House passes farm bill with support of most ag groups
Friday, July 27, 2007, 4:15 PM
by Peter Shinn
The House of Representatives passed its version of the farm bill Friday by a vote of 231 to 191. The vote was closer than it otherwise would have been because of the funding mechanism used to pay for additional spending on nutrition and other programs included in the farm bill. Democrats decided to end a tax exemption for foreign companies that employ U.S. workers, describing the move as "closing a tax loophole," and many Republicans balked, characterizing the move as a "tax increase."
Most ag and commodity groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and National Farmers Union (NFU), praised House passage of the farm bill. And NFU President Tom Buis told Brownfield lawmakers had little choice in the measure’s revenue-generating provision.
"You know, the money had to come from somewhere - everyone knew it," Buis said. "And just for it to appear by magic wasn't going to happen."
Indeed, AFBF Director of Congressional Relations Mary Kay Thatcher told Brownfield Farm Bureau backed the House version of the farm bill regardless of its funding mechanism. And AFBF Chief Economist Bob Young echoed the assessment of Buis on the farm bill's funding language.
"If you wanted to provide an extra $2.5 to $3 billion for energy, if you wanted to provide another $4 or $5 billion for nutrition programs, then, you know, you've got to go get the money some place," Young explained.
And not all Republicans voted against the House farm bill. 19 crossed party lines to support the measure, including Nebraska 3rd District Republican Adrian Smith. Smith told Brownfield he did so, in large measure, because his constituents wanted him to. And according to Smith, it’s time for lawmakers to put the controversy about the farm bill's funding mechanism behind them.
"I think that it's time to move forward," Smith said. "Time will tell with the Conference Committee - chances are they might strike that provision," he added. "Chances are, the farm bill will end up quite different than how it stands right now."
In fact, Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin has already suggested that will be the case. Harkin issued a statement Friday afternoon which said in part that the House version of the farm bill "did serious damage to conservation," damage Harkin promised to fix.
"I am hopeful the Senate can do a better job to fund investments in conservation that will allow us to grow crops that represent the next generation of energy production, like cellulose," the Harkin statement said.
As for the Bush administration, U.S. Ag Secretary Mike Johanns made clear during an appearance Friday at the National Press Club that the version of the farm bill passed by the House is unacceptable. But Johanns also vowed to work with the Senate Agriculture Committee to secure the changes to the legislation he believes are necessary.
"I welcome the opportunity to continue a dialog that has already begun with the Senate Agriculture Committee in a very bipartisan way," Johanns said.
Friday, July 27, 2007, 4:15 PM
by Peter Shinn
The House of Representatives passed its version of the farm bill Friday by a vote of 231 to 191. The vote was closer than it otherwise would have been because of the funding mechanism used to pay for additional spending on nutrition and other programs included in the farm bill. Democrats decided to end a tax exemption for foreign companies that employ U.S. workers, describing the move as "closing a tax loophole," and many Republicans balked, characterizing the move as a "tax increase."
Most ag and commodity groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and National Farmers Union (NFU), praised House passage of the farm bill. And NFU President Tom Buis told Brownfield lawmakers had little choice in the measure’s revenue-generating provision.
"You know, the money had to come from somewhere - everyone knew it," Buis said. "And just for it to appear by magic wasn't going to happen."
Indeed, AFBF Director of Congressional Relations Mary Kay Thatcher told Brownfield Farm Bureau backed the House version of the farm bill regardless of its funding mechanism. And AFBF Chief Economist Bob Young echoed the assessment of Buis on the farm bill's funding language.
"If you wanted to provide an extra $2.5 to $3 billion for energy, if you wanted to provide another $4 or $5 billion for nutrition programs, then, you know, you've got to go get the money some place," Young explained.
And not all Republicans voted against the House farm bill. 19 crossed party lines to support the measure, including Nebraska 3rd District Republican Adrian Smith. Smith told Brownfield he did so, in large measure, because his constituents wanted him to. And according to Smith, it’s time for lawmakers to put the controversy about the farm bill's funding mechanism behind them.
"I think that it's time to move forward," Smith said. "Time will tell with the Conference Committee - chances are they might strike that provision," he added. "Chances are, the farm bill will end up quite different than how it stands right now."
In fact, Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin has already suggested that will be the case. Harkin issued a statement Friday afternoon which said in part that the House version of the farm bill "did serious damage to conservation," damage Harkin promised to fix.
"I am hopeful the Senate can do a better job to fund investments in conservation that will allow us to grow crops that represent the next generation of energy production, like cellulose," the Harkin statement said.
As for the Bush administration, U.S. Ag Secretary Mike Johanns made clear during an appearance Friday at the National Press Club that the version of the farm bill passed by the House is unacceptable. But Johanns also vowed to work with the Senate Agriculture Committee to secure the changes to the legislation he believes are necessary.
"I welcome the opportunity to continue a dialog that has already begun with the Senate Agriculture Committee in a very bipartisan way," Johanns said.