Politico
By Liz Crampton and Rachael Bade
May 15, 2018
Conservative opposition to the House farm bill is mounting, with more members of the House GOP’s right flank suggesting they could oppose the measure in an expected Friday vote.
House Freedom Caucus members in a Tuesday night meeting discussed withholding their votes unless they receive a roll call on separate legislation pertaining to DREAMers — a conservative immigration measure that even GOP leaders say won’t pass in its current form.
That comes just a few hours after the more than 150 member-strong Republican Study Committee circulated a memo spelling out their own criticism of the agriculture text. While neither group has come out against the bill, their demands signal a problem for GOP whips who’ve remained confident this week about prospects for passage.
“Since [leadership] is whipping the farm bill very hard for a vote this week, we believe it’s probably time to go ahead and call the question on the Goodlatte bill as well,” said House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), referring to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s immigration text. “That was a topic of discussion on what would get people to ‘yes’ on the farm bill.”
The Freedom Caucus push for the Goodlatte bill comes months after GOP leaders promised conservatives a vote on it to earn their support on a short-term spending measure. But the whip effort to garner the 218 for passage has floundered since then, as Goodlatte (R-Va.) has been unwilling to modify his proposal to appease moderate members of the conference.
It’s not surprising that the immigration fight is spilling into the farm debate. Just last week, more than a dozen of those moderates who oppose the Goodlatte text banded together to begin a process that would force a series of votes on bipartisan immigration legislation that would likely pass with Democratic support — proposals immigration hawks despise.
GOP leaders have been trying to get them to back down, arguing that any vote is pointless unless President Donald Trump endorses one of the proposals.
Republican unity on the farm bill is imperative for passage, since House Democrats are expected to oppose the measure. The text includes new work requirements for food stamp recipients, an idea that repels members on the left and even worries some centrist Republicans.
Yet it is unclear if GOP leaders have corralled their conference. The RSC memo released Tuesday raised several concerns echoed by conservative outside groups such as The Heritage Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Despite the Trump administration’s backing of the proposal, they’ve criticized its failure to slash commodity subsidies paid to farmers and its proposal to expand state-run employment programs that are part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
“Many conservatives may be concerned that the bill increases mandatory spending and spending subject to appropriation,” the RSC memo notes, explaining that it would increase the former by $3.2 billion from fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2023 and the latter by $24.3 billion over the same period.
Conservatives have been hounding GOP leaders to allow amendments on the legislation that would alleviate their concerns. One such proposal from Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) would revamp the U.S. sugar program in the bill that conservatives call “corporate welfare.” Another from Meadows would limit commodity payments to “actively engaged” farmers and permit only one farm manager per operation to claim subsidy payments.
The RSC memo applauds the part of the farm bill that would expand work requirements for SNAP recipients who are able to work. But conservatives find it problematic that the bill would maintain geographic waivers “that would reduce the potential effectiveness of the reforms made by the bill,” the memo adds.
The memo cites the bill’s proposal to invest heavily in a build-out of SNAP Employment and Training programs, noting that “many conservatives will be concerned by the massive increase to mandatory spending under this provision.”
“The funding level proposed by the bill is 900 percent higher than what is provided under current law,” the memo added, referring to the billions of dollars that would be directed to expand capacity in the state-run employment and training efforts.
The memo says that RSC members may be disappointed that the legislation doesn’t take steps to reduce government subsidization of agriculture or make changes to the federal crop insurance program — pointing out that the White House’s budget proposal for fiscal 2019 called for lowering the average premium subsidy for crop insurance to 48 percent, from 62 percent.
Last month, the RSC released a budget proposal for fiscal 2019 that called for heavy cuts to be made to a variety of farm bill programs.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment