Live Updates 7/11/13: Thursday Farm Bill Shenanigans

[Spoa]

http://heritageaction.com/key-votes/no-on-permanent-farm-bill/


While many realize the bill would repeal the 1938 and 1949 permanent farm law, few realize it would also create new permanent law – the commodities title in H.R.2642 would become permanent. As a result, lawmakers would not have a built in check, in the form of a reauthorization, in the years ahead.

Instead, market-distorting programs would continue indefinitely, like the government-imposed tariffs on sugar imports and quotas on domestic sugar production, which cause Americans to pay two to four times higher prices for sugar than consumers in other countries.

The new, untested and expensive crop insurance provisions would become permanent undermining the effectiveness of the Foxx Amendment, which would have capped the costs of these new programs at 110 percent of the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates until the year 2020.

Additional Links: http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/10/the-indefensible-farm-bill-the-house-may-be-back-at-it-again/
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/11/morning-bell-late-night-farm-bill-shenanigans-in-the-house/
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=16147&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClubForGrowthNews+%28Club+for +Growth+%7C%7C+News%29
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jwithrow/splitting-the-farm-bill-is-only-the-first-step-tow
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/mkibbe/key-vote-no-on-the-new-house-farm-bill

[Spoa]

I'll be posting live updates today: All Democrats are likely to oppose this bill because there is no SNAP/food stamp title. Tired of listening to representatives like Rep. Wilson (D-FL) and Butterfield (D-NC) who keep talking about these small cuts.

Conservatives should oppose this corporate welfare bill.

[Spoa]

http://madisonproject.com/2013/07/why-we-need-new-leadership/

[Spoa]

Rep. Sewell (D-AL) has argued that she hates the farm bill so badly that she wants to adjourn the House.

House members now voting to adjourn for the week. This was unexpected.

[Spoa]

Motion to Adjourn will Fail. So far: 123 yea (all Dem), 259 Nay (210R, 49D) and 50 NV (24R, 26D) House to move to #farmbill.

House now debating close rule. Urging no vote.

[Spoa]

Another procedural argument made by Democrats to try to kill the bill...because they want food stamps included.

[Spoa]

Members of Congressional Black Caucus lined up, to protest food stamp cuts to farm bill...pathetic.

[Spoa]

Another 15 minutes procedural vote...Democrats not happy that Chair is charging time against them when they are debating.

[Spoa]

CALL THE OFFICES OF YOUR MEMBER AND URGE NO VOTE!

[Spoa]

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/11/farm-bill-youll-never-believe-where-the-house-wants-to-spend-your-tax-dollars/

[Spoa]

http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/house-sets-up-farm-bill-vote-sans-food-stamps/

[Spoa]

Another 15 minutes procedural vote...motion to adjourn...Democrats against the Farm Bill.

[Spoa]

They have approved the rule...they are now going to general debate. :(

We need to defeat this bill.

[tsai3904]

Robert Costa ‏@robertcostaNRO
A leadership staffer is talking heatedly with Amash. Maybe they need him, maybe they don't. #farmbill

[Spoa]

Sickening...Another 15 minute procedural vote...kind of funny but sad at the same time.

[Spoa]

Robert Costa ‏@robertcostaNRO
A leadership staffer is talking heatedly with Amash. Maybe they need him, maybe they don't. #farmbill

I already PMed him...begging him to vote no. I've already seen so many conservatives saying they're voting for this bill. :(

[HOLLYWOOD]

What sucks about these WHORES on Capital Hill... they ALL oppose it for all the wrong reasons.

all the earmarks, Lobbyist injected legislation, on & on...


If they can't spend on their lobbyist, campaign donors, and last the foolish ignorant voters, then they lose their Imperial Menu Order taking jobs.

Dems: Spend more on wasteful welfare for campaign donations and votes
Reps: Spend more on wasteful corporate welfare for campaign donations and votes

SPEND SPEND SPEND... taxpayers money to keep your own gravy train job goin

[Spoa]

Closing statements nearing close. Votes coming up.

[Spoa]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll353.xml

Bill passes 216-208:

GOPers Voting NO (12):


1. Amash
2. Cook
3. DeSantis
4. Duncan (TN)
5. Franks (AZ)
6. Gingrey (GA)
7. Huelskamp
8. Jones
9. LoBiondo
10. McClintock
11. Salmon
12. Sanford


Lots of shockers. Establishment and RINO leadership did a good job getting even several of our favorites. :(

[Spoa]

Jim Antle ‏@jimantle 3m
Bentivolio, Massie, Labrador vote for farm bill, Amash, Jones, Sanford vote against it.

Sad and good.

[Spoa]

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/11/what-the-house-farm-bills-passage-means/


On top of all this, the process House Republicans used to get this 600-plus-page bill to the floor in a mere 10 hours essentially violates their own promise to conduct business in an open and transparent manner. They prohibited legislators from introducing amendments. And, they played a game of bait and switch by claiming this bill was the same text from the failed House farm bill of a few weeks ago.

