Please Wait…
For more than a year, I have worked with agriculture groups, producers across Nebraska and my colleagues in Congress to pass a responsible, long-term Farm Bill. Like many others, I am frustrated and disappointed not only by the failure to come to an agreement, but by the overcharged rhetoric making it more difficult to get a bill passed.
Unfortunately, the Sept. 20 editorial in the Journal Star, “Hang in there, Congressman,” contained misinformation and missed an opportunity to provide readers with a well-balanced report of the facts.
As the representative of one of the largest agricultural districts in the country, and as co-chairman of the Modern Agriculture Caucus and the Congressional Rural Caucus, passing a Farm Bill and preventing any lapse in federal farm policy is one of my highest priorities. However, I don’t believe signing a petition to discharge a bill destined for defeat is in the best interest of producers, nor should be used to litmus test support of agriculture.
I am not alone in this view. Farm state representatives from both sides of the aisle acknowledge a bill forced to the House floor doomed for failure would set us back even further.
Historically, Farm Bill reauthorizations are brought to the floor with near unanimous and bipartisan support from Agriculture Committee members. The Farm Bill before the House passed committee with a division of support. No challenges in the bill are insurmountable, but there cannot be progress if we see no willingness to consider meaningful reform. One such concern is the bill’s failure to significantly reform the food stamp program, which has increased by 105 percent since we last considered a Farm Bill. I will not allow “perfect to be the enemy of good,” but it’s not unreasonable to seek modest reforms of a nearly trillion-dollar program.
As stated, what would be far more disastrous than a brief lapse in Farm Bill authorization is the failure of a Farm Bill on the House floor. As it is, the Farm Bill contains a variety of titles and provisions designed and written to attract broad regional support from around the country. If full reauthorization of a Farm Bill were to fail on the floor of the House, producers would face far more uncertainty.
Despite over-the-top rhetoric, this would not be the first time the Farm Bill has expired without a new policy in place. The previous five-year Farm Bill expired Sept. 30, 2007, was extended Dec. 26, 2007, and a new bill was signed into law after a series of short-term extensions. While not ideal, it was not disastrous. Our producers were able to rise above the politics.
I would strongly prefer to pass a bill before Sept. 30, but if the current Farm Bill expires, there is still time to prevent a major lapse in policy and come to an agreement. Most programs authorized by the Farm Bill have been funded through March of next year by the House-passed Continuing Resolution, including crop insurance. Commodity programs will not be affected immediately because the 2008 Farm Bill will cover the 2012 harvest.
Passing a Farm Bill should be among our top priorities. Agriculture groups, rural communities, producers and elected officials should be united in our efforts to pass responsible long-term farm policy. I hope, moving forward, facts and communication will triumph over sound bites and political gamesmanship.
farm bill as he has done for Nebraska. Absolutely NOTHING. This is all we are going to get if we keep sending these lumps back to Washington. Can't we do better Nebraska? Adrian Smith has done nothing to help the state. I sometime think the seat would be better served by just leaving it open. That is radical but all he does is what he is told to do. Is that what is best for Nebraska? Maybe Deb Fischer can reach over from the senate and be a role model and get him off his do nothing seat.
What's funny is he gives this line, and yet Jeff Fortenberry and nutbag Steve King even supported the bill in the Ag Committee!!
I've got a question, though.....why the hell is no longer on the Agriculture Committee? He's in one of the most rural districts in the country with one of the highest percentages of farms and ranches in the country. It was his to keep. Why didn't he?
All of it spin and political speak. None of it addressing substance.
It's easy to demonstrate Mr. Smith's aversion to fact.
Let's address the fallacy of his primary reason he puts forth for his failure:
"a bill forced to the House floor doomed for failure would set us back even further."
This statement is simply NOT based in fact.
Here's the reality:
"..the farm legislation that cleared the Agriculture Committee, 35-11, in July."
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250891-exasperated-house-members-launch-11th-hour-effort-to-pass-farm-bill
In Adrian Smith's OWN Congress, the leaders of the Ag Committee voted 35 to 11.
By the standards of today's highly partisan Congress, a vote of 35-11 is, by any measure, a sweeping victory.
Now, how about Congress's counterpart, the Senate -
"The Senate in June passed its five-year farm bill, 64-35, with the help of 16 Republicans. Senate Democratic leaders have criticized the House for its inaction on the bill."
64 to 35.
Another sweeping, bi-partisan victory.
The reason they won't bring the bill the floor is because Congress is being held hostage by it's new TeaParty caucus, who insists on dismantling SNAP (food stamp program), and eliminating the safety net for those most in need.
John Boehner has no control over Congress.
The far right wing of the Republican party is slowing destroying our nation.
With the willful aid of Adrian Smith, it appears to be the farmer's turn to suffer from their extremist intransigence.
And you have to marvel at this statement by Mr. Smith:
".. this would not be the first time the Farm Bill has expired without a new policy in place. The previous five-year Farm Bill expired Sept. 30, 2007, was extended Dec. 26, 2007, and a new bill was signed into law after a series of short-term extensions."
Hmm.. 2007..
Who was the Secretary of Agriculture leading up to that farm bill failure??
Oh yes, Mike Johanns!
Mike Johanns, who was appointed by GW Bush in 2005 to head the Ag department.
He quit as Governor of NE to become the Ag Secretary, then facing a Republican filibuster of the Farm Bill in 2007, he quit (Palin) as Ag Secretary ONE WEEK prior to expiration of the Farm Bill bill in order to run for Senate.
THAT's the last failure of the Farm Bill to which Adrian Smith was referring.
A little peek back into history -
"Just to take a walk in the middle of a farm bill that only happens once every five years, it borders on irresponsible,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told reporters Wednesday."
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/13082-bid-borders-on-irresponsible-says-sen-conrad-as-mike-johanns-looks-toward-run-for-the-senate
He should be reminded that at the height of the recession, unemployment increased to 150% of 2007 levels. Current unemployment is close to 105% of the level seen when the last farm bill was passed. Hence the increased need for food stamps, pretty simple concept.
Because the food stamp program accounts for 80% of the Farm Bill budget.
There is no PLAN on how to RECONSTRUCT the food program to eliminate fraud, eliminate Federal positions, and have a cleaner process.
One of the theories about GOP motives that might prove to be true is the underlining idea that if people were not dependent on the Government they can always go to the churches for help thereby filling the pews, changing peoples lives through the WORD and wa-la our problems are over.
I do have to ask why the food stamps is so important to cut but not the subsidies for sugar, cotton, and other commodities.