A Tough Day for Farmers as Lawmakers Look for Cuts
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER and CARL HULSE
Published: June 16, 2011
WASHINGTON — The House approved large cuts in food aid for the poor and various agriculture programs on Thursday after a steely weeklong debate that pitted Democrats against Republicans, and farm-state members against those within their own party who vehemently oppose certain types of farm aid.
Philip Scott Andrews/The New York Times
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, sponsored a bill to end tax credits and trade protection for the ethanol industry.
Philip Scott Andrews/The New York Times
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, had earlier proposed similar legislation ending federal support for ethanol.
At the same time, the Senate voted 73 to 27 to end tax credits and trade protection that benefit the corn-based ethanol industry, with broad bipartisan backing. As a practical matter, the measure ending federal ethanol benefits will probably not become law because it is part of a larger measure that is likely to fail. But the lopsided ethanol vote showed that Congressional support for ethanol is eroding and signaled that many Senate Republicans who voted to kill the tax credits might favor some measures that reduce the deficit by ending a tax break.
“It is time to say enough is enough,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, an ethanol critic. “This industry has been collecting corporate welfare for far, far too long.”
The House agriculture spending bill was not the first spending measure considered by the House this year — two other bills concerning security spending passed with little debate. But the latest bill passed with a narrow 217-to-203 vote, and foreshadowed a host of spending fights to come in both chambers over fundamental budgeting priorities, regulatory policy, energy and science.
Further, the agriculture spending bill, which reduces discretionary spending by $2.7 billion from last year’s level, along with the Senate’s ethanol vote sets the stage for the impending farm bill, in which agricultural crop subsidies, often derided but generally left in place, might face a serious threat in a Congress bent on cutting spending.
“These programs are enormously popular,” said Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, on the House floor. “And they’re deeply integrated into our economic system and culture. Therefore, reforming these programs is very, very difficult.”
The Agriculture Department oversees a vast array of food assistance programs, all of which were cut in the House bill. It reduces spending for a program that supplements food for women and children to roughly $6 billion from $6.7 billion this year. Food for Peace, a program that helps feed poor people overseas, was reduced to just over $1 billion from $1.49 billion in current spending.
Democrats derided the 13 percent cut to spending for the programs — one of the most significant in decades — as unfairly singling out the poor.
“I know that we’re in tough budget times,” said Representative Sam Farr, Democrat of California. “But even in tough budget times, people have to eat. It’s my opinion that this bill makes it very hard for people to eat, particularly people who don’t have any money.”
Many of these programs were reduced far less than some Republican members had sought. In one case, Representative Paul Broun, Republican of Georgia, unsuccessfully proposed to eliminate the spending for the overseas program entirely.
Suggestions for deeper cuts — which were broadly rejected by the House — led to spirited and at times nasty exchanges, as when Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat of Washington, accused Mr. Broun, a physician, of doing “harm” to women and children and violating his oath as a medical doctor. Mr. Broun responded with outrage.
In a series of amendments, the House floor was often divided less by party than by regional interests. Some Republican measures that would curb ethanol support or make other cuts to agriculture programs were denounced by other Republicans, even those who advocate cuts in spending.
For instance, Representative Kristi Noem, Republican of South Dakota, who is among the very fiscally conservative freshmen, rose in opposition to a proposal from Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, that would have cut subsidies for ethanol pumps. “Agriculture has been significantly cut,” Ms. Noem said.
The House bill is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate because it will write its own measure. However, the House bill reflects other aspects of the Republican-led House’s agenda. For instance, the budget for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, an agency that regulates commodity futures and option markets, and has a big role in writing rules for the Dodd-Frank banking law, was cut to $172 million, a $30 million reduction from current spending levels, underscoring the skepticism about regulation. Other programs were cut, with the committee citing a lack of sufficient science to support them.
The Senate’s vote against the ethanol industry hands a political victory to a bipartisan group of lawmakers that call the incentive needless and expensive. The ethanol vote came on a proposal sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and represented a sharp turnaround from earlier in the week when the Senate rejected the same proposal from Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.
Under the plan, revenue generated by ending the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit paid to refiners who blend ethanol with gasoline would be applied to reducing the deficit. The earlier outcome drew criticism from lawmakers and watchdog groups who said the Senate was refusing to end a subsidy program widely considered wasteful and unnecessary.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat and an ethanol supporter, said she and others were trying to strike a compromise with Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Coburn that would provide money for deficit reduction but include financing for equipment to make ethanol more widely available.
“It is time to say enough is enough,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, an ethanol critic. “This industry has been collecting corporate welfare for far, far too long.”
The House agriculture spending bill was not the first spending measure considered by the House this year — two other bills concerning security spending passed with little debate. But the latest bill passed with a narrow 217-to-203 vote, and foreshadowed a host of spending fights to come in both chambers over fundamental budgeting priorities, regulatory policy, energy and science.
Further, the agriculture spending bill, which reduces discretionary spending by $2.7 billion from last year’s level, along with the Senate’s ethanol vote sets the stage for the impending farm bill, in which agricultural crop subsidies, often derided but generally left in place, might face a serious threat in a Congress bent on cutting spending.
“These programs are enormously popular,” said Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, on the House floor. “And they’re deeply integrated into our economic system and culture. Therefore, reforming these programs is very, very difficult.”
The Agriculture Department oversees a vast array of food assistance programs, all of which were cut in the House bill. It reduces spending for a program that supplements food for women and children to roughly $6 billion from $6.7 billion this year. Food for Peace, a program that helps feed poor people overseas, was reduced to just over $1 billion from $1.49 billion in current spending.
Democrats derided the 13 percent cut to spending for the programs — one of the most significant in decades — as unfairly singling out the poor.
“I know that we’re in tough budget times,” said Representative Sam Farr, Democrat of California. “But even in tough budget times, people have to eat. It’s my opinion that this bill makes it very hard for people to eat, particularly people who don’t have any money.”
Many of these programs were reduced far less than some Republican members had sought. In one case, Representative Paul Broun, Republican of Georgia, unsuccessfully proposed to eliminate the spending for the overseas program entirely.
Suggestions for deeper cuts — which were broadly rejected by the House — led to spirited and at times nasty exchanges, as when Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat of Washington, accused Mr. Broun, a physician, of doing “harm” to women and children and violating his oath as a medical doctor. Mr. Broun responded with outrage.
In a series of amendments, the House floor was often divided less by party than by regional interests. Some Republican measures that would curb ethanol support or make other cuts to agriculture programs were denounced by other Republicans, even those who advocate cuts in spending.
For instance, Representative Kristi Noem, Republican of South Dakota, who is among the very fiscally conservative freshmen, rose in opposition to a proposal from Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, that would have cut subsidies for ethanol pumps. “Agriculture has been significantly cut,” Ms. Noem said.
The House bill is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate because it will write its own measure. However, the House bill reflects other aspects of the Republican-led House’s agenda. For instance, the budget for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, an agency that regulates commodity futures and option markets, and has a big role in writing rules for the Dodd-Frank banking law, was cut to $172 million, a $30 million reduction from current spending levels, underscoring the skepticism about regulation. Other programs were cut, with the committee citing a lack of sufficient science to support them.
The Senate’s vote against the ethanol industry hands a political victory to a bipartisan group of lawmakers that call the incentive needless and expensive. The ethanol vote came on a proposal sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and represented a sharp turnaround from earlier in the week when the Senate rejected the same proposal from Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.
Under the plan, revenue generated by ending the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit paid to refiners who blend ethanol with gasoline would be applied to reducing the deficit. The earlier outcome drew criticism from lawmakers and watchdog groups who said the Senate was refusing to end a subsidy program widely considered wasteful and unnecessary.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat and an ethanol supporter, said she and others were trying to strike a compromise with Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Coburn that would provide money for deficit reduction but include financing for equipment to make ethanol more widely available.
No comments:
Post a Comment