[tsai3904]

Massie's explanation:


U.S. Representative Massie Votes in Favor of Agriculture Reform

“I voted for the bill because separating the two programs is a prerequisite to real reform, and represents a significant change in the way Washington does business”

WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Massie voted in favor of the House farm bill. For the first time since the early 1970s the new farm bill removes food stamp spending from agriculture policy. The Congressman, along with 24 other Republican members, had called for this separation in a letter to House leadership on June 10, 2013.

“I voted for the bill because separating the two programs is a prerequisite to real reform, and this represents a significant change in the way Washington does business,” said Rep. Massie. “It is good to see leadership moving in the right direction on this issue.”

Congressman Massie voted against the initial version of the farm bill, which was bloated with misdirected expenditures unrelated to Agriculture.

“The farm bill I voted against two weeks ago was a food stamp bill masquerading as a farm bill, with 80% of the funding going to food stamps. It contained only meager welfare reforms barely slowing the exponential growth of that entitlement program.”

Massie continued, “As a conservative, I’m glad to see direct payments eliminated in this new farm bill. As a cattle farmer I understand firsthand the importance of agricultural policy reform. While there are still issues with this bill, it is important to recognize that removing the food stamp portion of it is a key first step in a larger process. It is also important to recognize that decoupling food stamps from the rest of the bill gives us the opportunity to debate nearly $400 billion as a standalone item. As a matter of open and transparent government, our constituents deserve to have these two issues debated separately.”

This bill must still go through the conference process, and Massie is looking to see continued progress.

“I hope leadership will work to improve this bill throughout the conference process,” said Massie.

Further, the new Farm Bill still contains the Massie-Polis-Blumenauer Industrial Hemp Amendment the House passed two weeks ago.

“This amendment is a small but fundamental change in the laws that hopefully will one day allow Kentucky farmers to grow industrial hemp again,” said Rep. Massie.

[Spoa]

Massie's statement on why he voted yes: http://massieforms.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=BWZLXBVARR5QDBJG25A3XW6LTY

[supermario21]

I'm not going to complain about the yes or no votes. I'm proud of Sanford though for voting no!

[Spoa]

I'm not going to complain about the yes or no votes. I'm proud of Sanford though for voting no!

Sanford's excellent statement (love how he uses his knowledge from past congresses):


This afternoon I voted against the latest version of the Farm Bill to come before the House, and I applaud my colleagues in the House Agricultural Committee for their work to bring about this bill. Their efforts were earnest and in good faith, but I ultimately voted no because I have seen this dance toward reform come up short of watching out for the taxpayer since I first voted for the Freedom to Farm bill in the mid 90’s. This version is certainly better; for instance, to their credit, this bill was brought to the floor without the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. While I am pleased that SNAP is being decoupled from the agricultural portion of the bill, this legislation does not go far enough in enacting needed reforms to our expenditures on farm subsidies, and so I believe the bill is still wanting for the following reasons:

Insurance may prove even more costly than direct payment. While it is good news that the direct payments program (where farmers received money even if they weren’t cultivating their land) is being replaced, the crop insurance program that replaces it could very well end up costing more. The crop insurance program could result in farmers earning more if prices drop than if they stay at their current historical highs. In effect, a price drop in commodities such as corn or soybeans would trigger a support payment that could exceed what their income would be if the price stayed elevated.

Furthermore, these price triggers are set at points that if prices drop to their lower historical averages, from their current highs, this could lead to runaway payments for taxpayers. For this reason, an amendment was put in place in this legislation to cap the potential downside of the new insurance spending….but while the change is permanent, the taxpayer protection element lasts for only the first 6 years of the legislation. Similarly, we were promised that the conferees between the House and Senate bill would be instructed to include an amendment capping these payments for farmers making over $250,000 dollars. But…it’s not binding, as there is no way to force the Senate conferees to subscribe to what the House has instructed. It’s reasonable for farmers to want coverage in case of catastrophe, but taxpayers should not be responsible for providing a price backstop for commodity markets.

Lastly, this Farm Bill repeals the underlying 1938 and 1949 permanent farm law. Over the years, reformers have been rebuffed with charges that not passing a bill would result in reverting to this draconian legislation that would end up costing taxpayers even more than the bill currently being considered. While I welcome this change, because of the opportunities it would in theory provide to further reforming agricultural subsidies, this Farm Bill would instead become the new permanent law. Meaning we’d lock in these new crop insurance programs and high commodity prices in perpetuity. After the six years mentioned previously, the provisions limiting payments, and thereby potential cost to the taxpayer, would expire and not be part of the permanent law. All proponents of such programs would need to do to maintain their price guarantees is to then protect the new permanent law. This would make future reform even more difficult. For these reasons I cast my vote against the Farm Bill.