Post

Gasoline on an open Farm Bill flame

House Agriculture Committee Chair Mike Conaway (R, TX) last week poured gasoline on the open flame of the 2018 Farm Bill controversy, and say what you will about the iron-willed committee chair, it likely wasn’t the best move to calm the increasingly troubled waters of Farm Bill evolution.

Conaway told a radio talk show host he may ask the Rules Committee – which sets the process for Farm Bill floor consideration – to deem out of order any floor amendments from members who don’t formally promise to vote for passage of the bill ahead of time.  Conaway said this was to avoid so-called “poison pill” amendments,” floor changes to the committee-approved bill so controversial as to take down the entire bill.

Farm Bills usually head for the floor under what’s called an “open rule,” meaning any and all amendments are welcomed during floor debate.  It makes for a long series of floor sessions, but as Democrats reminded Sessions the Rules Committee “historically has encouraged all members to bring their best ideas for consideration.”

Maybe an open rule on Farm Bill debate is going the way of using subcommittees to write the bill eventually considered by the full committee.   And for a committee Farm Bill process called everything by panel Democrats from deceitful to darn near racist because of the food stamp fracas, and one criticized for secrecy and lack of inclusion, even Conaway’s public discussion of such a strategy begs credulity.

Dubbed by Rules Committee Democrats in a letter to chair Rep. Pete Sessions (R, TX) – led by ag committee member Rep. Jim McGovern (D, MA) – a “Trump-style loyalty pledge,” the Conaway strategy was slammed as an “extraordinary break with tradition,” and an “outrageous plan.  The proposed amendment plan could push Democrats to offer no amendments as part of “the rigged partisan process.” The committee members want a written response from Sessions making it “crystal clear” the committee rejects the Conaway plan.

One feared poison pill amendment surfacing this week would eliminate the federal sugar program, long the bane of food processors and other sugar users.  In a GOP caucus meeting this week on the committee bill, there was less talk of food stamps reform than there was of sugar program reform, with some members demanding a separate meeting to talk just about arcane sugar grower protections they contend inflate food costs.  A similar Senate move in 2013 was only narrowly defeated.

Another ticking floor time bomb was outlined by 65 organizations which sent a letter last week to the Hill opposing any attempt to “cut federal crop insurance,” aimed at conservative members and a number of liberal activist groups of all stripes who want to reduce or means test policy premium subsidies for farmers or administrative cost payments to crop insurance companies.

Another nail in the Farm Bill coffin was pounded home last week when the National Farmers Union’s (NFU) board of directors unanimously approved a resolution opposing the ag panel’s approved bill, saying the bill falls short in providing farmers with the “tools to cope with continued low prices.”

There’s been way too much saber-rattling and literal name calling.  It’s time for Conaway and ag committee ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) to find a small room somewhere where they can be locked in until they bury the political hatchet and try to regain the bipartisanship that has always been the hallmark of Farm Bill debates.