Four House Dems Vote with GOP as House Ag Committee Clears New Farm Bill, 33-21

House floor strategy awaited | Will Stabenow release text of alternative bill?

A contentious House Ag Committee markup of a new $1.51 trillion farm bill began on Thursday (May 23) but ended early Friday (May 24) with four Democrats joining all 29 panel Republicans in voting for the measure, bringing the final tally to 33-21.

The four Democrats voting for the farmer-friendly measure were Don Davis of North Carolina, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado, Eric Sorensen of Illinois and Sanford Bishop of Georgia. Remember when many lawmakers and former lawmakers said there would be no House Dem vote for the measure during the markup vote? They were wrong.

Key questions now include:

• What will be the House floor strategy?
• How many total Dems will vote for the bill if and when it gets a House floor vote?
• How many Republicans will vote against the measure on the House floor?
• Will the House Rules Committee be a problem in clearing the bill?
• How many and which amendments will be ruled in order in House floor action?
• Will this help push Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to officially release text of her bill, seen as wanting in key Title I farmer safety-net programs compared with the House measure. After the House vote, Stabenow said: ““Despite areas of common ground, it is now clear that key parts of the House bill split the farm bill coalition in a way that makes it impossible to achieve the votes to become law. And it is also clear that we do not have time to waste on proposals that cannot meet that goal.”
• What will ranking Senate Ag member John Boozman’s (R-Ark.) alternative farm bill contain when released likely in June?
  

The panel approved 19 amendments to the bill, en bloc, by a voice vote. Link/pdf.

Ag Committee Republicans blocked attempts by Democrats to amend the bill. In votes along party lines of 25-29, the GOP-led committee rejected:

• A push to restore requirements that conservation money from the Inflation Reduction Act focus on climate-smart practices.
• Language keeping USDA secretary’s authority over the Commodity Credit Corporation.
• Restoring $27 billion in funding over 10 years to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
• Ensuring meatpackers with USDA contracts follow child-labor laws.

Southern Ag Today has compiled a side-by-side comparison of the major farm safety net features of the House Ag Committee-passed bill and the Senate majority proposal — the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024. On May 1, 2024, Rep. GT Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, released summaries of their respective farm bill proposals (see here and here).

On May 17, 2024, Chairman Thompson released text of his bill.

Southern Ag Today notes: “Importantly, no bill text has been released for the Senate proposal, so the comparison is compiled from the summary materials linked above. Further, while Table 1 compares the proposals currently on the table, we leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about which approach they prefer. It is also important to note that Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Ranking Member of the Senate Ag Committee, announced earlier this morning that he will weigh in with his own framework “’n the coming weeks’ but highlighted that the House Ag Committee-passed bill ‘mirrors much of what Senate Republicans are seeking to accomplish with our framework.’”

One word describes the contentious and partisan marathon House farm bill markup session: accused. Republicans accused Democrats of rejecting their offers to work together. Democrats accused Republicans of refusing to address their concerns related to SNAP/food stamps, conservation/ environmental guardrails and restrictions on use of CCC funds. Both sides blamed each other for making the farm bill overtly political.

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) apologized to Ag Committee Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) for what he said was Democrats’ unwillingness to work with him. “I’m sorry that the other side has chosen to reject your offers,” Scott said.

Ranking Member David Scott (D-Ga.) voice clear disdain for the House bill. “I cannot, and I will not support this bill,” he said. “I will vote no, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well.” In response, Thompson detailed that more than 90% of the text was negotiated with the Ranking Member over the past 10 months. “This farm bill has been estimated to cost $1.51 trillion over 10 years, over $1.1 trillion of that is in the Nutrition Title,” Thompson said.

Lawmakers are divided over the Republican-led effort to freeze changes to SNAP as part of the proposed USDA food aid program bill. Republicans argue that the freeze combats waste and fraud without cutting benefits, while Democrats contend that redirecting savings constitutes a reduction in aid to needy families. The proposed legislation would maintain current SNAP levels but limit future expansions, reallocating savings to subsidize certain commodity farmers.

Background: The bill would maintain current SNAP levels but freeze the list of covered products and their purchasing values, though these would still adjust for inflation. This freeze would limit the USDA’s ability to add new items or expand support, as the Biden administration did in 2021 to increase access to fruits and vegetables.

David Scott cautioned that proposed changes to benefits calculations would take “food away from families.” Thompson accused Democrats of stymying negotiations. “SNAP benefits will continue to rise and respond to inflation,” Thompson said. “Unfortunately, I’ve learned my Democratic colleagues were led to believe otherwise… The farm bill has long been an example of consensus where both sides will take a step off the soapbox and have tough conversations. I do not draw red lines, I do not close the door to conversation,” he said.

Veteran GOP attacker Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) countered: “My friends on the other side live in a privileged, privileged bubble, and they wrote a farm bill that reflects that. We have Republican staffers apparently telling reporters that my colleagues and I are ‘hunger weirdos.’ What the hell is wrong with you guys?” McGovern later called the GOP members “looney tunes” Republicans.

A Republican hits back. “I served for 26 years in the United States military, oftentimes below the poverty level and using these programs,” Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) said. “So, I will not be lectured to by people who are saying that I’m trying to cut these benefits. It’s not true and it’s disingenuous.” But, he added, “speaking about the waste, fraud, abuse that absolutely exists in these programs - every single dollar that goes to waste, fraud, abuse for these SNAP programs is a dollar that cannot go to feed a hungry child.”

Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Ct.) said she has not seen a bipartisan effort in the process. “I think any one of us would have loved to have the opportunity to at least get one or two of our priorities in, and that’s what we are asking for and that is what we are working for because I too had a field hearing in my district and many of the things that my constituents talked about are not included in here,” she said. Thompson countered the legislation contains more than 40 Democrat-only marker bills, along with nearly 80 bipartisan bills. “If Democrat member’s priority is not within this bill, I would urge them to ask the Ranking Member and their staff why or raise an amendment, that’s what the amendment process is for,” he said.

Republicans argued it was Democrats who had refused to play ball and get the bill passed last year, despite Republican concessions. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) pointed to “over 40 initiatives that were specific asks from Democratic members.” “The very same members who are claiming that this bill is a wholly partisan undertaking say that this is not a bipartisan bill, when you know full well that this bill includes your requested priorities.” “Well back home we call those chickens,” Cammack added.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) argued that agribusiness, not SNAP, was the main source of misallocated funds in the farm bill. “When folks have been talking about waste, fraud or abuse and are talking about people who are just trying to get by and on food stamps, I would actually point to the waste, fraud and abuse of corporate America, who are overwhelmingly starting to dominate our food systems and jacking up prices as well as underpaying their workers,” Casar said. “Just take a look at the beef market, where we have four packing companies that now control 85% of the market.” The farm bill, he said, “is such an important opportunity to reduce the power of those corporate price gougers, but instead, this Republican bill before us, rewards them.”

SNAP amendment defeated. House Ag Republicans defeated an amendment that would strike a provision preventing noninflationary increases to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in the proposed farm bill. Introduced by Rep. Hayes, ranking member of the House Agriculture Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture Subcommittee, the amendment was defeated in a 29 to 25 vote along party lines. The Biden administration’s re-evaluation led to a significant increase in SNAP costs, which Republicans argue was excessive at over $250 billion.

Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) says she will not advance a farm bill with the SNAP cuts proposed by House Republicans.

The GOP farm bill “robs Peter to pay Paul,” said Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.). The Ag Committee defeated by a vote of 29 to 25 an amendment by Bishop to strike Thompson’s provision to suspend the USDA secretary’s authority to use Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act. The vote was along party lines. Bishop said, “Let’s call it what it is. It’s a budget gimmick and we know that restricting the Secretary’s authority won’t get us anywhere near enough money to pay for the program changes in commodities or crop insurance.” Thompson said the Biden and Trump administrations have used the CCC for an average of $10.7 billion a year, which allows the justification to spend $50 billion over 10 years. Thompson argued the farm bill provision returns to Congress the authority to fund programs. He recalled that Congress had blocked Vilsack from using the fund under the Obama administration and that did not create any crisis in funding. “This restriction does not restrict the secretary from generating ideas that help rural America,” Thompson said. He added. “We cannot continue to abdicate our responsibility over the power of the purse and let unelected bureaucrats of either party spend billions of taxpayer dollars with zero accountability.”

Of note: If the farm bill progresses to the House floor and CBO doesn’t significantly alter its CCC savings estimate, aides say Thompson will need to secure a directed-scorekeeping deal with Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Tex). The CBO typically provides comprehensive official scoring for a bill once it is approved out of committee. CBO spokesperson Caroline Jordan declined to comment on the funding proposal and internal agency email.

Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said the bill contains many good provisions, but “this bill has no path forward across the House floor with this funding mechanism.” Thompson said that Democratic members had not offered any alternative “payfors” — provisions to pay for the provisions in the bill — even though they complain about the provisions that the Republicans have proposed using.

Conservation funding amendment defeated. The Ag panel rejected (29-25) an amendment by Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) that would have earmarked conservation funds from the Inflation Reduction Act for climate-smart agricultural practices. The vote fell along party lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the measure. The amendment aimed to ensure that a portion of the funding would be used to improve soil carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it failed to pass.

Hemp, hemp away… Included in the bill is language regarding hemp and hemp production. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp by authorizing the production of hemp and removing hemp and hemp seeds from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Since then, the proliferation of hemp derived products containing various cannabinoids (CBD, Delta-8, THC-A, etc.) has become commonplace. The increase of intoxicating products derived from hemp has concerned many — including those in Congress. During the Committee markup, an amendment was offered by Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill) that would federally ban all ingestible hemp products with any level of THC. The amendment passed via voice vote.

Reality: With Election Day less than six months away, neither side was in the mood for compromise.

Of note: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) left the door open for his members to make their own decision on the bill after the markup. “We always encourage members to evaluate the legislation both as it had initially been presented, and in the context of a markup, what is the final product for consideration,” Jeffries said at his weekly news conference.

Will the farm bill make it to the House floor? Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), a former Ag Committee chairman who saw his initial farm bill go down to defeat among Democratic no votes, said the bill represents “the first step in a long journey.” Lucas said the “real struggle” is not getting the bill out of committee, but passing the bill on the House floor. But before the farm bill gets a chance on the House floor, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) must decide he wants a vote. That depends on 1) if he thinks he can get an unreliable Rules Committee to sign off on it and 2) if there are enough Democratic member votes for the legislation to offset an expected number of Republicans voting against it. That decision could be months away as congressional contacts signal any move to hold a House floor farm bill vote may wait until September following House focus on fiscal year 2025 appropriations measures.

Another farm bill extension? With such a wide disparity on farm bill views between the political parties in both chambers, odds are rising for another farm bill extension. Link to a CRS report on this topic.