[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 56°F  
River stage: 18 ft. Falling
Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014

Farm bill stalls in House, frustrating area farmers

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Election-year politics have stalled the farm bill and may leave some producers without a safety net.

Farmers are frustrated and filled with uncertainty as House leaders have yet to schedule a vote on the farm bill.

"The farm bill, for the first time since I've been in Congress, has become political this year and it's a big problem," said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Cape Girardeau.

Many of her Republican colleagues believe if they can win a majority in the Senate and elect a Republican president in November, the farm bill will look vastly different and could include more cuts to farm subsidies and nutrition programs than it does now, so they're putting the vote off until November, Emerson said. House members will leave Washington, D.C., on Friday as Congress begins a recess that will continue through Nov. 13.

"It is not going to look much different no matter who is in office because it's usually a regional crop and/or livestock related thing related to where you are in the country. What they don't understand is it is not a Republican verses Democratic thing," Emerson said.

There has been talk of an extension, but Emerson said she doesn't think this is likely to happen by Friday and even if it did the Senate is unlikely to act on it. The House passed a drought relief bill in August, but the Senate has refused to act on it.

Several farm bill programs expired at the end of last year due to budgetary issues including the livestock disaster assistance program, said Garrett Hawkins, director of national legislative programs at the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation.

Farmers were told these programs would be addressed before they lapsed and they were not, Hawkins said. Now many livestock producers affected by the drought are either struggling or selling off their cattle and going out of business.

The Farm Bureau and other agriculture groups say an extension of the current farm bill isn't good enough.

"Our message continues to be we want a farm bill before they leave to campaign," Hawkins said.

This year's extreme drought adds urgency to the farm bill, according to Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri. The Senate passed its version of the Farm Bill in June.

"Missouri's farmers and ranchers are dealing with a once in a generation drought and they need the certainty of a Farm Bill right now -- not after November, not next year -- now. The Farm Bill that got broad bipartisan support in the Senate protects the jobs and livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers, and cuts the national deficit," McCaskill said in an emailed statement.

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, said he believes drought relief for livestock producers should be done before the recess.

"I think it should have been done before we left here in the August for our time in the state," Blunt said. "I'd like for us to see a five-year farm bill; for us to walk away without sending the right message to farm families about farming this fall, this winter and next year is a bad thing," Blunt said.

The farm bill technically expires with the fiscal year Sept. 30, but commodity farmers won't feel the effect unless there is not a new farm bill by the time the first commodity is harvested in 2013.

However, various programs in the current bill, enacted in 2008, have different deadlines including the Milk Income Loss Contract program, a safety net for dairy farmers, which began providing a reduced level of coverage Sept. 1.

The MILC program, designed to offset low milk prices and high input costs, was the subject of a letter McCaskill sent Tuesday to House leaders asking them to find the resources to restore the MILC program to its previous coverage levels for the duration of any extension of current policy.

"We fear failure to maintain the program at its previous levels will saddle dairy farmers with significant risks as their feed prices continue to skyrocket," McCaskill wrote.

Emerson said she believes if a farm bill came to the floor, members of Congress could work through their differences to get it passed.

About 80 percent of farm bill spending will go to nutrition programs administered by the USDA including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. this has been a sticking point of some Republicans that has caused blockage of the bill.

"It meets a diverse group of needs and there are a lot of folks that have something at stake in getting the farm bill across the finish line," Hawkins said.

mmiller@semissourian.com

388-3646


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

So if we want to get the deficit under control are we still giving farmers subsidies? All I hear from the GOP is get people off government reliance. Sounds like they don't want to feed the poor but want to give farmers money. What would Jesus do?

-- Posted by grandma73 on Wed, Sep 19, 2012, at 7:41 AM

A farm bill passed by a Congress of 535 elected federal legislators can't help but be "political."

It should rightfully be considered "political", too, since the politicians are enacting it...using wealth (there's that scary word!) redistributed from one to another, or printed out of thin air by the conjurers at the Federal Reserve.

It seems to be cachet to argue that something "isn't a political issue, it's a _______ issue," while simultaneously using the force, power, and coercion of government to produce a certain outcome for the issue. As an example, public smoking could be argued as a "health issue," but then the political system is used to regulate smoking on private property. That tactic makes it political too, doesn't it?

-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Wed, Sep 19, 2012, at 7:43 AM

Who produces the food to feed the poor (and everyone else)? FARMERS!

-- Posted by countryfolk on Wed, Sep 19, 2012, at 5:41 PM

What's the rush again?

-- Posted by SamTheEagle on Wed, Sep 19, 2012, at 9:15 PM

About 80 percent of farm bill spending will go to nutrition programs administered by the USDA including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps.

It's not a farm bill, it's a food stamp bill.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 6:44 AM

We all need what the farmers produce, to be sure. Likewise for the "butcher, the baker, and the candlestickmaker."

Lack of enthusiasm for a "farm bill"--which must be in quotes, when 80% of the expenditure is for "food relief"--has NOTHING to do with lack of gratitude for what the farmer/rancher does.

The question is, should government intrude between us as much as currently, manipulating the farmers and the food markets with subsidies ad nauseum, so that the feedback between producer (i.e., farmer) and consumer (i.e., he who eats) is hopelessly distorted? For that matter, should government intrude in the free market at all?

My answer would be "no". They should enforce the constitutional laws, enforce contracts, provide sound money as a medium for exchange. But we have a galaxy of legislators and regulators whose livelihoods depend on being able to meddle and tinker with the free market, among other things. What would they do without government programs to administer?

Maybe clean out the barn!

-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 6:52 AM

More of those dependant moochers Mitt Romney is talking about. I hope you farmers are prepared for massive cuts with a GOP presidency.

-- Posted by grandma73 on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 7:18 AM

Grandma, your first post complained about the spending and your last complains in advance about the cuts. You can't be on both sides of the issue, unless your intent is to find a bludgeon, any bludgeon, no matter how false, for which to hit Republicans.

-- Posted by Mark Rutledge on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 9:36 AM

Just pointing out the obvious. I love how people vote against their own interest.

-- Posted by grandma73 on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 12:24 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Related subjects