Where do we go from here on the Farm Bill?

Where do we go from here on the Farm Bill?

This afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 195-234 against the Farm Bill. The good news is that the 20 billion dollars of cuts to SNAP will not become law. This however also leaves many programs unfunded, fails to act as proper stewards to the Earth, and leaves many rural communities still struggling Now we must ask what can we do for those who are hungry, struggling, or marginalized?

There are a few possibilities for what happens next:

1. SNAP can continue without a Farm Bill through the appropriations process if a continuing resolution is passed in the fall. This however would leave the environmental provisions, rural development provisions, caps on payment limits, and many other programs un-provided for.
2. If no Farm Bill is passed, farming policy reverts to 1949, the last year that a permanent Farm Bill was passed, all the Farm Bills since then have been temporary. (Among other things this would substantially raise the price of milk). This is a fairly powerful incentive for the House to revisit the Farm Bill.
3. Technically, the House can go to conference with the Senate, without passing a full Farm Bill. Something similar happened with last year’s transportation bill. If that happens, something close to the Senate version would probably emerge as the House would have limited leverage in the conference committee. The results of the conference committee would still have to pass the House however, which would require a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans if something close to the Senate version were to be passed.

We will be sure to follow any developments closely on this blog as well as through Facebook , but for now it looks like SNAP has dodged a major attempt to slash benefits thanks to your work and the work of other activists for the marginalized across the U.S. Here’s a quick look at who is helped by SNAP, reminding us why this is so important:

McGovern Amendment to Defend SNAP Falls Short

McGovern Amendment to Defend SNAP Falls Short

Support McGoverns Amendment to Defend SNAP

Last night, the House voted down the McGovern Amendment (188 to 234) despite your protests to keep cuts to SNAP in the Farm Bill.  With these 20$ billion in cuts we can’t support this legislation.  This will leave many hungry and with nowhere left to look but already overstressed food banks.

The SNAP cuts included in the House bill could kick at least 2 million people off of the program, reduce benefits for more than 800,000 families, and leave 210,000 children without free school meals. Cuts to food aid programs could cost lives and hinder the ability of the United States to effectively reach millions of people in need. These cuts must not stand.

As the Farm Bill continues through the amendment process it is extremely important that we continue to contact our representatives and urge them to support a better Farm Bill.  As Presbyterians we support amendments that will focus on proper stewardship of the environment, ensuring proper access of food for all, and payment limits on commodities.

Call the US Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121 and ask your Representative to support a faithful Farm Bill

Amendments to watch

Stewardship of the Environment

Support the Costa Amendment

Uses funds from the Rural Utility Service to address contamination of rural drinking water in communities with less than 10,000 residents.

Proper access to food for all

Oppose the Scott Amendment

This amendment would limit the ability of families of those who commit serious crimes.  This is destructive to our sense of restorative justice and victimizes families.

Payment limits

Support the Fortenberry Amendment

capping commodity payments at $250,000 per year for any one farm. The legislation also closes loopholes in current law to ensure payments reach working farmers, their intended recipients.

 Keep Advocating!

We thank you for your continued advocacy efforts on these amendments.  While the PC(USA) Office of Public Witness is disappointed that the cuts to SNAP will not be restored, as Rep. McGovern proposed, we are very glad that the mandatory structure of the program will remain intact, providing a vital safety net to those who are experiencing food insecurity.

The future of the Farm Bill in the House of Representatives is unclear. However, what is clear is that we must continue to push for these key issues. 

Support Fair Appropriations!

In the recent Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Appropriations Bill, the House Appropriations Committee violated the Budget Control Act agreement by approving $512.5 billion for the Pentagon, or about $15 billion more than the deficit reduction law allows in FY 2014. The House Armed Services Committee went even further, approving a base budget for the Pentagon of $526.6 billion. The House Appropriations Committee also cuts $20.6 billion more than the law calls for in all the other programs subject to the sequester cuts.

The Budget Control Act agreement of 2011 specifies that all sequester cuts must be split equally between defense and non-defense spending, but many of these appropriations come at a high cost to programs which provide for our brothers and sisters in need. As people of faith, we find it unacceptable to restrict aid for human needs in favor of bolstering the military-industrial complex.

To view the text of this bill, follow these links: http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-113hr-fc-ap-fy2014-ap00-defense.pdf and http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hrpt-113-hr-fy2014-defense.pdf

We believe that as a nation we must shift our focus away from reacting to issues and conflicts, and instead proactively invest in programs and policies that promote true human security through peace building and the restoration of communities both at home and abroad. The cuts to non-defense discretionary spending take this country in the opposite direction, with the long-term impact threatening to inflict unimaginable damage to programs and services that our most vulnerable neighbors rely on.

