Archive

Farm Bill
The "Farm Bill" is a very important piece of legislation for our Northern California congressional district.  Our district is home to one of the most diverse and productive agricultural regions in the world.  Farmers in our area are national leaders in rice, prune, almond, walnut, olive, and cling peach production.  We also have a substantial amount of beef and dairy cattle in our district.

In my view, H.R. 2419 recognizes the diversity within U.S. agriculture and the importance of maintaining a strong and vibrant agricultural economy.  The bill proposes to make an historic investment in specialty crop production.  In total, the bill sets aside $1.6 billion over five years in research and market development assistance for this industry, including $200 million for a new program to focus on pest prevention and eradication.

The bill also focuses on the vital relationship between U.S. agriculture and international trade by increasing funding levels for the successful Market Access Program (MAP) and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program.  On average, agricultural productivity in the U.S. is growing by about two percent per year, but domestic consumption has been growing at only half that rate.  Our farmers and ranchers need fair access to the international marketplace to stay profitable, and programs like MAP and TASC, combined with an aggressive effort to reduce foreign tariffs and trade barriers through new trade agreements, are essential to helping them do that. 

H.R. 2419 seeks to extend several of the popular Farm Bill conservation programs as well.  Funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) - a voluntary program designed to provide financial and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to help meet soil, water, and air quality objectives - has been expanded to close to $2 billion through 2012.  Within the EQIP program is a new initiative called the Regional Water Enhancement Program which was developed at the suggestion of some western agricultural and conservation organizations to target assistance to farmers and irrigation districts for regional water quality and water use efficiency improvements.  Both the Sacramento River and Klamath River watersheds were identified as national "priority areas" within this new program. 

The legislation also retains the safety net program for rice, wheat, and other fiber, grain, and oilseed producers, but includes a reform provision which will limit farm program payments to wealthier individuals.  Under H.R. 2419's new payment limit requirements, payments caps would be tied to an agricultural producer's Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) level.  AGI is the amount of taxable income that a farmer or rancher reports to the Internal Revenue Service each year.  Producers who report an AGI of greater than $1 million over a three-year average will be ineligible for any USDA commodity or conservation program payments.  The $1 million cap is down from an AGI limit of $2.5 million under the 2002 Farm Bill.  Those reporting income between $500,000 and $1 million will also be ineligible for farm programs unless they demonstrate that two-thirds of their income is derived directly from farming. 

I believe H.R. 2419 enjoyed the unanimous support of the House Agriculture Committee members and virtually every major agricultural organization because it was carefully crafted and developed with bipartisan cooperation.  The bill was the product of nearly a year of policy oversight and legislative committee hearings both on Capitol Hill and at various locations throughout America.  Two separate Agriculture Committee field hearings were held in California alone to provide committee members the opportunity to learn firsthand from producers and conservation groups about what existing programs work well and which ones need improvement.  Through negotiation and compromise, the committee was able to write a bipartisan bill that enjoyed broad support from throughout the agriculture industry and related organizations.  I was very much looking forward to supporting the bill when it was brought to the floor of the House.

But after its passage from committee and before the bill reached the floor, a roughly $6 billion tax increase was attached to it.  This tax increase was not a product of any legislative hearing of the House tax writing committee, of which I am a member, but was instead ordered by the majority party's leadership to be inserted into the rule governing debate over the underlying bill.  The new tax hike is targeted at international companies operating in the United States.  Though these companies are headquartered in other countries, their U.S.-based operations provide good-paying jobs for American workers, including an estimated 500,000 jobs in California alone.            

This sudden decision to add a tax bill to the Farm Bill added an unusually partisan tone to what has traditionally been a very bipartisan process.  The Ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee said he felt as though the bipartisan efforts in committee had been "betrayed."  Though the Farm Bill ultimately passed the House, it did so by a relatively small margin - something out of the ordinary for this important and popular legislation.  I opposed the bill when a vote was called on final passage because I believe we can develop good farm policy without raising taxes on industry.  Keeping taxes low is one of the most important principles I stand for, and is something I don't believe I should set aside to move the Farm Bill forward, especially because the Agriculture Committee demonstrated that solid, bipartisan legislation is possible without new tax increases.