Farm bill talks stall, with sides far apart on food stamps
WASHINGTON — The four key negotiators on the new farm bill are miles apart on the paramount issue — the level of cuts in the major anti-hunger program — with no sign of compromise as time runs down for legislative action before the end of the year.
Four hours of face-to-face meetings on Wednesday and Thursday failed to produce an agreement. House Agriculture chairman Frank Lucas told reporters that no more meetings were planned this week.
Congress plans only a couple of weeks of work in December before adjourning for the year. Without an agreement soon among negotiators, it will be impossible to call a vote before year-end on the $500 billion, five-year legislative package.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives wants the biggest cuts in a generation in food stamps for the poor, $39 billion over 10 years. That's nearly 10 times the proposal from the Democrat-run Senate.
“It's all about policy,” Senate Agriculture chairwoman Debbie Stabenow said outside her basement “hideaway” office in the Capitol, where talks were held.
Stabenow was unyielding on food stamps, saying harmful cuts were unacceptable. She was not willing to consider cuts of $10 billion as a lure to gain support from conservative House Republicans, who demand sweeping cuts.
“They're not the people who are going to vote for the farm bill anyway,” said the Michigan Democrat.
Analysts say it will be difficult to write a food stamp section acceptable to all sides. Some conservative Republicans want still deeper cuts while a large number of House Democrats oppose any cuts at all.
The White House has threatened twice to veto a farm bill with unduly harsh cutbacks in food stamps.
“The commodity title and SNAP (food stamps) are the two issues,” said Rep. Colin Peterson, the Democratic leader on the House Agriculture Committee.
Without a new law, the farm program will revert on Jan. 1 to the high support prices of an underlying 1949 law. The price of milk in the grocery store would double, touching off the so-called dairy cliff.
Lawmakers averted that threat a year go by passing a short-term extension, now expired, of the 2008 farm law.
“There won't be an extension in the Senate that includes direct payments,” said Stabenow, referring to the $5 billion-a-year subsidy to grain, cotton and soybean farmers that is a top target of reformers.
Asked about bundling a farm bill with a deficit reduction package, Stabenow said, “I've always said I'm open to many things.” House Speaker John Boehner ruled out that tactic last week, saying the farm and budget bills are separate matters.
Besides food stamps, there are disputes over crop and dairy subsidies. The Senate says the House would set target prices so high they would override the marketplace and the House says the new revenue protection system supported by the Senate is skewed toward the corn and soybean growers in the Midwest while putting those who grow wheat, rice and peanuts at a disadvantage.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor spearheaded the plan for sweeping change to food stamps, formally named the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). With nearly one in seven Americans currently receiving aid, Cantor said the program was an unaffordable burden on middle-class Americans.
On Nov. 1 SNAP recipients saw a $5 billion cut in benefits, or roughly 7 percent per person, when part of the 2009 economic stimulus package expired.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank, said this week that SNAP enrollment rose because of the 2008-09 recession and high jobless rates.
It said food stamp costs are certain to fall during 2014 and warned that additional large cuts “would make life harder for tens of millions of Americans.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.