Farm Bill Clears House Committee on Partisan Vote

April 18, 2018 03:00 PM
 
 

The House Agriculture Committee has long prided itself on bipartisanship, but partisan lines were sharply drawn as the panel approved a Republican-drawn farm bill Wednesday on a 26-20, party line vote.


"This is a flawed bill. This is the fault of a bad and non-transparent process." -- House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN)


"Mr. Chairman, this is a flawed bill,” Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) said in his opening salvo of the hearing in comments directed at Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-TX) “This is the fault of a bad and non-transparent process. When I was chairman, we marked the bill up in subcommittee. We didn't do that this time. I oppose it and I urge my colleagues on my committee to oppose it as well."

Democratic dissent on the farm bill proposal centers on work requirements for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Peterson told AgriTalk Radio earlier this week that he would offer no amendments to the bill and would simply oppose the entire bill.

Republicans on the committee moved a package of 15 amendments to the farm bill during the hearing on topics ranging from crop insurance to biotechnology to broadband. The amendments include a provision put forward by Rodney Davis (R-IL) that would not allow producers to enroll in both the Agriculture Risk Coverage program and the Margin Protection Plan.

The farm bill now moves to the full House which is expected to vote on the measure next month. The Senate Agriculture Committee has not yet introduced their version of a farm bill for consideration.

Back to news


Comments

 
Spell Check

Chuck
Jordan, MN
4/19/2018 05:03 PM
 

  I'm a Democrat, but I don't think it's unreasonable to have "All able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 59 would be required to work or be enrolled in a job-training program for at least 20 hours a week beginning in 2021". The key here is "able-bodied". Working is good for the body and the soul and would probably improve people's health as well.

 
 
Keith
Augusta, ME
4/20/2018 07:17 AM
 

  On the surface, the work requirement sounds reasonable to me. I need to try and find out why the Dems are against it. Are there some details that make it onerous?

 
 
Dirtfarmer
Buda, IL
4/20/2018 08:35 PM
 

  Maybe what we need is to get rid of the farm bill all together no payments to farmers no snap no subsidized crop insurance a lot less government employees and no more paperwork telling the government what we are planting and how many acres we intend to plant just so they can come back at a later date with one of their reports and manipulate the markets. I would also think that if the subsidized crop insurance was eliminated cash rents would drop and the big mega farmers would go away not having their safety net. As far as being embarrassed if the taxpayers seen our checks they can there is government websites that lists all recipients and the amount they have received since enrollment..Just my two cents

 
 

Corn College TV Education Series

2014_Team_Shot_with_Logo

Get nearly 8 hours of educational video with Farm Journal's top agronomists. Produced in the field and neatly organized by topic, from spring prep to post-harvest. Order now!

Markets

Market Data provided by QTInfo.com
Brought to you by Beyer
Close