2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On The 2013 House Farm Bill That Included Agricultural Program Provisions, But Did Not Reauthorize Federal Nutrition Programs. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on the House's version of the agriculture program provisions of the 2013 Farm Bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would "extend[] most major federal farm, rural development and agricultural trade programs through FY 2018 --- but repeal[] direct and countercyclical payments to agriculture commodity producers, replacing them with two new risk-management programs to protect farmers when they suffer significant losses. It also bolsters the use of crop insurance for risk mitigation, consolidates conservation programs and establishes a new dairy margin insurance program." The House approved the bill by a vote of 216 to 208. A conference report later became law, which included a reauthorization of food stamps, but which cut it by $8.6 billion. [House Vote 353, 7/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642]
Bill Would Have Cut Agricultural Spending By An Estimated $12.9 Billion Over Ten Years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agriculture-only farm bill before the House would produce $12.9 billion in savings over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday. The bulk of the savings would come from ending yearly direct payments and changes to conservation programs. Overall, the bill (HR 2642) would spend $195.7 billion from fiscal 2014 to fiscal 2023 on a variety of farm-related programs, including expanded crop insurance and new price and revenue protection plans for farmers." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/11/13]
Bill Would Have Reduced Risk Management Spending By $22.9 Billion By Repealing Direct Payments To Farmers And Increasing Farm Risk Management Coverage. Saving The Government. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The greatest reduction in direct spending came from the repeal of payments made to farmers and ranchers. CBO estimated that the repeal of direct, countercyclical and ACRE payments would result in a reduction of $46.3 billion over 10 years. However, establishing price loss coverage and revenue loss coverage increased costs by $23.4 billion --- resulting in a net reduction of $22.9 billion." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13]
Bill Would Have Reduced Spending On Conservation Programs By $4.8 Billion. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Other major reductions would have come from changes to conservation programs, reducing spending over 10 years by $4.8 billion, while the bill's crop insurance provisions would have increased spending by $8.9 billion." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13; Congressional Budget Office Estimate for H.R. 2642, 7/10/13]
Bill Was A Second Attempt To Pass A Multi-Year Farm Bill; Consisted Of Farm And Agriculture Program Sections Of Bill That House Had Rejected Earlier. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill represents the second House attempt to pass a multi-year farm bill, after the original bill (HR 1947) was defeated in June, mostly because of controversy over its food stamp provisions. The new bill omits the food stamp and nutrition title of the original, leaving just the farm and agriculture program titles --- but it incorporates the amendments to those titles adopted by the House in June. It also includes new language to repeal provisions of 1938 and 1949 permanent farm law." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13]
Republican Leadership Hoped That The Farm Bill Would Be Less Contentious With Nutrition Programs Removed From It, But Both Democrats And Conservative Republicans Continued To Oppose The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "But in order to at least partially reverse the embarrassing defeat they suffered three weeks earlier, when the first version of the legislation was defeated on the floor largely as a result of a conservative GOP revolt, Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and his leadership team had to rely solely on votes from reluctant members of their own caucus. And to make that work, they crafted a revised measure (HR 2642) that dodges entirely the most contentious issue in the farm bill, the programs it traditionally authorizes to help feed the poor. The retooled farm bill passed 216-208 on July 11 without a single Democratic vote and over the continued opposition of a dozen Republicans, whose position was backed by conservative groups including the Club for Growth and Heritage Action. [...] Democrats used procedural tactics to make the Republican leadership's task as difficult as possible." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/13]
Obama Administration Threatened To Veto Bill, Citing Inadequate Changes To Crop Insurance, Lack Of Renewable Energy Investment And Omission of Nutrition Program Reauthorization. According to a Statement of Administration Policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget, "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. Because the 608 page bill was made available only this evening, the Administration has had inadequate time to fully review the text of the bill. It is apparent, though, that the bill does not contain sufficient commodity and crop insurance reforms and does not invest in renewable energy, an important source of jobs and economic growth in rural communities across the country. Legislation as important as a Farm Bill should be constructed in a comprehensive approach that helps strengthen all aspects of the Nation. This bill also fails to reauthorize nutrition programs, which benefit millions of Americans -- in rural, suburban and urban areas alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a cornerstone of our Nation's food assistance safety net, and should not be left behind as the rest of the Farm Bill advances. If the President were presented with H.R. 2642, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill" (underline in original). [Office of Management and Budget, 7/10/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against House 2013 Farm Bill That Reauthorized Federal Agriculture Programs And Cut $20.5 Billion From SNAP. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against the House's version of the 2013 Farm Bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] reauthorize[d] agriculture programs through fiscal 2018 and shrink the nation's largest nutrition benefit program, cutting $33 billion from current law." The House rejected the bill by a vote of 195 to 234. [House Vote 286, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
