Last week the
House of Representatives voted to enact a Farm Bill that did not include a
Nutrition title. In other words, the bill they passed does not include
SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – formerly Food Stamps),
our nation’s widest-reaching, most effective anti-hunger program. A Farm Bill with no Nutrition title divorces
the obvious marriage of food production from feeding hungry people. This is an appalling effort to weaken
programs that serve those in need and it is unacceptable.
What is the Farm Bill?
The Farm Bill should better
be called our Food Security bill, even though many of its programs are imperfect, because it has
traditionally coupled the interests of food producers with food eaters. Further, these interests have served to
protect each other and made the Farm Bill one of the most historically
bipartisan bills over time. This new
House bill destroys that security and partnership.
The Farm bill came together originally out of a coalition of
rural and urban policy-makers looking to assure food security for all.
Traditionally, Farm Bill debates have not been partisan, but rather have fallen
along lines of rural and urban representation. But now, this collaboration of rural
and urban interests is falling apart as a result of the
excessive partisanship of this Congress. Members of Congress seem to
be forgetting the key protections offered through this bill to
the people they are elected to represent.
What Happened Last Week:
After the House
failed to pass a Farm Bill before the July 4th recess, the
Leadership had to reconsider its strategy.
The bill had failed, primarily, because it cut $20 billion from SNAP and
placed onerous restrictions on beneficiaries.
In an unusually partisan battle, the Democrats voted against the bill because
of the cuts and restrictions to SNAP and some Republicans also opposed it for
not cutting enough spending overall.
For Leadership,
the choice should have been obvious: bring a bill to the floor that looked more
like the Senate bill, with its much smaller cut to SNAP and bipartisan support
(66 Senators voted in favor of the Senate Farm Bill). Such a bill likely would have passed the
House of Representatives with bipartisan support, but instead, the Leadership
chose to leave behind poor and hungry people.
The new bill, with no Nutrition title, was introduced late last Wednesday
and then brought up for debate Thursday morning for discussion then stalled throughout
the day while there was a massive dash to count up votes.
During this time
of floor debate, we heard important voices in support of a more holistic Farm
Bill that must include robust support for nutrition and anti-hunger programs. Rep.
Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said
“We are the Congress of the
United States of America, of the most powerful nation in this planet, and we
must take care of our people.” As a Methodist pastor himself, he recognizes the
importance of caring for God’s people.
Then groups as far ranging as the Environmental Working Group, the
American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Club for Growth all opposed this legislation.
The PC(USA) Office of Public Witness strongly
opposes the separation of Nutrition from the Farm Bill and urges the House,
instead, to take up the Senate-passed bill.
Attacking the Process:
On top of the
devastating attack on SNAP, this bill is horrible for the political
process. It takes what has traditionally been a widely supported
piece of bipartisan legislation and instead, divides it up as a partisan
bargaining tool. Also of concern is the lack of transparency in the
process. The decision to move the farm-only bill was made behind closed doors
and the contents of the bill were not publically available until late in the
evening the night before debate began at 9:30am. This left no time for Members to review the
bill thoroughly, nor did it allow time for constituents to weigh in with their
elected officials. And last, though a
separate nutrition bill was implicit in the decision to move a farm-only bill,
no member of Leadership provided any guarantee that the House would actually
take up the Nutrition title as a stand-alone bill.
This
separation of the Farm Bill’s farm and nutrition programs fails to consider all
aspects of caring for God’s people. This
political spectacle is a step in the wrong direction. If Congress chooses to send the Senate-passed
Farm Bill and this House-passed farm-only bill to a conference committee, where
members from both Chambers will be tasked with coming up with a compromise on a
final farm bill, we will urge that the final compromise be far more just.
More information about the
Farm-only bill:
In
reviewing the House farm-only bill, we were surprised to find that the bill
makes the new commodity programs permanent.
This would be in stark comparison to the rest of the bill that will still
require reauthorization every five years, and will therefore be in danger of reverting
to the 1949 version of the bill, if Congress allows the bill to expire again,
as it did in 2012. This would eliminate
the need for big agribusinesses to support a new farm bill, but it would leave
pieces the PC(USA) is very concerned about, such as conservation, rural
development, and renewable energy, vulnerable to these kinds of political
maelstroms. This House bill secures big agribusiness
profits, while neglecting the future of hungry people, our environment, and rural
farmers and communities.
This
legislation does have some of the pieces that we originally supported,
including:
- the Fortenberry Amendment, which caps commodity payments at $250,000 per year for any one farm. This payment limit is important for ensuring that federal farm supports are more targeted to smaller farms that need more support, while the corporate farms are allowed to bear some more of their own risk.
- closing loopholes in current law to ensure payments reach working farmers, their intended recipients.
- important conservation efforts such as the wetland reserve program and the grassland reserve program are protected
But
despite these positive pieces, the bill places these important pieces in peril
in 2018 and beyond, while also completely severing and federal policy
partnership between and hunger and food. Without the wide
swath of bipartisan support this historically important legislation will be
torn apart.