House Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway would move hundreds of millions of dollars in crop subsidies to cotton growers to the disadvantage of northern farmers, said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, one of the “big four” farm bill negotiators. “It’s not just about SNAP,” said Stabenow during a weekend podcast. “I see basically a lot of regional differences.”
Stabenow pointed to Conaway in listing Senate vs. House differences on the farm bill. Conaway is from Texas, the No. 1 cotton state, and Stabenow said, “I appreciate the chairman wanting to help cotton farmers.” A week earlier, Conaway accused Senate negotiators of being weak-willed.
“He (Conaway) moves hundreds of millions (of dollars) away from the Midwest and other growers that have seen their prices drop by 50 percent and their costs go up,” said Stabenow on the “Agri-Pulse Open Mic” podcast. “We have big differences in the commodity title.” There also are disagreements over land stewardship programs and inclusion of an energy section that encourages biobased products and biofuels.
Stabenow, Conaway, Senate Agriculture chairman Pat Roberts and Rep. Collin Peterson, the senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee – the so-called “big four” – posed with arms linked in a show of unity on Thursday for passage of a compromise bill this year. “The idea is we have a bill ready to go when we come back” after the Nov. 6 elections, said Peterson on Monday on the “Adams on Agriculture” program.
Analysts say cotton growers would benefit from a House provision that allows farmers in drought-hit parts of the central and southern Plains, including most of Texas, to use higher per-acre yields when claiming farm subsidies. Farm subsidy costs would rise by an estimated $577 because of the higher yield calculations for cotton growers. The cost would be offset by denying subsidies to farmers who did not plant farm program crops, chiefly grains, cotton and soybeans, on eligible land from 2009-17. The re-allocation of base acres would hurt the West, the Plains and much of the South the most, said four university economists writing at the farmdoc Daily blog.
“It’s not a lot of money in terms of the overall bill,” said Peterson when asked about regional differences between Conaway and the Senate negotiators. “It’s important to them. It’s taken up a fair amount of time.” Time spent on regional disagreements has meant less time to resolve SNAP, where the Senate and House are diametrically opposed. The GOP-written House farm bill would require an estimated 7 million “work capable” adults to work at least 20 hours a week or spend an equivalent time in job training or workfare. The Senate defeated that approach by a 2-to-1 margin.
“We’ve got to act by the end of the year. I’m focusing on getting a farm bill done,” said Stabenow, who declined to speculate on the dynamics of starting anew in 2019. Regardless of the outcome of the mid-term elections, the “big four” of the Senate and House Agriculture committees probably would not change.
House Democrats would “absolutely not” slow down the farm bill if they gain seats in the Nov. 6 elections, said Peterson. Democratic leaders “are supporting me in getting it done.”