Bill Would Have Reduced Spending By $33.4 Billion Over 10 Years, Including A $20.5 Billion Reduction In SNAP Spending, Relative To Continuing Current Programs Unchanged. According to Congressional Quarterly, "According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would reduce spending by $33.4 billion over 10 years compared with the baseline, including a reduction of $20.5 billion to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, previously known as food stamps)." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
Bill Would Have Created New Programs To Manage The Milk Supply. According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill "also repeals several major dairy programs and replaces them with a new program to manage the supply of milk." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
Democrats Said The "Southerland Amendment," Dairy Producer Amendment Responsible For The Farm Bill's Defeat. According to The Hill, "Republicans had expected Democrats to deliver 40 votes for the bill. But a GOP aide said at the last moment, Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said they could not produce that many because of pressure from Democratic leaders and the White House, which had threatened to veto the bill over the food stamp cuts. Peterson blamed the approval of two amendments for the failure. One of the amendments --- backed by Boehner --- ended production limits on dairy producers that were a part of the underlying bill. The second, sponsored by Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.), allowed states to require food stamp beneficiaries to either work or look for work. 'I told Cantor that Southerland cost us 15 votes,' Peterson said, referring to Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). 'A lot of people came up to me and said, I'm with you, but I'm out now.'" [The Hill, 6/20/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote No And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against The 2014 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Federal Agriculture Programs Through FY 2018. In January 2014, Schweikert vote against the conference report on the 2014 Farm Bill, which reauthorized federal farm and nutrition assistance programs -- including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- through fiscal year 2018. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The conference agreement on HR 2642, Agricultural Act of 2014, extends most major federal farm, nutrition assistance, rural development and agricultural trade programs through FY 2018 --- but repeals or modifies certain major programs, including dairy programs, conservation programs and direct payments to farmers. The measure provides five-year authorizations for both farm and nutrition programs [...] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill would reduce net direct spending by $16.6 billion over 10 years compared with CBO's May 2013 baseline (or $23 billion in total savings when $6.4 billion in already-enacted sequester savings are factored in). Reductions include $14.3 billion over 10 years from commodities programs, $8.6 billion from food stamps and $4 billion from conservation programs, while crop insurance spending would increase by $5.7 billion. Agriculture research, energy and horticulture programs would also see increases in mandatory spending. CBO estimates that total mandatory spending under the agreement would be $956 billion over 10 years, including $756 billion (79% of the total) for nutrition, primarily food stamps." The House adopted the conference report on the bill by a vote of 251 to 166. After the Senate agreed to the conference report, the bill was sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 31, 1/29/14; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642]
Bill Repealed Direct And Countercyclical Payments To Agriculture Producers, Replacing Them With Two New Risk-Management Style Programs; Subsidies From Programs Are Capped At $125,000-Per-Person. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement repeals current programs that make direct and countercyclical payments to agriculture commodity producers and replaces them with two new risk-management programs to protect farmers when they suffer significant losses: a Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program to address deep, multiple-year declines in commodity prices and an Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program to cover a portion of a farmer's revenue losses when crop prices fall to 86% of the average of the middle three of the last five years. The measure sets new subsidy caps of $125,000 per person or $250,000 per couple for total payments from the two programs as well as any marketing loan benefits. Cotton producers would not be eligible for either program. CBO estimates that the PLC program would cost an estimated $13.1 billion through FY 2023, while the ARC program would cost $14.1 billion." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Bill Created Two New Crop Insurance Programs: A Supplemental Coverage Program And A Upland Cotton Specific Program. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement includes changes to crop insurance programs, including the creation of two new programs, that CBO estimates would result in a net increase of $5.7 billion in direct spending over 10 years. It establishes a new crop insurance program known as Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), an areawide [sic] group-risk policy also called shallow loss coverage, under which producers can purchase additional insurance to cover a portion of losses not covered by individual crop insurance policies (i.e., part of their deductible). Coverage under SCO would be triggered only if the area loss exceeds 14%. CBO estimates that it would cost $1.7 billion over 10 years. Because cotton growers would not be eligible for the new PLC and ARC risk mitigation programs, the measure also creates the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) for upland cotton growers, under which they could obtain areawide [sic] group-risk insurance policies that would be available as supplemental insurance or as a stand-alone policy. CBO estimates that the new program would cost $3.3 billion over 10 years." