Thursday, January 30, 2014

House passes farm bill; crop subsidies preserved

House passes farm bill; crop subsidies preserved

MCGOVERN OPPOSES FOOD STAMP CUTS

Hemp chef Derek Cross helps bring in the crop last fall in Springfield, Colo., during the first known harvest of the plant in more than 60 years. The federal farm bill agreement reached Monday reverses decades of prohibition for hemp cultivation. Instead of requiring approval from federal drug authorities to cultivate the plant, the 10 states that have authorized hemp would be allowed to grow it in pilot projects or at colleges and universities for research. (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)

By Mary Clare Jalonick THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — After more than two years of partisan squabbles over food and farm policy, the House passed and sent to the Senate Wednesday an almost $100 billion-a-year, compromise farm bill containing a small cut in food stamps and preserving most crop subsidies.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said shortly after the vote that President Barack Obama would sign the bill if it reaches his desk.


The measure, which the House approved 251-166, had backing from the Republican leadership team, even though it makes smaller cuts to food stamps than they would have liked. After wavering for several years, the GOP leaders were seeking to put the long-stalled bill behind them and build on the success of a bipartisan budget passed earlier this month. Leaders in both parties also were hoping to bolster rural candidates in this year's midterm elections.

House Speaker John Boehner did not cast a vote on the bill, a commonplace practice for a speaker, but he issued a statement Monday saying it was "worthy of the House's support."

The bill ultimately would cut about $800 million a year from the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program, or around 1 percent. The House had sought a 5 percent cut.

The legislation also would continue to heavily subsidize major crops for the nation's farmers while eliminating some subsidies and shifting them toward more politically defensible insurance programs.

House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., who has been working on the bill since 2011, called the compromise a "miracle" after years of setbacks. An early version of the legislation was defeated on the House floor last June after conservatives said the food stamp cuts were too modest and liberal Democrats said they were too steep.

The House later passed a bill with a higher, $4 billion cut, arguing at the time that the program had spiraled out of control after costs doubled in the last five years. But cuts that high were ultimately not possible after the Senate balked and the White House threatened a veto. The Senate had sought a cut of $400 million annually.

Many House conservatives still voted against the bill — 63 Republicans opposed it, one more than June.

One of those conservative opponents was Indiana Rep. Marlin Stutzman. "It spends money we simply don't have," he said.

But 89 Democrats supported it, bolstered by the lower cut in food stamps and money for fruit, vegetable and organic programs.

The final savings in the cost of the food stamp program would be generated by cracking down on some states that seek to boost individual food stamp benefits by giving people small amounts of federal heating assistance that they don't need. That heating assistance, sometimes as low as $1 per person, triggers higher benefits, and some critics see that practice as circumventing the law. The bill that was passed Wednesday would require states to give individual recipients at least $20 in heating assistance before a higher food stamp benefit could be authorized.

Some Democrats said the food stamp cut still is too high.

Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, one of the states that has boosted benefits through heating assistance, said the cut will be harmful on top of automatic food stamp cuts that already went into place in November.

"I don't know where they are going to make that up," McGovern said.

To pass the bill, Lucas and his Senate counterpart, Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, found ways to entice many potential naysayers. They spent more than two years crafting the bill to appeal to members from all regions of the country, including a boost in money for crop insurance popular in the Midwest; higher rice and peanut subsidies for Southern farmers; and renewal of federal land payments for Western states. The food stamp cut was low enough that 89 Democrats voted for the bill.

They also backed away from repealing a catfish program — a move that would have angered Mississippi lawmakers — and dropped language that would have thwarted a California law requiring all eggs sold in the state to come from hens living in larger cages. Striking out that provision was a priority for California lawmakers who did not want to see the state law changed.

For those seeking reform of farm programs, the legislation would eliminate a $4.5 billion-a-year farm subsidy called direct payments, which are paid to farmers whether they farm or not. But the bill nonetheless would continue to heavily subsidize major crops — corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton — while shifting many of those subsidies toward more politically defensible insurance programs. That means farmers would have to incur losses before they could get a payout.

The bill would save around $1.65 billion annually overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The amount was less than the $2.3 billion annual savings the agriculture committees originally projected for the bill.

An aide to Lucas said the difference was due to how the CBO calculated budget savings from recent automatic across-the-board spending cuts, known as sequestration.

___

Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

___

Follow Mary Clare Jalonick on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mcjalonick

.

A coalition of powerful meat and poultry groups, generally strong supporters of the legislation, also said Monday they would work against the bill after the heads of the agriculture panels did not include language to delay a labeling program that requires retailers to list the country of origin of meat. Meatpackers say it is too costly for the industry and have fought to have the program repealed in the farm bill.

Despite that opposition, Boehner and Cantor are hoping to corral enough votes to get the bill done. Cantor blamed the Senate for not accepting the House's attempted changes to the food stamp program but said he would support the bill.

Boehner said he had hoped reforms in the bill would go further, but the legislation was ''worthy of the House's support.''

Lucas helped win Boehner's support by jettisoning a portion of a dairy program overhaul that the speaker firmly opposed. Negotiators have spent the past few months figuring out how to work the dairy program so Boehner and other key lawmakers would support it.

The new program would do away with current price supports and allow farmers to purchase a new kind of insurance that pays out when the gap between the price they receive for milk and their feed costs narrows. But it would not include a so-called stabilization program that would have dictated production cuts when oversupply drives down prices. Boehner called that ''Soviet-style'' and made it clear it was a deal-breaker for him.

''If I should expire in the next three days I want a glass of milk on my tombstone because it's what's killed me,'' Lucas said Monday night of negotiations over the dairy program.


2 comments:

  1. Even though the EPA voted to remove Sulfuryl Fluoride as a pesticide corporate interests lobbied to continue its use with verbage put into the bill at the last minute. Fluoride is an enzymatic poison that as a government policy has been placed into our food and water since the early fifties in Templeton. Hopefully we can come together and get this toxic substance out of our water supply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For many years, Bart and I took part in a farmer's market in Melrose. We had a loyal following that came to the market every week. The elderly would come with their market coupons, and buy the fruits and vegetables they could get before the season ended. In most stores ten dollars does not get you much, but at the market they made out pretty well. I remember one lady who came toward the end of the day. She looked to me like she had not come before so I went over to talk to her. She said she had never been in the position to have to use Farmers Market Coupons so she did not know how they worked. I explained they were like money, but she would not get change, so we would make sure she got her coupons worth of produce. We talked a few minutes, and what she told me was her husband was out of work, and things had never gotten as bad. She was embarrassed about having to use coupons. I pretty much told her in everyone's life people sometimes need a hand, and things would get better, but for now she should take advantage of the opportunity to bring home some really good produce for her families benefit. I filled up a big bag of potatoes, carrots, and what ever else we had, knowing she would use them to feed her kids. In the fall every kid would get a apple to eat on their way home. The farmers market coupons enabled kids to eat blueberries, raspberries and strawberries, most mothers could not afford in a store. To cut the coupon subsidies at all is a shame, because I know what they mean to some people. The people in Washington do not have to wonder where their next meal is coming from, so if they were ever in that position they forget fast.

      Delete