With the rules of debate decided, the U.S. House began debate May 16 on the 2018 farm bill, technically known as H.R.2.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, R-TX, led off the debate, saying, “Times are not good right now in the Heartland. Our nation’s farmers and ranchers are struggling in the midst of a five-year recession with no end in sight. Net farm income has been cut in half over this period of time. As a result, rural America is not partaking in the economic recovery that urban counterparts are experiencing.”
Conaway then moved onto the elephant in the room—the change in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program proposed by Republicans.
“It is no secret that we do not have a bipartisan farm bill process at the moment. I regret this deeply,” Conaway said. “Ultimately, Democrats and Republicans chose to agree to disagree on the question of whether work-capable adults should work or get free work training for 20 hours per week to be eligible for SNAP benefits.
“I respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I do want to be clear about something: this farm bill in no way, shape, or form disrespects Americans who depend on SNAP. To the contrary, the farm bill keeps faith with SNAP beneficiaries, providing needed benefits and something more: the dignity that comes from work and the promise of a better life that a job brings.
Conaway dug in his heels at the end of his opening remarks to attack extremists on either side of the farm bill debate.
“Note that there is a cottage industry in this town that is determined to defeat this farm bill. They want this House to ignore the realities of Mother Nature and the predatory trade practices of foreign countries and turn your back on farm and ranch families struggling to hang on in the face of hard times.
“Not on our watch. I urge my colleagues to stand by the hard-working families that put food on our tables and clothes on our backs and still live every day by the values that make this country truly great. Stand up for rural America. Pass this farm bill.”
For his part, ranking member Collin Peterson, D-MN, attacked Republicans for producing what he called the most partisan farm bill he’d seen.
“H.R. 2 is not a work product that I’m proud of because it’s not one I or my Democratic colleagues had a proper role in producing. More than that though, I’m opposed to H.R. 2 today because it’s simply not good enough for American farmers, consumers or rural advocates.
“H.R. 2 fails our farmers. The bill does not improve the farm safety net programs farmers need to manage a troubled farm economy. It fails to make needed increases to reference prices under the PLC program to address the 52 percent drop in national farm income. It neglects repeated requests to increase funding for trade promotion to help strengthen overseas markets in response to the administration’s actions on trade and renewable fuels.
“H.R. 2 fails our nation’s hungry. While I agree that there are changes that need to be made to the SNAP program, this is so clearly not the way to do it. The bill cuts more than $23 billion in SNAP benefits and will result in an estimated 2 million Americans unable to get the help they need. Within the nutrition title, the bill turns around and wastes billions the Majority cut from SNAP benefits to create a massive, untested workforce training bureaucracy.
“H.R. 2 fails our conservation goals, reducing the federal funding for our voluntary conservation programs by almost $800 million dollars.
“H.R. 2 fails our next generation. It lacks mandatory funding for scholarships at 1890 land grants. It underfunds our programs for beginning farmers and outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
“H.R. 2 fails our energy independence goals. Aside from eliminating the entire Energy title, the bill hobbles renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts in rural communities by eliminating funding for the Rural Energy for America Program.
“H.R. 2 fails the farmers, rural advocates and consumers we’re here to represent on all these fronts, but what’s so incredibly frustrating for me is the failure in the process.
“As I speak today, I refuse to give legitimacy to what has been, in my view, an illegitimate process. I have been through four farm bills: as a member, as a chairman, and as a ranking member. Each bill had its share of headaches, but all had more common ground than opposition, and in the end, the Agriculture Committee always produced a product we could be proud of because we knew we’d delivered the best deal possible given the circumstances. We’ve always been able to work together for the mutual benefit of farmers, rural advocates, and consumers.
“Prior to my time here, Senators Dole and McGovern carried the mantel—Hubert Humphrey and George Aiken before that. These weren’t ideologues, but they weren’t pushovers either; each knew where his party stood, but each also knew the value of making sure the link between people who grow food and people who buy food was strong.
“Let me be as clear as I can be: breaking up that coalition—ruining a partnership that predates all of us—is a huge mistake. More than that though, the closed and one-sided nature of this process, which I must call out, does not bode well for farm and food legislation to come.
“If folks want to do welfare reform, then it should be done as part of a comprehensive review involving all the committees of jurisdiction and the relevant programs. We should not and cannot ask farmers, rural communities and the hungry to bear the cost.”
Charges of Republican racism permeated speeches by members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rep. David Scott, D-GA, ranking member of the Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit Subcommittee, openly wept in the well of the House declaring, “This is a racist farm bill. Make no mistake about it.”
Scott said 1890 historically black land-grant colleges and universities have always been funded under a “separate but equal” policy by the federal government.
“These 1890 colleges have never received the support they deserve,” Scott said. “Let’s treat these colleges with the respect and dignity that you’ve never given to them.”
Rep. Martha Fudge, D-OH, ranking member of the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee, said the bill carries out a hateful, mean-spirited, Republican agenda.
“If we fail to protect the weak, the frail, the poor, children, seniors, and disabled, we have lost our soul,” Fudge said. “We no longer live up to the promise of America and the true meaning of our creed.
“I ask my colleagues, ‘What have poor children ever done to you?’”
Following an hour of debate, another 45 minutes was devoted to passage of seven amendments, including an amendment by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, allowing Environmental Quality Incentives Program participants to go into contracts with drainage districts to provide irrigation or water efficiency, and another by Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-TX, modifying the Community Facilities Direct Loan and Guarantee Loan Program and the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program to permit rural hospitals to refinance existing debt, which was approved after debate.
Larry Dreiling can be reached at 785-628-1117 or [email protected].