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Bill Overhauled Federal Dairy Programs, Including Creating A New Dairy Insurance Program To Protect Dairy Farmers Against Economic Loss From Low Milk Prices. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement reauthorizes three dairy programs and repeals four others --- replacing them with a new voluntary margin insurance program that is aimed at protecting dairy farmers from economic loss. Overall, CBO estimates that the measure's dairy provisions would increase direct spending by a net total of $912 million through FY 2023. The new dairy margin protection program is meant to protect farmers against losses if milk prices drop too close to feed costs. All dairy producers in the United States would be eligible for the program and could choose coverage level thresholds in 50-cent-per-hundredweight increments from $4.00 per hundredweight (cwt) to $8.00/cwt. At $4.00/cwt there are no premiums, and premiums for the first 4 million pounds of milk produced would cost less per cwt than those for milk produced beyond 4 million pounds." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Bill Prohibited Commodity Or Conservation Program Payments To Those With More Than $900,000 In Annual Income, But Lifted Requirements That Higher Income Recipients Earn Two-Thirds Or More Of Their Income From Farming. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement reduces the threshold at which farmers become ineligible to receive benefits under federal commodity and conservation programs --- prohibiting any such payments if his or her adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds $900,000. The current limit is $1 million in annual AGI. However, it also eliminates the restriction that currently bars farmers earning between $500,000 and $1 million in AGI from receiving federal subsidies if less than 67% of their income comes from farming. Under the measure, individuals with less than $900,000 in AGI would be eligible for subsidies regardless of the portion of their income that comes from farming." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Bill Reauthorized Agriculture Disaster Assistance Programs, Raising Cap On Payments To $125,000 And Eliminating Income Eligibility Requirements. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agreement reauthorizes and modifies certain Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance programs through 2018, and it moves the disaster assistance authorizations to the commodities title of the law. Authorized programs include Livestock Indemnity Payments; the Livestock Forage Disaster Program; Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm-Raised Fish; and the Tree Assistance Program. It increases to $125,000 the cap on disaster payments that may be made to any one individual or entity and eliminates income restrictions for individuals or entities to receive agriculture disaster payments. CBO estimates that disaster spending would total $3.7 billion through FY 2023, including $897 million in FY 2014." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14]
Heritage Action and Club For Growth Opposed Farm Bill Conference Report. According to The Hill, "The conservative groups Club for Growth and Heritage Action urged lawmakers on Tuesday to oppose the five-year farm bill compromise. Club for Growth called the bill, which is expected to pass the House by Wednesday, 'another bloated proposal that House and Senate leaders are rushing through Congress without giving members and the public enough time to read and understand the bill.' The groups will include the vote on their congressional scorecards. 'This bill continues, for blatant political reasons, the unholy marriage of agricultural subsidies and food stamps --- two completely separate issues,' Andy Roth, Club for Growth's vice president of government affairs, wrote to lawmakers. 'At a minimum, these two programs should be voted on as separate, stand-alone bills.' Roth argues that, if lawmakers were serious about an overhaul, they would have included a plan to 'devolve the food stamp program to the states and eventually eliminate federal agricultural subsidies.' 'This bill is well short of that goal,' he wrote. 'Instead, it's a Christmas tree bill, where there's a gift for practically every special interest group out there with a well-connected lobbyist, including the fresh-cut Christmas tree industry.'" [The Hill, 1/28/14]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote No And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against 2014 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Payments To Counties With Substantial Amounts Of Untaxable Federal Land. In January 2014, Schweikert voted against the 2014 Farm Bill, which, among its provisions, reauthorized the federal Payment In Lieu of Taxes program for FY 2014. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The [conference] agreement [on the 2014 Farm Bill] extends for one year, through FY 2014, the payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) program. The program provides payments to counties that have substantial amounts of federal land which reduces the county's tax base. Funding for PILT in 2013 was $450 million. CBO estimates this authorization would result in $410 million in PILT payments for FY 2014." The House adopted the conference report on the bill by a vote of 251 to 166. After the Senate agreed to the conference report, the bill was sent to the president, who signed it into law. [House Vote 31, 1/29/14; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642]
