House drought bill keeps $5 billion subsidy targeted by reformers

WASHINGTON Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:51pm EDT

Corn plants struggle to survive in drought-stricken farm fields in Ferdinand, Indiana July 24, 2012. REUTERS/ John Sommers II

Corn plants struggle to survive in drought-stricken farm fields in Ferdinand, Indiana July 24, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/ John Sommers II

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Farmers would get another round of the $5 billion a year "direct payment" subsidy, targeted by reformers as wasteful spending, in a Republican-drawn offer of disaster aid for farmers hurt by the worst drought in half a century.

The package, unveiled on Friday, combines drought relief with a one-year extension of the farm program. If passed by the House next week and accepted by Senate, it would end a farm-bill stalemate by deferring work until 2013, when cost-cutting pressure may be intense.

An estimated $1.2 billion in drought relief would be provided under the bill, half to livestock producers and half to crop growers. While crop insurance will provide a safety net for many growers, livestock producers face parched pastures and rising feed costs.

The direct payment, paid to cotton, grain and soybean growers regardless of need, was marked for elimination in farm bills in the House and Senate this year. Budget hawks and environmentalists said the direct payment is wasted money, considering the farm sector enjoys boom times and the huge federal deficit.

An advocate for small farmers, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, called for the House to "vote down this dirty extension bill." The bill would cut soil and water conservation programs while keeping the direct payment, it said.

Two-thirds of the continental United States is under moderate to exceptional drought and 40 percent of U.S. counties are listed as agricultural disaster areas. The worst drought conditions since 1956 fueled demands for Congress to act.

House Agriculture Committee chairman Frank Lucas said the package responded to "devastating drought conditions afflicting most of our country" and, by extending the 2008 farm law expiring on September 30, would end any doubts about the farm program for the new crop year.

Collin Peterson, the Democratic leader on the committee, said he opposed an extension unless it was a vehicle for a speedy compromise on a successor to the 2008 law that expires on Sept 30. There is virtually no way for Congress to meet that deadline without resorting to unusual parliamentary methods.

House Republican leaders are sitting on a $491 billion farm bill that was approved by Lucas' committee earlier this month because it faces strong opposition. Majority Leader Eric Cantor says the Senate-passed farm bill is unacceptable.

The Senate bill could save $23 billion over 10 years compared to $35 billion in the House bill. The House bill would raise crop support prices by up to 40 percent while the Senate would eliminate almost all traditional farm subsidies and, instead, compensate growers for low prices and poor yields.

Food stamps for the poor would be cut by $16 billion in the House farm bill, the largest cuts since the 1990s. Democrats want to eliminate the food stamp cuts while some Republicans want deeper cuts throughout the farm bill.

The disaster bill would revive disaster programs that share feed cost for livestock producers and compensate them for animals killed by drought as well as programs to assist fruit, vegetable, tree and fish farmers. The so-called SURE program for crop growers also would be extended.

On Thursday, Senate Agriculture Committee chairwoman Debbie Stabenow said she was ready to make a legislative sprint and complete a new, full-scale farm bill. "If Congress does what Congress always does and kicks the can down the road with a short-term extension, there will be no reform, direct payments will continue, we'll lose the opportunity for major deficit reduction and we'll deliver a real blow to our economic recovery," said Stabenow.

(Reporting By Charles Abbott)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (4)
auger wrote:
This is obviously not a time to dissuade farmers from conservation. Programs aimed at maximizing water and soil are the last thing that should be scrapped in the face of a bill that simply pays money “regardless of need”. What future are they planning for?

Jul 27, 2012 9:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
neahkahnie wrote:
The GOP cuts food stamps but expands help for the Corporate Farmers. Those who have less than 600 acres of grain get nothing. The GOP wants to hurt the poor people in the U.S. (the county I live in in Oregon is a rural county) but want to help the rich corporations. Welcome to the Corporate State aka Fascism.

Jul 27, 2012 10:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Majick1 wrote:
“There is virtually no way for Congress to meet that deadline without resorting to unusual parliamentary methods.” Not enough time to take care of business so I guess we’ll have to have another vote on repealing Obamacare and work on some subsidies for the wealthy.
If the farmers go under, food gets scarce, the poor can’t eat so maybe we can get rid of that blight and make more room for mansions.

Jul 28, 2012 9:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.