We cannot afford to spare the Pentagon from cuts while placing further burden on programs that provide for fundamental but less attended-to security needs of our communities: investments in job creation, education, healthcare, the environment, and non-military peace-building engagement with the world.

Please urge your representatives to take steps to responsibly restrain Pentagon spending as a move toward ensuring the true human security that we all seek.

Support McGoverns Amendment to Defend SNAP

Support McGoverns Amendment to Defend SNAP

Today, the House will continue debate on the Farm Bill, H.R. 1947.  Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) has introduced an amendment (#146) that would restore the $20.5 billion/10 year cut to SNAP in the Farm Bill.  Currently, amendment #146 has over 70 co-sponsors.   This amendment is vital to support those who are hungry.  We strongly urge you to contact your representative today and ask them to support this important amendment.

Call the US Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121 and ask your Representative to support McGoverns Amendment.

I support Rep. James McGovern's amendment (#146) to restore the $20.5 billion/10 years cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) currently in H.R. 1947.  As it stands, we oppose H.R. 1947 because it would increase hunger among millions of Americans - people with disabilities, children, seniors and struggling parents - those who work, as well as those who are unemployed or underemployed.

At a time when more than one in six Americans struggle to put food on the table, the cuts to SNAP proposed in the House farm bill are unconscionable and harmful. Specifically, the House bill would result in at least 1.8 million people losing SNAP benefits entirely, and another 1.7 million people seeing their benefits reduced by about $90 per month.

Our nation can ill afford to see SNAP weakened in the farm bill.  Benefits are modest, averaging less than $1.50 per person per meal and are already scheduled to drop on November 1, 2013, with termination of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) benefit boost. This reduction, which will impact every SNAP beneficiary, will average about $25 per month for a family of three.

I support Rep. James McGovern’s amendment (#146) to restore the $20.5 billion cut to SNAP and urge Members of Congress to vote YES when it comes up for a vote.

Action Alert: Farm Bill Moves to House

Action Alert: Farm Bill Moves to House


Last week, the Senate approved its version of the farm bill (S. 954).  The Senate farm bill is not ideal, but Congress needs to pass a farm bill this year and it is the best bill we are likely to see.  Perhaps most important for the political process, the bill passed the Senate, an action that moves us one step closer to ensuring funding and protection for valuable programs that were left unfunded when the last farm bill expired at the end of September, 2012.  This bill is vital to providing protection for low-income and vulnerable people, assistance to those affected by disaster, defense of God’s creation, and development opportunities in rural communities.

Now we move our focus to the House of Representatives.  The House farm bill, which is expected to come up for a vote as early as tomorrow, June 18, makes much deeper cuts to the programs that serve the most vulnerable than the Senate bill. For a total of $38 billion in cuts over ten years, the House would cut $20 billion cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program).  The Senate bill’s $4 billion cut to SNAP is bad enough, but the House’s $20 billion cut will mean severe hardship, cuts to benefits, and some families losing SNAP benefits altogether.  These cuts are unacceptable and the voice of the faith community will be united during House deliberation – these cuts go too far!

Write to your House members today  – tell them to pass a good farm bill this year that provides food for hungry people and supports farmers and sustainable agriculture.

What was in the Senate-passed bill?

In today’s political climate where deficit reduction is the name of the game, the Senate farm bill would cut roughly $23 billion from various farm and nutrition programs. About $4 billion will come from SNAP and roughly another $6 billion from conservation programs. The rest of the major savings will come from changes to commodity subsidies and crop insurance programs.

Many of these cuts are to programs that the PC(USA) has historically supported as essential to our shared commitment to alleviating hunger and protecting God’s creation.  However, the news isn’t all bad in this bill.

• The bill eliminates direct payments to the major commodity producers – subsidies that the PC(USA) has long opposed because they mainly go to the largest producers and artificially distort the price of certain crops on the global market.  Much of the savings from these cuts is reinvested into other commodity supports, but it is a step in the right direction.
• In an effort to direct farm supports to small and medium-sized farms, the bill includes historic payment limitation reform for the commodity programs, limiting payments to $50,000 per year (double for married couples) and plugging all the loopholes that currently allow mega farms to collect unlimited payments in spite of the nominal limit in statute.
• In another effort to ensure farm supports are reaching the growers who need them, rather than mega farms, the bill lowers the overall adjusted gross income (AGI) threshold for receiving commodity subsidies to $750,000 (double for most married couples), though the new limit would be higher than current law for investors with primarily non-farm income.  By way of a successful floor amendment, the bill lowers premium subsidies by 15 percent for those with AGIs above $750,000 (double for most married couples).
• On beginning farmer issues, the bill does very well for the Conservation Reserve – Transition Incentives Program and the Down Payment Loan Program, and medium well on the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, and beginning farmer issues related to farmland easements.
• On local and regional food system and rural development issues, the bill does very well for the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program, SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer provision for direct farmer-to-consumer markets, and for SNAP Incentives (double up food bucks).
• On conservation programs, the bill unfortunately cuts nearly $6 billion over ten years, while consolidating a variety of existing programs into bigger umbrella programs.  It takes a disproportionate amount of the overall spending cut from the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), our nation’s largest working lands conservation program. On the plus side, it creates permanent funding for what was the Wetlands Reserve Program (now included as the wetlands component of a bigger, consolidated agricultural easement program), albeit at a substantially lower level than WRP has been funded at historically.  maintains the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program which allows owners of private land to preserve them for God’s creatures.

