After Apparent Food Stamp Deal, #Dairy Rift Moves to Fore in Farm Bill Talks

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

Disagreements over a program to help dairy producers when milk prices drop have emerged as a major sticking point in negotiations on a new farm bill, which had been expected to be wrapped up this week.
 
But lawmakers appear to have reached an agreement on cuts to the food stamp program, which is part of the farm bill and had been the most contentious issue in efforts to pass the legislation.
 
People close to the negotiations said Thursday that a deal had been reached to cut about $9 billion over 10 years from the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The cuts are more than twice the $4 billion approved by the Democratic-led Senate in May, but far less than the nearly $40 billion in cuts passed by the Republican-controlled House in its bill.
 
The food stamp issue was expected to be the major stumbling block in the farm bill negotiations, but long-simmering debates over the best way to help dairy farmers when prices drop have come to the forefront.
 
Speaker John A. Boehner has voiced opposition to the dairy program and has said he will not allow it to be part of a final House bill.
 
The program, which limits dairy supplies to help bolster the price of milk, is generally opposed by conservatives. Mr. Boehner and Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, called it a “Soviet style” government bureaucracy that distorts the market.
 
The provision is supported by dairy producers and legislators from large milk-producing states, including Representative Collin C. Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota and a member of the House Agriculture Committee, who said it was important to stabilize milk prices.
 
Dean Norton, the president of the New York Farm Bureau and a dairy farmer in Batavia, said the program was vital.
 
“This program keeps us from having these wild fluctuations in milk prices,” Mr. Norton said. “It’s just providing a safety net for producers. It’s not a direct subsidy, and it’s not a handout.”
 
Congressional aides in both parties said the food stamp cuts would not force people out of the program, but anti-hunger groups and Democrats like Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York have long said that any reductions would diminish monthly food stamp benefits for nearly one million people.
 
Joel Berg, the executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, said, “The willingness of some Senate Democrats to double new cuts to the program — while leaving the corporate welfare in the bill mostly intact — is unthinkable.”
 
It was unclear how the new figure for the cuts would affect votes for a final bill. Many Senate Democrats may be reluctant to support larger reductions to the program, while House conservatives may see the cuts as too low. Lawmakers in both chambers said they were taking a wait-and-see approach.
 
A plan to shift catfish inspections to the Agriculture Department from the Food and Drug Administration also appears to be impeding a deal on the bill. The $20 million Agriculture Department program has drawn considerable criticism because it duplicates a much cheaper program at the Food and Drug Administration. Despite the program’s costs, the Agriculture Department has yet to inspect a single catfish.
 
Catfish farmers and Southern lawmakers say the program is needed to protect consumers from catfish imported from countries such as Vietnam. But critics call it a trade barrier designed to protect domestic catfish farmers.
 
In a letter sent Wednesday to those working on the farm bill, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, called for a vote to repeal approval of the new inspection office.
 
Mr. McCain co-sponsored an amendment to repeal approval of the office in the Senate version of the farm bill last year. The measure never came up for a vote.
 
Another issue that appears to be hampering efforts to move forward on the bill is a dispute over narrowing the eligibility criteria for individuals who receive farm payments. A proposal by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, would tighten the definition of those considered to be “actively engaged” in farming.
 
A Government Accountability Office report released last October found that numerous nonfarmers at large agriculture partnerships were able to qualify for farm subsidies by claiming to provide management for farming operations, even though they could not show that they had a hand in running the operation and had no knowledge of farming.
 
Source:New York Times

Mirá También

Así lo expresó Domingo Possetto, secretario de la seccional Rafaela, quien además, afirmó que a los productores «habitualmente los ignoran los gobiernos». Además, reconoció la labor de los empresarios de las firmas locales y aseguró que están «esperanzados» con la negociación entre SanCor y Adecoagro.

Te puede interesar

Notas
Relacionadas