WASHINGTON, DC - Just yesterday, the House Committe on Agriculture marked up and passed H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018. Chairman Michael Conaway of Texas’ 11th congressional district gave the consenting Republican opening statement. Ranking Member Collin Peterson of Minnesota’s 7th congressional district delivered the dissenting Democratic opening statement.
United Fresh Senior Vice President of Policy Robert Guenther said the following of the bill: “The SCFBA appreciates House Agriculture Committee Chairman Conaway for recognizing the importance of specialty crops in this initial legislation, which includes baseline funding of specialty crop programs included in the 2014 Farm Bill. However, the Alliance urges the House to enhance the bill by increasing the investment in specialty crop priorities—such as fully funding the TASC program, increasing funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), and the Alliance’s policy recommendations throughout the bill. Specialty crop priorities are focused on programs that support a healthier America while serving as a major economic engine for the nation. Our industry is responsible for $66 billion in farm gate value and 33 percent of farm cash receipts for crops.”
A partisan divide was apparent in both Representatives' statements. Disagreement largely centered around the Title IV, the nutrition title, which concerned SNAP program requirements.
Representative Peterson argued that the bill lacked transparency, failed to address bipartisan issues, and presented an ideological attack on SNAP, which was not supported by any of the 89 witnesses in the 23 SNAP hearings that occurred. He continued that many topics covered in the bill had not been addressed in the hearings—including Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility and severing the link of LIHEAP. Representative Peterson stated the bill was reflective of the failed 2013 bill in that it does not present a tested or proven path out of poverty, cuts more than nine billion dollars from the programs budget, includes no mandatory funding for scholarships at 1890 University, eliminates $500 million from the Rural Energy for America Program, and risks an even greater bipartisan schism with its revocation of tenants that have been innate to farm and rural related programs since the Great Depression.
In opposition to Representative Peterson’s concerns, Chairman Michael Conaway stated, “By and large, the bill before the Committee today is a reflection of our work together. I sincerely regret that our discussions ultimately did not bear fruit relative to the nutrition title. On SNAP, we have some honest disagreements that apparently prevent us from coming together on a Farm Bill. I know we will have a full debate on SNAP, especially on the question of whether able-bodied adults should work of train for 20 hours a week. I would have liked to have had these discussions over the past month in order to try and reach some accord, but discussions were halted…As a member of this committee I watched with dismay as the bipartisanship of the Agriculture Committee broke down in the house process on the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, despite the best effort from the Chairmen at the time. I wanted to break that trend and return us to the bipartisanship, which is the hallmark of this committee.”
To which, Representative Peterson replied, “Mr. Chairman, this is a flawed bill that is the result of a bad and nontransparent process. I oppose it and urge my colleagues on the Committee to oppose it as well…But the problem is this work piece, and unfortunately, the Chairman told me that was the one nonnegotiable provision, after months of my warnings about this type of approach…[workforce development experts] expressed major reservations about the ability of states and the workforce development community to pull off a program of the magnitude the Chairman is proposing...it is clear that this legislation would create giant, untested bureaucracies at the state level.”
United Fresh stated that several programs concerning fresh fruits and vegetables will continue to receive funding at the 2014 Farm Bill baseline levels, including the following:
- The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
- Specialty Crop Research Initiative
- Trade programs
- Pest and disease and clean plant programs
- The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP)
The Food Insecurity and Nutrition Incentive (FINI) Program received an increase in funding over the five-year life of the bill.
In its press release, United Fresh lamented that the bill lacked funding for the MRL Database, changed the FFVP greatly, and failed to adopt policy changes recommended by the Committee on the enhancement to the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, an issue on which Representative Peterson had concerns as well.
The Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance (SCFBA), which has been the lead group managing the Farm Bill debate for United Fresh since the 2008 Farm Bill and where United Fresh serves on the leadership team of the Alliance, is currently looking at ways to make improvements to the bill and assist specialty crop industry to compete in a domestic and global marketplace.
To follow the impact of this bill as it rolls out, keep reading AndNowUKnow.
