TPA Joins Coalition Urging Open Process in House on ‘Farm-Only’ Farm Bill

On the heels of the Farm Bill failing a few weeks ago on the House floor, a new  “split” bill (separating nutrition and agriculture policy) may be considered by the House and the difference lies in the substance. The new bill being floated is focused mainly on Agriculture Policy, making the Farm Bill a real Farm Bill not just in name, but also in content. The problem however lies in the process and it is important that an open process (one that allows many amendments) be allowed as a way to achieve these meaningful reforms. Today, led by the R Street Institute, TPA joined with American Commitment, American Conservative Union, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Campaign for Liberty, Center for Individual Freedom, Club for Growth, Competitive Enterprise Institute, ConservAmerica, Cost of Government Center, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, FreedomWorks, Heritage Action for America, Keep Food Legal, Let Freedom Ring, National Taxpayers Union, Rappahannock Ventures, and Taxpayers for Common Sense in calling for the very ‘open process’ House Speaker John Boehner originally promised with the Farm Bill.

Read the letter below: 

July 9, 2013

Dear Speaker Boehner,

On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the undersigned organizations, we write to commend you for separating the agriculture and nutrition portions of the farm bill and for moving to repeal archaic language that reverts back to 1949 law in the absence of Congressional action. However, we are deeply concerned by reports that agriculture legislation will move in the coming days under a closed rule that will prevent any amendments from being heard.

The purpose of splitting the agriculture and nutrition pieces was to change the political dynamics that conspire to prevent true reform. If the House pushes through agriculture-only language taken directly from the combined bill that failed on the floor last month without amendment, it will not only fail to change those dynamics, it will actively preserve them.

In doing so, the Republican-controlled House would be advancing an agriculture bill that is substantially worse on policy grounds than the legislation produced by the Democrat-controlled Senate. For example, the House language includes no means-testing whatsoever for crop insurance while the Senate reduced subsidies for those with incomes over $750,000. In addition, the so-called “shallow loss” programs in the House bill are poorly structured and likely to cost dramatically more than official estimates.

We urge you to live up to your commitments to robust debate by ensuring that any agriculture or nutrition bill is considered in an open process. A closed rule on farm legislation would run counter to those commitments and produce bad policy.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Andrew Moylan, Outreach Director and Senior Fellow, R Street Institute 

Phil Kerpen, American Commitment

Al Cardenas, American Conservative Union

James Valvo, Americans for Prosperity

Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform

John Tate, Campaign for Liberty

Jeff Mazzella, Center for Individual Freedom

Chris Chocola, Club for Growth

Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Rob Sisson, ConservAmerica

Mattie Duppler, Cost of Government Center

Tom Schatz, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks

Michael A. Needham, Heritage Action for America

Baylen J. Linnekin, Keep Food Legal

Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring

Duane Parde, National Taxpayers Union

William L. Walton, Rappahannock Ventures

Ryan Alexander, Taxpayers for Common Sense

David Williams, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Becky Norton Dunlop, Former Secretary of Natural Resources, Virginia