Ag Policy Blog
Chris Clayton DTN Ag Policy Editor

Sunday 07/07/13

Critical Week for Farm Bill, Direction of Congress

This week could be pivotal not only for the future of the farm bill, but also the direction for the rest of this Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has to decide how to proceed on advancing the farm bill following the unprecedented defeat of the legislation on the House floor on June 20. Does he seek compromise with Democrats and members of his party who back the Agriculture Committee bill? Or will Boehner go along with a strategy to find enough votes within the Republican caucus by dividing the nutrition and farm programs?

If Boehner seeks to draw more than 24 votes from Democrats, he would have to moderate some of the provisions added in amendments, particularly on the cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- food stamps. Some of the amendments added to the bill poisoned the well for many Democrats, including provisions to allow drug testing and require minimum work requirements for able-bodied people, similar to current requirements for cash welfare assistance.

But a strong contingent in the GOP believes dividing the bill is the better option for a GOP bill. Those efforts are supported by groups such as Club for Growth and Heritage Foundation that have a history of outright opposition to farm subsidies. Yet, now these groups have garnered support by focusing most of their attacks on nutrition programs.

The clout of farm groups also is now at stake. After nearly two years of trying to get a farm bill, the defeat last month raised more questions about the political clout of agriculture. The New York Times last week was among those highlighting the division over the bill and lack of congressional districts with heavy agricultural bases. In reality, the challenges with the farm bill reflect the division of the broad array of special-interest groups focusing more heavily on just trying to stem budget cuts to their own area of legislation. In response, more than 500 groups joined a letter last week trying to stress to Boehner that they want a full, undivided farm bill to pass.

Another problem becoming more obvious with Congress in recent years is that there is little or no ability for House leaders to horse trade for votes like in the past. The elimination of earmarks in legislation such as the farm bill takes away some of the effectiveness of working the floor for a few extra votes.

The House bill, as put together, is projected to cut the growth of spending by about $40 billion over 10 years.

Keep in mind, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have been working on their own versions of the farm bill two years now. The committees began in summer 2011 trying to respond to the now-defunct, pre-sequestration "Supercommittee." In November 2011, the committees had an outline for $23 billion in cuts to offer the deficit-cutting committee that failed to come to terms on anything else.

The 2008 farm bill originally expired last Oct. 1. Most disaster programs for farmers and livestock producers also expired then as well.

The meat and potatoes of the legislation --- SNAP, commodity and conservation programs --- were extended until this Sept. 30 as part of the tax and fiscal-cliff agreement last January. That extension largely was adopted because Congress feared price spikes for milk and didn't want to get blamed. Roughly 40 programs were extended without funding ranging from the Grassland Reserve Program to beginning farmer programs and others for specialty crops, organics and areas such as rural development.

The Senate had voted out its version of the farm bill more than a year ago. Senators repeated the process in May and early June. The Senate bill, officially called the "Agriculture Reform, food and Jobs Act of 2013," is projected to cost $955 billion over 10 years, but would still reduce estimated spending by as much as $24 billion compared to current programs.

With floor debates on immigration and the debt ceiling coming up in the fall, it will be critical to see what congressmen learned on their holiday break about the farm bill. Will enough of lawmakers from either party going to want to come home for their August break and say they got a farm bill passed?

I can be found on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN.

Posted at 8:36PM CDT 07/07/13 by Chris Clayton
Comments (3)
Any new farm bill needs to address several issues. Any mandated return to past century obsolete 49 farm bill legislation needs to be repealed. Food stamps are different issue that should be addressed in separate legislation. Any new farm bill needs to be combined with existing 2nd farm bill authorizing federal crop insurance. To have 2 farm bills authorizing crop insurance subsidy issues is absurd.
Posted by John Olson at 7:06AM CDT 07/09/13
Encourage your congress and senate representatives to PLEASE OPPOSE separating the Farm Bill from Nutrition and, PLEASE OPPOSE repeal of the initial 1938 etc permanent farm bill law. Without permanent law, there is no incentive to complete a Farm Bill in the future. Those who oppose a safety net for farmers and ranchers will know that if they simply let the current Farm Bill expire, farmers will be left with no safety net. Farmers and ranchers need a safety net â?“ especially since most of the remainder of the developed world supports their farmers and ranchers at much higher levels than do we. Without an adequate safety net, we are asking our producers to compete against producers around the world AND their governments. Other countries understand the importance of food security to ALL CITIZENS. The U.S. should not become complacent in this regard.
Posted by Shelli Grover at 2:05PM CDT 07/09/13
Government safety nets that promote the elimination of smaller farms and the establishment of a small number of extremely large farms increase the probability of crops not being planted and harvested in times of adverse weather conditions. Furthermore, these schemes that promote the rapid depopulation of rural America remove from the rural population large numbers of individuals with the skills needed to plant and harvest crops in a timely manner and increase the vulnerability of the nation in times of adverse weather conditions. Reasonable safety would give all farmers a fair and equal opportunity of competing in the ag business as well as not driving up the costs of producing food.
Posted by John Olson at 6:36PM CDT 07/09/13
Post a Blog Comment:
Your Comment:
DTN reserves the right to delete comments posted to any of our blogs and forums, for reasons including profanity, libel, irrelevant personal attacks and advertisements.
Blog Home Pages
October  2014
S M T W T F S
         1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31   
Subscribe to Ag Policy Blog RSS
Recent Blog Posts
  • Politicos Weigh in on USDA APH Yield Exclusion
  • Views in Congress Vary on COOL
  • Vilsack Addresses Checkoff Controversy
  • GAO: 'USDA Needs to Better Communicate Climate Plan'
  • Offering Advice on Farm Bill Choices
  • Governors, Attorneys General say CWA Rule a Legal Threat to Farmers
  • Dem Senators ask President to Leave RFS Alone
  • Senators Push for Withdraw of Endangered Species Act Rule
  • ARC and the PLC Reference Price
  • Beef Promotion Leads to Beef Politics
  • Small Business Advocacy Group Calls for CWA Rule to be Withdrawn
  • CRP, Base Acres and Proof for Yield Updates
  • Business Groups: Withdraw WOTUS Rule
  • Photo Fees on Public Lands? C'Mon, Man!
  • USDA ARC-PLC Rollout and Decision Tools for Farmers
  • Point, Counterpoint on EPA's Waters of the U.S. Rule
  • Point, Counterpoint on EPA's Waters of the U.S. Rule
  • Senate Committee Passes Railroad Regulatory Bill
  • U.S. Shanghaied in Smithfield Deal?
  • Route 66: The End of the Trail