For more information visit NSAC Blog.


Call to Action

Email your Representative today!  Now is the time to ensure that the House passes a Farm Bill that provides food for hungry people and supports farmers and sustainable agriculture.

Immigration Legislation in the House of Representatives--Update

Tomorrow the Senate will continue debate on The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.B. 744). As we pay attention to Senate proceedings, we must also be aware of what is happening in the House where legislation has also been introduced and is scheduled for markup beginning this week. Unlike the Senate, the House is taking a piecemeal approach to reforming our nation’s immigration laws. This means that several pieces of legislation have been introduced to address specific components of our immigration system instead of a comprehensive piece of legislation. Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will begin markup of the SAFE Act (H.R. 2278), which was introduced by Representative Gowdy. Following the SAFE Act, the Committee will begin markup of Representative Goodlatte’s Agricultural Guest Worker Act (H.R. 1773).

H.R. 2278, the SAFE Act introduced by Representative Gowdy, would bring a dangerous expansion of interior enforcement, detention, and deportation that would further criminalize our immigrant brothers and sisters. Below is a summary of key sections of the SAFE Act put together by the National Immigration Law Center. The bill would: 

• Grant states and localities full authority to create, implement, and enforce their own criminal and civil penalties for federal immigration violations so long as the penalties applied do not exceed those under federal law. This provision would directly overturn the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012), which reaffirmed that states cannot enact their own criminal penalties for violations of federal immigration law, even when the state law mirrors the federal provision. Allowing all 50 states and countless localities to enact their own immigration enforcement laws is unworkable and will decrease public safety and adversely impact our nation’s foreign relations.

• Require the federal government to assume custody over every person identified by a state or local government as inadmissible or deportable upon request by such agency. Such persons must be held in detention in a federal, contract, state, or local prison, jail, detention center, or other facility. This section takes away the ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise discretion in deciding whether a person should be released on bond, under an order or supervision, or on their own recognizance rather than continuing to detain a person.

• Allow state or localities to detain people who are inadmissible or deportable for 14 days after the completion of their jail or prison sentences in order to transfer the person to ICE custody. This unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of detention authority hinges on an untrained local officer’s determination of whether a person is inadmissible or deportable. This section also allows state and local law enforcement officers, untrained in federal immigration law, to issue an immigration hold (detainer) and to detain the individual indefinitely until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assumes custody. This completely unchecked authority to detain individuals in prison for 14 days or longer will result in the prolonged detention of U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants.

• Make changes that would expand the failed 287(g) program. This provision strips away federal control by requiring that DHS accede to any state or local jurisdiction’s request to participate in the program, except where good cause exists to refuse participation. Under current law, either DHS or the state or local party to the 287(g) agreement may terminate for any reason, however this provision restricts DHS’ ability to terminate. This is particularly problematic given the many documented abuses by deputized state and local officers that have occurred under the program.

• Prohibit states and localities from limiting compliance with ICE detainer requests and from issuing policies, resolutions, or ordinances that restrict local cooperation with federal law enforcement. This section is a direct response to a number of jurisdictions—most prominently Cook County, Illinois—that have adopted policies or ordinances setting guidelines for when local law enforcement will extend the detention of a person based on an ICE detainer request. This undermines the ability of state and local agencies to direct their policing resources based upon the public safety needs of the communities they serve.

• Dramatically expand the crime of illegal entry to include virtually anyone who entered without inspection. This section removes the traditional limit on the crime of illegal entry, which only criminalized individuals apprehended while entering the United States and instead makes it a continuing offense until the time an individual is discovered by federal officials. This would dramatically expand the number of individuals subject to this criminal penalty and comes shockingly close to criminalizing unlawful presence in the United States.

