The 2012 Farm Bill continues to languish at the collective feet of the U.S. House of Representatives leadership. The Senate version passed the full Senate (64-35) with broad bipartisan support and contained over $23 billion in savings. The House version of the bill made it through the Agriculture Committee with broad bipartisan support (35-11), as well, and about $35 billion in savings. All seemed to be going well and in collegial fashion, which in this atmosphere of highly partisan politics, is rarely seen. Then House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) signaled no interest in bringing the bill to the floor for debate and a vote, a necessary step to negotiating and approving a final Farm Bill package. With barely 15 days of Congressional business on the calendar before the November elections, the window for Congress to pass a 2012 Farm Bill before the current bill expires on September 30 is closing fast.

Farmers in some of the “reddest states” are suffering through the worst U.S. drought in decades and are pressuring their lawmakers to move forward with the Farm Bill. So why would House Republican leadership resist moving a bill that has broad support and saves money? The answer is, in part, the November elections. A large chunk of the budget savings, especially in the House version, are from cuts to the food stamp program, also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. (Imagine the political ads depicting Republicans taking food away from the hungriest Americans.) The other side of the vise squeezing the leadership is the more fiscally conservative House members, especially members of the so called Tea Party, who want even deeper cuts to the Farm Bill. In the hopes of avoiding an intra-party dog fight on the House floor, Boehner and Cantor hope to move the issue off the table until after the election.

With worsening drought and the political perils of inaction, Republican leadership is considering an extension that would essentially fund current Farm Bill programs for one more year at the same level as they were funded in 2012. As part of the extension they would also offer a disaster assistance program to deal with drought losses. Generally speaking, a one year extension of the Farm Bill would not be in the interest of the nursery and greenhouse industry. The extension would not ensure funding for important programs like the National Clean Plant Network and the Specialty Crop Research Initiative. There is also a chance that parliamentary maneuvers could be used to appoint a Senate and House conference committee that would negotiate a full five-year bill that would then have an up-or-down vote in the Senate and House, either before or more likely after the November elections.

The American Nursery and Landscape Association and our Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance partners remain hopeful that a new five-year Farm Bill can be signed into law this year. Both versions that have passed the Senate, and the House Agriculture Committee, maintain infrastructure investments for our industry while saving taxpayer dollars. A temporary fix would be just another example of kicking the can down the road, and an expensive can at that. The extension would cost between $4-6 billion more in FY2013 than the new Farm Bill.

Filed under: Farm Bill • legislation