Representatives recent passage of the contentious, five-year, $500 billion Farm Bill continues to ripple locally, as State Rep. Dwight Evans, D-Phila., defends certain earmarks included in the bill, while grassroots shareholders question the ethics of passing a bill the cuts billions from a crucial lifeline.
The Farm Bill — technically referred to as H.R. 2642 — passed the House, 251-166, and has also subsequently passed the Senate, and now awaits concurrence, viewed as a formality, before it heads to the desk of President Barack Obama for signage.
“H.R. 2642 is the result of more than three years of debate and discussion, including 46 hearings and a two year audit of every farm program. H.R. 2642 includes 11 of the 12 titles of H.R. 1947, as amended, saving approximately $20 billion, including $6 billion in sequestration,” read a portion of the House Republicans’ Summary. “The bill repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, including direct payments. Like H.R. 1947, H.R. 2642 eliminates and streamlines duplicative and overlapping conservation programs. Finally, H.R. 2642 repeals the underlying 1949 permanent law and replaces it with current law.”
Rep. Frank D. Lucas, R-Okla., authored the bill.
House Republicans contend that H.R. 2642 would: eliminates direct [benefit] payments; cut traditional farm policy by almost $23 billion, which include repealing direct payments, counter cyclical payments, the average crop revenue election program, and the supplemental revenue assistance payments; limit producers to a risk management option that offers protection only when they suffer significant losses; improves the crop insurance program, a successful public/private partnership that ensures farmers have stake in partnership; repeals the outdated and unworkable 1949 permanent law and replaces it with the cost-effective and market-oriented 2013 Farm Bill; eliminates duplicative permitting requirements for pesticides; prohibits EPA from implementing the unjustified and unscientific biological opinions of the National Marine Fisheries Service until there is an unbiased, scientific peer review of those opinions; requires regulatory agencies across the government to use scientifically sound information in moving forward with their regulatory initiatives; requires the Secretary of Agriculture to advocate on behalf of farmers and ranchers as other agencies move forward with regulations affecting food and fiber; eliminates duplicative reporting requirements for seed importers; addresses concerns of farmers and ranchers with regard to access to essential crop protection tools; reauthorizes and strengthens livestock disaster assistance and, finally, fully funds specialty crop industry priorities, such as specialty crop block grants.
House Democrats have so far not provided an official party summary of H.R. 2642.
Evans spoke up the other benefits of the Farm Bill, including the $25 million set aside for the fresh food initiative, a program designed to get wholesome foods in the hands of the most at-risk and needy citizens.
“In 2004, I championed the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative that created or saved 5,000 jobs and improved availability of healthy and fresh foods across the commonwealth. [Now], Congress is on the verge of taking that idea nationwide,” Evans said. “The federal Healthy Food Financing Initiative provides grants and tax incentives to retailers to operate in underserved communities. This is exactly the strategy employed in Pennsylvania when I was able to secure $30 million in state seed money that was leveraged more than six-fold with private investments for 88 projects in underserved urban and rural communities across the state … improving food choices is an important tool for change, and it is encouraging to see our federal lawmakers take that to heart. Pennsylvania has helped lead the way and has much more to offer.”
Financing for Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative ran out in 2010, but Evans contends elements of that effort have found its way into the Farm Bill and thus, have filtered down to other community-based programs that are implementing similar programs.
The bill, while aiding the federal government in avoiding yet another budgetary crisis, does lop off $8 billion in funding for SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. According to the most recent data provided by the United States Department of Agriculture, as of Jan. 10, 2014, there were 23,053,751 households — representing 47,415,895 citizens — that were receiving SNAP benefits.
That cut will only make life that much harder on the truly needy, said Public Citizens for Children and Youth Family Economic Security Director Kathy Fisher.
“As part of our advocacy work, we certainly fought against SNAP cuts. We are disappointed but not surprised that this Congress has found a way to make life more difficult for poor people, in this case primarily very poor seniors and persons with disabilities,” Fisher said, echoing sentiments expressed by Philadelphia Unemployment Project Executive John Dodds, who labeled the cuts to snap a “backwards” piece of legislation. “Families with children, too, will be impacted as the SNAP cuts will make it harder for an estimated 175,000 Pennsylvania households to put food on the table.”
The Philadelphia Tribune – February 4, 2014 – Read article online