Campaign Action
The farm bill that passed out of the House Agriculture Committee last week with only Republican votes is so extreme in its attacks on the poor and on the environment that agriculture groups are worried about its passage.
John Larson, executive director of programs for American Farmland Trusts, told a group of ag reporters that "Right now, I don't think we get to 218 votes (the number needed in the House to pass a farm bill) in any size, shape or form." Mostly at issue are the stringent work requirements for food and nutrition assistance included in the bill. That's led one advocate to believe this version will be essentially scrapped and a more traditional bill will prevail by the time it gets through conference with the Senate.
"It's hard to see a farm bill emerging that would not follow the kind of path we've seen before," said Ellen Vollinger, legal director of the Food Research and Action Center, a Washington, D.C.-based anti-hunger group. "There are lots of stakeholders in the traditional coalition that started the process that are ready to be aligned. I think there is still a pathway for a productive, constructive farm bill that follows the path." […]
"Hunger is still a very large problem in this country," which contributes to opposition to expanding work requirements for SNAP, Vollinger said. The farm bill is a safety net "not only on the farm side, but also on the nutrition side."
The farm side of the bill is causing concern among farming groups, as well. The National Farmers Union is opposed to the bill, which doesn't provide enough real support to actual farmers and ranchers who are already facing low crop prices and rising tariffs thanks to Trump's trade war. The safety net programs for non-corporate farmers and ranchers were slightly increased, but offset by cuts elsewhere, like to the Conservation Stewardship Program, which lost $1 billion.
The ranking Democrat on the Agriculture Committee says he's never seen his committee so split, and says the bill's passage is in question.
"We used to be able to get stuff done," Peterson said, "but this is crazy. We had 89 people testify at 23 hearings. None of them recommended this." The plan, he notes, also would impose a huge burden on state and local governments, which would be responsible for tracking employment status for 42 million recipients nationwide. "I'm all for people working, but in my district the biggest complaint I hear is about the lack of workers. There aren't enough bodies to fill jobs." […]
Chinese tariffs on pork, soybeans and other products are already taking a toll on Minnesota farmers. Additionally, dairy prices are plummeting in part because China has cut back on purchase of American milk products, while Russia has stopped importing U.S. milk products altogether. "My farmers are looking at a late spring, frost on the ground, a president jeopardizing our market with these crazy tariffs and going after renewable fuel standards," Peterson said. "Now this. It's crazy."
They have until Sept. 30 to get this done, and they're already acknowledging they may have to do a simple extension of the bill because the Senate will reject what's in the House bill. That will only add to the anxiety of all the constituent groups the bill affects, particularly farmers.