The House today delivered a blow to farm-state lawmakers and GOP leaders, voting down a Republican-sponsored five-year farm bill in a 195-234 vote.
The failure of H.R. 1947 instantly resulted in finger-pointing on both sides of the aisle. Republicans who supported it blamed Democrats for failing to come up with promised votes, while Agriculture ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) laid the blame on Republican leaders for allowing two controversial amendments to receive votes and for overreaching on proposed food stamp cuts.
In all, 171 Republicans and 24 Democrats voted for the measure. Sixty-two Republicans voted against it, while 172 Democrats cast "no" votes. Both Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) voted for the measure, while Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) voted against it.
The bill, which has been on the House floor this whole week, would have provided $939 billion over the next decade to farm subsidy, conservation, rural energy and nutrition programs. It had no mandatory funding for rural energy programs and would have cut nearly $7 billion from conservation programs.
Its proposed $20.5 billion cut to the national food stamps program saw strong opposition from Democrats, but leaders believed they had enough support to bring the bill to the floor.
House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), who huddled with Boehner on the House floor when it became apparent that the bill would fail, declined to take questions after the vote.
In a statement afterward, Lucas said he was "obviously disappointed" in the vote but vowed to continue to pursue a five-year bill.
"We are assessing all of our options, but I have no doubt that we will finish our work in the near future and provide the certainty that our farmers, ranchers, and rural constituents need," Lucas said.
In an interview, Agriculture Committee member Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he believed the bill was a balanced measure that set up future parameters for reform in farm and nutrition programs and blamed Democrats for not supporting its proposed reduction to the national food stamps program.
"If you paint the 'Mona Lisa' and somebody comes along and tosses a cup of coffee in its face, that's what it feels like to me," King said. "I think [Lucas] painted the 'Mona Lisa' on this, and I think it should have passed."
Peterson, who authored the bill's proposed dairy supply management program and voted for the legislation, said he lost about 15 Democratic votes when an amendment by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to eliminate the program and one offered by Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.) to apply federal work requirements to the food stamps program both passed shortly before House members voted on final passage of the bill.
The amendments -- particularly the Southerland one -- were the last straw for some Democrats who were already rankled by the proposed food stamps cut, Peterson said.
"I had a bunch of people come up to me as say, 'I was with you, but this is it, I'm done,'" Peterson said, blaming House leaders for bringing up the amendments at the last minute.
Peterson also said Republican leaders were unable to control the "extreme right wing" faction of their party who voted against the bill because they believed it did not cut deep enough into the food stamps program.
Republican leaders, though, said it was well-known that the Southerland amendment would come up for a vote and that Democrats had promised them 40 votes for the bill's passage. Republicans, they said, delivered exactly the number of votes expected.
"I'm extremely disappointed that Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership have at the last minute chosen to derail years of bipartisan work on the farm bill and related reforms," Cantor said. "This bill was far from perfect, but the only way to achieve meaningful reform, such as Congressman Southerland's amendment reforming the food stamp program, was in conference."
What happens next is anyone's guess. The Senate has already passed its version of the farm bill, and Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) today urged leaders to consider her bill.
"The House needs to find a way to get a five-year farm bill done," Stabenow said. "The speaker needs to work in a bipartisan way and present a bill that Democrats and Republicans can support. He could start by bringing the Senate bill to the floor for a vote."
Peterson, though, predicted that the Senate version would likely garner even fewer votes in the House. He said he believed that a bill could still be salvaged but that an extension of the current farm policy is also likely.
The agriculture community, which is operating under a partial extension of farm policy after the House last year failed to even bring the farm bill to a floor vote, had hoped to see the House pass a new farm bill to conference with the Senate version.
National Corn Growers Association President Pam Johnson said her organization was "extremely disappointed."
"Up to the last minute, our organization has actively and consistently called for passage of the legislation," Johnson said. "We will be engaged in all efforts needed to secure passage in the House and bring the bill to conference."
Opponents of the legislation, including fiscal conservative organizations, cheered its failure.
"Clearly, this wasteful bill was too much and too costly for a majority of lawmakers to stomach, especially in the challenging budget environment," said Taxpayers for Common Sense President Ryan Alexander. "While the rest of the country has been in the economic doldrums for the past few years, farm country has seen record profits. The House Agriculture Committee's reaction to this scenario: layer on more agriculture subsidies that would put taxpayers on the hook for guaranteeing those record profits for years to come."
The National Wildlife Federation, which had pushed for a withdrawn amendment to attach conservation requirements to crop insurance subsidies, also said the legislation failed to put in place "common-sense" reforms.
Those seeking reform of farm subsidy measures, though, cheered the fact that the House voted to accept an amendment today by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) that would have capped all farm subsidy payments to an individual farm at $250,000 a year. An amendment by Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) that would have put in place broad reforms on the federal crop insurance program came just a few votes shy of passing.
While the failure to pass the bill last year didn't appear to sway voters, Peterson said he expected political fallout for Republicans over the vote this year. The failure to pass a new bill would mean the continuation of direct payments, a much-criticized $5-billion-a-year subsidy in which the government pays farmers regardless of how much they make in a given year.
"I think this is going to be a problem for them," Peterson said.
Original Publication URL: http://www.eenews.net/pm/2013/06/20
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
