This legislation, however, is worthy of the House’s support. Chairman Lucas and his colleagues should be commended for the important reforms they secured in this agreement.”
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, criticized the payment limitation provisions, but did not say whether he will vote for the bill.
“It appears the payment limit and actively engaged reforms, which Congress overwhelming approved, have been watered down to the point they will likely have little to no effect,” Grassley said in a statement.
“It’s bad for agriculture, it’s bad for taxpayers who are worried about the debt, it’s bad for our credibility with trading partners, and it’s bad for the future of farm programs.”
Grassley added, “Getting the farm program back to its original intent was supported by a majority of both the House and the Senate. It’s one of the few areas where Republicans and Democrats have come together.”
“Yet, a select few are allowing the farm program to be exploited by putting wealthy, so-called farmers ahead of small- and medium-sized farms and young and beginning farmers. This is an example of why Congress has a 12 percent approval rating.”
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., announced he would oppose the conference report.
Roberts, who chaired the House Agriculture Committee when the 1996 “Freedom to Farm” bill was passed, said “When you look at the policies of this report, we have a return to government subsidies and farmers planting for the government. While we all want to provide certainty to producers, the conference has missed an opportunity for greater and necessary reforms to our nation’s farm programs, federal nutrition programs, and burdensome regulations. I cannot march backwards and deliver more spending, more regulations and more waste.”
Roberts again reiterated concerns with the new target price program or Price Loss Coverage Program (PLC).
“The new Price Loss Coverage Program repeats a classic government subsidy mistake – setting high fixed target prices — which only guarantees overproduction with long periods of low crop prices, leading to expensive farm programs funded by the taxpayers,” Roberts said.
“This program simply creates planting and marketing distortions, instead of letting our producers respond to the free market and decide their crops based on supply and demand.”
