House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, R-PA, led the passage of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.
Early Friday morning, the House Agriculture Committee finished marking up H.R. 8467, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. After more than 13 hours of debate and consideration, the bill was reported favorably out of committee by a vote of 33-21.
Every Republican member of the committee voted in favor, along with four Democrats: Reps. Sanford Bishop (GA), Yadira Caraveo (CO), Don Davis (NC), and Eric Sorensen (IL). NFU issued a statement on the bill immediately following the final vote (around 12:30am ET).
Recap of amendments
During the markup, about 60 amendments were filed, 19 of which were relatively uncontroversial and adopted via an “en bloc” amendment, passing by a voice vote with near unanimous support. Several more amendments came before the committee for discussion and debate.
Of those offered, the most contentious and consequential debates centered around three issues:
-
Reduced spending for the nutrition title via changes to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP). Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-CT) offered an amendment to remove the cost-neutrality provisions.
-
Repurposing funds allocated to climate initiatives through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) offered an amendment to re-instate the climate sideboards in the IRA funding.
-
Restricting USDA discretion over the use of Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) offered an amendment to strike the language that would repeal USDA’s authority to spend CCC funds.
All three of these amendments failed on party-line votes.
While there are policy debates unique to each of these major amendments, the through line is funding for the bill. In all three cases, the proposed restrictions or modifications included in the bill are being used to pay entirely or partially for other programmatic priorities.
Republicans and Democrats sparred over whether the savings generated from restricting the Secretary’s use of the CCC would amount to the levels Chairman Thompson (R-PA) has claimed. Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on those projected savings were leaked last week and are reportedly $45 billion less than Chairman Thompson’s projections.
The final hour of the markup featured a tense debate over an amendment offered by Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX) to prohibit USDA from contracting with meatpackers that violate child labor or minimum wage standards. This amendment stems from a package of bills that Rep. Casar and allies rolled out last summer. Republicans pushed back, led by Reps. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) and Dusty Johnson (R-SD), but there was strenuous support for the amendment from Democrats. In a hasty procedural move, Rep. Van Orden succeeded in replacing Rep. Casar’s amendment (on a party line vote) with language directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to further study the issue of child labor in the meat industry.
Twelve of the originally filed amendments were never offered. Of the remaining amendments not in the “en bloc,” most were offered, discussed, and withdrawn, with the amendment maker seeking the Chairman’s support to continue discussing the issue in question.
Aside from Rep. Van Orden’s second-degree amendment to Rep. Casar’s amendment, only a handful of amendments were considered and received individual voice votes, with one failing and a handful passing with limited debate. The amendments that passed were mostly uncontroversial on minor matters, including a forestry issue in Wisconsin, a matter related to electric powerlines and wildfire management, and requiring GAO to complete a report on illegal shrimp imports. One amendment that passed by voice vote regarding pesticide labeling received limited pushback from Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), but mostly had members speaking in support.
Mischaracterization of organizational support
During opening statements, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) mischaracterized several organizations’ positions on the House version of the farm bill. Rep. Bacon read off a list of dozens of groups that he mistakenly claimed had “endorsed” the bill. This included NFU and other groups, including the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance (FACA), the National Black Growers Council (to name a few), that had commented on the bill but did not endorse. NFU subsequently clarified our position with the media and key congressional offices.
What happens next?
The bill passed by the committee is far from perfect and will almost certainly not pass on the House floor in its current form. But the House Agriculture Committee being able to advance the bill greatly increases the possibility that a five-year reauthorization of the farm bill can be signed into law this year.
With the House markup behind us, attention now turns to the Senate. NFU is working with leaders of Senate Agriculture Committee to ensure the bill eventually put forward by Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is stronger and preserves a broad coalition of support.
(Source: National Farmers Union)
|