The Independent.com - Smith Disappointed in Farm Bill Defeat in House

News Article

By Robert Pore

U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., was disappointed that the House version of the Farm Bill was defeated, 195-234, on Thurs-day.

Smith, who voted for the bill, said he thought there would be enough votes to pass it because of the bipartisan approach taken by the House Agriculture Committee.

"We need to examine our options as we work to move a responsible long-term bill forward," he said.

Smith said he remains committed to getting the Farm Bill passed this year.

Last year, the House Agriculture Committee passed a Farm Bill, but House leaders didn't allow it to come to the floor for debate.

Earlier this month, the Senate passed a Farm Bill, as they did last year before it was dropped in the House.

Smith, who previously served on the House Agriculture Committee, said the vote reflected a divide among those who felt the bill went too far in cuts to nutrition programs and others who thought it didn't go far enough.

"That is usually the way to get things done, but at this point, we came up short with the votes," Smith said. "We are going to have to examine whether we have to open it up to more spending and attract more Democratic votes or have the bill contain less spending to get more Republican votes."

If farm bills are passed by both the House and Senate, they proceed to a conference committee made up of members of both houses who iron out the difference between the two bills. After that, the bill goes to both the House and Senate for a straight up-or-down vote without an amendment process. If passed by both chambers, it then goes to the president.

"I think it is possible that we can get something to the president's desk that he may not prefer but be pressured into signing," Smith said.

The defeat of the Farm Bill, he said, is not the "end of the world, but I wish we had gotten it done today because we have a lot of other issues we need to address."

Once the Farm Bill got through the House Agriculture Committee, it went to the House floor, where there was an open amendment process. Smith said that process is healthy.

"But we need to have participation in the process taking a reasonable approach," Smith said. "For my colleagues who voted no because SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) cuts went to far, from 2007 to 2011, food stamp spending increased 135 percent, and this would have cut 2 percent from that."

Nutritional program spending increased because of the downturn in the economy and because President Obama lowered restrictions to allow more people into the program. But now, as many experts are saying the economy is turning around, Smith said, the 2 percent cut is reasonable.

Smith's 3rd Congressional District is the largest cow/calf congressional district and was hard hit by last year's drought. The House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill both contained disaster assistance to drought-impacted cattle producers.

Steve Nelson, Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation president, said the House's "inability to pass a Farm Bill is extremely disappointing to Nebraska farm and ranch families."

"Farm Bureau and others have worked tirelessly with Congress over the last two years to develop farm policy that is more reflective of the needs of American farm families and taxpayers," he said. "The fact that partisan politics trumped the greater need of reformed farm and food security policy for America is a major setback."

Smith said the question about the future of the Farm Bill in the House is "whether we open it up to more spending with money we don't have or expect less spending to get it to conference."

"It would not surprise me if we didn't end up at a similar point that we had today, but we will see what options are out there," Smith said. "I think we will still get it done because I think this heightened attention is something that could be helpful and might even shine some light on some policies that need some reforming."

Source