2018: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP's 2018 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Farm Programs Such As Crop Subsidies And Reauthorized SNAP With New Work Requirements. In May 2018, Schweikert voted for the House GOP Farm Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It would require individuals receiving SNAP benefits, who are 18-59 years old, to work or participate in work training programs for a minimum of 20 hours per week, and would require the Department of Agriculture to establish a database to track individuals receiving SNAP benefits. The bill would reauthorize and extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs, the current sugar policies and loan rates, several international food aid programs, nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for loan commodities, several dairy programs, including the dairy risk management program (previously the margin protection program) and would modify certain utility standards in the Home Energy Assistance Program to require SNAP benefits recipients to provide documentation of such expenses in order to receive increased benefits using the Standard Utility Allowance. The bill would authorize, with modifications, the farm risk-management program, which gives agriculture producers a choice of receiving price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage, on a covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis, for the 2019 through 2023 crop years. The bill would reauthorize several conservation programs, and would increase the conservation reserve program from 24 to 29 million acres and reduce from 750,000 to 500,000 acres the cap for Farmable Wetland Program enrollment. It would also increase the amount authorized annually for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the 2019 through 2023 crop years, with a maximum authorization of $3 billion in 2023. It would eliminate the conservation stewardship program and would also allow the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether a pesticide is likely to jeopardize the survival of a federally designated threatened or endangered species, or the habitat of such a species, without having to consult with federal agencies." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the bill by a vote of 198 to 213. The House later took a revote several weeks later and passed the bill. A modified version of the bill was later signed into law. [House Vote 205, 5/18/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2018: Schweikert Voted Against The Final 2018 Conference Report Farm Bill Which Reauthorized Farm Programs And Food Stamps. In December 2018, Schweikert voted against the 2018 farm bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It would reauthorize and extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs, sugar policies and loan rates, several international food aid programs, nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for loan commodities, and several dairy programs, including the dairy risk management program (previously the margin protection program). It would create new pilot programs that would test strategies for improving the accuracy of the SNAP income verification process. It would allow industrial hemp to be grown in the United States, subject to close regulation at the state level. It would modify the activities permitted on land contracted under the conservation reserve program." The vote was on the conference report. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 369 to 47. The Senate had earlier passed the bill and was later signed into law by the president. [House Vote 434, 12/12/18; Congressional Quarterly, 12/12/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
Legislation Expanded The Definition Of 'Family' That Qualify For Farm Subsidies. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It also expands the definition of family members who qualify for farm subsidies on family farms to include first cousins, nieces and nephews, as long as they are 'actively engaged' in farming." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/11/18]
Legislation Reauthorized The Sugar Program And Increased The Rate For The Loans. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure reauthorizes the sugar program through FY 2023, and increases the rate for the loans available to processors of domestically grown sugarcane from 18.75 cents per pound to 19.75 cents per pound." [Congressional Quarterly, 12/11/18]
2018: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP's 2018 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Farm Programs Such As Crop Subsidies And Reauthorized SNAP, But With New Work Requirements. In June 2018, Schweikert voted for the House GOP Farm Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. It would require individuals receiving SNAP benefits, who are 18-59 years old, to work or participate in work training programs for a minimum of 20 hours per week, and would require the Department of Agriculture to establish a database to track individuals receiving SNAP benefits. The bill would reauthorize and extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs, the current sugar policies and loan rates, several international food aid programs, nonrecourse marketing assistance loans for loan commodities, several dairy programs, including the dairy risk management program (previously the margin protection program) and would modify certain utility standards in the Home Energy Assistance Program to require SNAP benefits recipients to provide documentation of such expenses in order to receive increased benefits using the Standard Utility Allowance. The bill would authorize, with modifications, the farm risk-management program, which gives agriculture producers a choice of receiving price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage, on a covered-commodity-by-covered-commodity basis, for the 2019 through 2023 crop years. The bill would reauthorize several conservation programs, and would increase the conservation reserve program from 24 to 29 million acres and reduce from 750,000 to 500,000 acres the cap for Farmable Wetland Program enrollment. It would also increase the amount authorized annually for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the 2019 through 2023 crop years, with a maximum authorization of $3 billion in 2023. It would eliminate the conservation stewardship program and would also allow the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether a pesticide is likely to jeopardize the survival of a federally designated threatened or endangered species, or the habitat of such a species, without having to consult with federal agencies." The vote was on passage. The House adopted the bill by a vote of 213 to 211. A modified version was later signed into law. [House Vote 284, 6/21/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]