• Attempts to authorize the indefinite detention of persons who have been ordered removed. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 33 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court held that indefinite detention of a non- citizen who has been ordered removed, but whose removal is not significantly likely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future, would raise serious constitutional concerns. This section attempts to overturn the Zadvydas decision except for a narrow category of cases. Worse the provision also appears to restrict court review of indefinite detention for individuals who cannot be removed and limits the decision to continue to detain to the sole discretion of DHS.

• Create new grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for persons whom DHS knows or “has reason to believe” are current or former members of a criminal gang. Such persons would be subject to mandatory detention and barred from receiving asylum and Temporary Protected Status. This would sweep in people who have never been convicted of a crime and are merely suspected of being in a gang, as well as people who are erroneously listed on gang databases due to living in neighborhoods with gang activities.

Update on immigration bill--ACT NOW!

The Senate is expected to continue debate on the bill beginning Monday and proceed to vote on amendments on Tuesday. Thanks to all of our calls, the Senate voted to table Grassley’s amendment #1195 yesterday. This amendment would unnecessarily delay the initial step of the path to citizenship for the millions of people who would qualify to obtain Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status. Now is the time for us to stay strong and remain engaged in the debate. The following amendments, which would significantly delay and restrict access to the path to citizenship, will be considered on Tuesday. These amendments are not in line with our General Assembly policy, which calls for an inclusive path to citizenship without long waiting periods or irksome conditions and opposes the continued militarization of our Southern border.

RUBIO'S AMENDMENT #1225

Families call for an end to deportations 

Senator Rubio's amendment #1225 would mandate that in order for those with RPI status to get a green card, they would have to meet the same eligibility requirements for English and civics as someone applying for citizenship - which is a much higher bar than currently in place for people adjusting their status to lawful permanent residency (LPR). This would restrict a lot of people from being able to adjust to LPR, and thus from being able to sponsor their family members for reunification. The standard currently set in the bill, to allow people in RPI status to adjust to LPR if they are "satisfactorily pursuing a course of study...to achieve an understanding of English and knowledge and understanding of the history and Government of the United States" should remain, so individuals can adjust to LPR and continue learning English to prepare for the citizenship exam.

GRASSLEY'S AMENDMENT #1195

Senator Grassley's amendment #1195 would significantly delay access to the initial registration process of the path to citizenship. It would prevent our undocumented community members from obtaining Registered Provisional Immigrants (RPI) status until the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) certifies to Congress that DHS has maintained “effective control” over the entire southern border for six months.

CORNYN'S "RESULTS" AMENDMENT

Senator Cornyn's RESULTS amendment would mandate unreasonable triggers that could inevitably delay the path to citizenship and increases enforcement costs without a clear strategy and purpose. The Department of Homeland Security would have to ensure 100% situational awareness of the border, full operational control, and fully implement a nationwide employment verification system and biometric entry and exit system at all air and sea ports of entry. This would cost around $24 billion, mostly for adding 10,000 officer and agents. These are extremely high costs for expenditures that lack clear justification.

VITTER'S AMENDMENTS

Senator Vitter's amendments #1201 and #1228 would needlessly delay the pathway to citizenship until DHS implements US-VISIT (biometric border check-in and out system) and Congress confirms that this has been sufficiently implemented. Not only would this unnecessarily delay the already lengthy 13-year pathway to citizenship, but it would be very difficult for congress to confirm that the US-VISIT system has been sufficiently implemented, especially given the political dynamics inherent in such a vote, and thus requiring congress to confirm could inevitably delay the path to citizenship.

THUNE'S AMENDMENTS

Senator Thune's amendment #1196 would delay the initial step of the path to citizenship - RPI status - until all Southern Border governors approve the Department of Homeland Security's Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy and certify that the strategy has been substantially implemented. Thune's amendment #1197 would require the completion of the 350 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing before RPI status may be granted and to require the completion of 700 miles of such fencing before those with RPI status can get green cards. This would not only delay the 13-year path to citizenship but doubles down on an ineffective and destructive fencing strategies that have cost U.S. taxpayers well over $49 billion. Thune's #1197 would go even further, and in the meantime needlessly delay the path to citizenship.

Please call TODAY and keep calling through Tuesday to ensure these negative amendments do not pass!

Call 1-866-940-2439 to be connected with your Senators.

If you are having problems, you can also call the Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 or find Senators' direct lines at www.senate.gov

Feel free to use this sample script:

"I am from [City, State, Congregation], and I support immigration reform. As a person of faith, I urge the Senator to vote NO to Senator Rubio's amendment #1225, and to amendments sponsored by Senators Cornyn, Thune, and Vitter, which would significantly delay the path to citizenship and make it less accessible for our undocumented community members."