Milling & Baking News - July 23, 2013 - 9



House-Senate farm bill
conference in holding pattern
WASHINGTON — A Senate-House
conference on the farm bill may not
be established before the August congressional recess, said Representative
Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, chairman
of the House Committee on Agriculture. The timing seemed to hinge on
how quickly the House will be able
to draft, debate and act on a separate
bill to reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The intent
seemed to be to have the conference
committee, when it is established, consider the separate House nutrition bill
as well as the House and Senate versions of the farm bill.
“It would be difficult for me to move
for a formal conference unless we address the nutrition issue,” Mr. Lucas
said. “I would like to have something
before we go home for August. I don’t
know if that is humanly possible, but
I am trying. Through the course of
two votes and two debates there has
been some solidifying of positions, so I
have less flexibility than I had before.”
Mr. Lucas and House Majority
Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia established a working group to begin working on a SNAP reform bill.
The original FARRM bill called for
$20.5 billion in cuts to SNAP over
10 years compared with proposed
spending reductions totaling around
$4 billion as contained in the Senate
farm bill, the Agriculture Reform,
Food and Jobs Act.
With the defeat of the original FARRM bill, many conservative members
of the House Republican caucus were
expected to promote even larger cuts

to SNAP in a separate nutrition bill,
pointing to the House-passed budget
that called for a $135 million cut in
SNAP over 10 years.
In addition to the future of SNAP,
the conference committee, when constituted, will have to consider several other differences between the Senate
and House bills with regard to farm programs and
other measures including
the repeal of “permanent
law” underlying federal
commodity programs as
called for in the House
“farm-only bill” and an
amendment that may slow implementation of the F.D.A. Food Safety Modernization Act.
The revised FARRM act would repeal provisions of the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act and the 1949
Agriculture Act that established federal commodity support programs.
The commodity titles of each farm bill
since the 1949 act have been amendments to permanent law as contained
in those foundational farm acts. By
repealing permanent law underlying
the federal farm programs, the threat
of reverting to the outdated farm policies should a current farm act expire
would be removed. But Democrats
were critical of the attempt to remove
permanent law.
Representative Colin Peterson of
Minnesota, ranking member on the
House agriculture committee, when
opposing passage of the revised FARRM bill, explained on the House floor,

A.B.A. disappointed in ‘farm-only’ bill passage
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of
Representatives vote of 216 to 208 on
July 11 to pass a revised Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act
of 2013 was met with disappointment
by the American Bakers Association.
“Yesterday’s House passage of the
‘farm–only’ bill locks in place outdated farm policy such as the U.S. Sugar
Program,” said Robb MacKie, president and chief executive officer of the
A.B.A. “This provision will make it
more difficult to reform federal commodity policy in the future such as the
U.S. Sugar Program.”
Most disconcerting, he said, is the
fact the U.S. Department of Agriculture on July 10 said it purchased a
bakingbusiness.com / world-grain.com

total of about 91,238 tonnes of beet and
raw cane sugar at a cost of $43,835,033.
The purchase was made to reduce the
current domestic sugar surplus in the
United States.
“Instead of choosing a route that
would allow for open debate and
modest reforms, the House has decided to move forward with legislation that defies logic and common
sense, and makes a mockery of sound
agriculture policy,” Mr. MacKie said.
“Yesterday’s vote ensures that the arcane U.S. Sugar Program, which stifles
bakers’ and other food manufacturers’ ability to hire and contribute to
economic growth, is now a permanent
fixture in our nation’s farm law.” MBN

Washington

“In every farm bill, there are things
some people like and things some
people don’t. The beauty of the ’38
and ’49 permanent laws is that it forces both groups to work together on a
new farm bill, because no one really
wants to go back to the old commodity programs.
“If you make the new farm safety
net programs the new permanent law, then those who got
a better result in the commodity title this time have
no incentive to work on
a new bill,” Mr. Peterson
said. “It will make it more
difficult to make changes,
improvements or reforms
that over time we discover
are needed.”
The revised House FARRM
bill also contains an amendment proposed by Representative Dan Benishek
of Michigan that would prevent the
Secretary of Health and Human Services from enforcing any regulations
promulgated under the F.D.A. Food
Safety Modernization Act until the
F.D.A. publishes in the Federal Register scientific and economic analyses of
their effects on producers, agricultural
businesses of a variety of sizes, and
small and mid-size value-added food
processors.
An aide to Mr. Benishek said the aim
of the amendment was to protect Michigan farmers, primarily fruit tree farmers, from “burdensome” regulations.
Mr. Benishek in May introduced the
Stopping Costly Regulations Against
Produce (SCRAP) act, which inspired
his amendment. SCRAP would have
defunded an F.D.A. proposed rule
for growing, harvesting, packing and
holding fresh produce on domestic
and foreign farms. In introducing
SCRAP in May, Mr. Benishek said,
“Our farmers work hard every day to
deliver quality products to our table.
The last thing they need is federal
bureaucrats making their jobs more
expensive and more complicated. We
need these guys in Washington to start
using some common sense and listen
to our farmers instead of just passing
tons of new costly regulations.”
Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs at the Center for Food
Safety and Nutrition, said of the
amendment, “This basically would
slow the wheels of F.S.M.A. implementation by allowing another roadblock.” Mr. O’Neil said it was hoped
the amendment would be stripped
from the bill during a Senate-House
conference. MBN
Milling & Baking News July 23, 2013 / 9

http://www.bakingbusiness.com http://www.world-grain.com

Milling & Baking News - July 23, 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Milling & Baking News - July 23, 2013