2018: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP's 2018 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Farm Programs Such As Crop Subsidies, Reauthorized SNAP - But With New Work Requirements-, And Eliminated The Conservation Stewardship Program. 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 of the bill was later signed into law. [House Vote 284, 6/21/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2018: Schweikert Voted For The House GOP's 2018 Farm Bill, Which Reauthorized Farm Programs Such As Crop Subsidies, Reauthorized SNAP With New Work Requirements And Eliminated The Conservation Stewardship Program. 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]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit New Enrollees In The Conservation Reserve Program As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for prohibiting new enrollees in the Conservation Reserve Program. According to the Republican Study Committee, "CRP provides payments to farmers to take certain cropland out of production for 10 years or more to improve soil, water, and environmental quality. Demand for enrollment in CRP has declined steadily over recent years. This budget would respond to this trend and prohibit new enrollments in CRP. This would save $1.8 billion over ten years, according to CBO." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit New Enrollments In The Conservation Stewardship Program As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for prohibiting new enrollees in the Conservation Stewardship Program. According to the Republican Study Committee, "This budget would prohibit new enrollments in CSP. Land that is currently enrolled in CSP would continue to be eligible to receive payments until the contract expires." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Allowing Farmers With An AGI Between $500,000 And $950,000, But Who Earn Less Than Two-Thirds Of Their Income From Farming, To Receive Federal Commodity And Conservation Program Benefits. 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 have "eliminate[d] 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 $950,000 in AGI would be eligible for subsidies regardless of the portion of their income that comes from farming." A conference report later became law, which also eliminated the current restriction, but set the limit at $900,000, not $950,000. [House Vote 353, 7/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Reauthorizing And Consolidating Agricultural Conservation 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 "reauthorize[] through FY 2018 most conservation activities but [would] consolidate[] the 23 current programs into 13. It [would] also generally reduce[] the number of acres of land that may be enrolled in the programs. CBO estimates that the changes would produce $4.8 billion in savings over 10 years. Reauthorized programs include the Conservation Reserve Program, the Farmable Wetlands Programs, the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP would be expanded to include functions now administered under the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. It establishes a new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program by consolidating the Wetland Reserve Program, the Grassland Reserve Program and the Farmland Protection Program. Similarly, a Regional Conservation Partnership Program is established by combining the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiatives Program and the Great Lakes Basin Program." The House approved the bill by a vote of 216 to 208. A conference report was later signed into law that reauthorized the 23 conservation programs, consolidated them into 13 and generally reduced the number of acres that could be enrolled. [House Vote 353, 7/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642]
The 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]
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 Would Reduce Number Of Acres That Could Be Enrolled In Conservation Programs. According to Congressional Quarterly, discussing the full farm and nutrition bill that the House rejected in June 2013, "It also generally reduces the number of acres of land that may be enrolled in the programs." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Reauthorizing And Consolidating Federal Agriculture Conservation Programs. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against the House's version of the 2013 Farm Bill, which reauthorized conservation activities and consolidated conservation programs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill reauthorizes through FY 2018 most conservation activities but consolidates the 23 current programs into 13. It also generally reduces the number of acres of land that may be enrolled in the programs. CBO estimates that the changes would produce $4.8 billion in savings over 10 years. Reauthorized programs include the Conservation Reserve Program, the Farmable Wetlands Programs, the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP would be expanded to include functions now administered under the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. It establishes a new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program by consolidating the Wetland Reserve Program, the Grassland Reserve Program and the Farmland Protection Program. Similarly, a Regional Conservation Partnership Program is established by combining the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiatives Program and the Great Lakes Basin Program." The House rejected the bill by a vote of 195 to 234. [House Vote 286, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
Bill Would Have Reduced Number Of Acres That Could Be Enrolled In Conservation Programs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It also generally reduces the number of acres of land that may be enrolled in the programs." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
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]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit New Enrollment In The Conservation Reserve Program. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support prohibiting new enrolment in the Conservation Reserve Program, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The savings options outlined below illustrate some of the necessary steps toward a limited, constitutional government that lives within its means. [...] The CRP provides payments to farmers to take certain cropland out of production for 10 years or more. While CRP was established for soil conservation and commodity reduction, it is a perfect example of a government program reaching for new ways to justify its existence. The program is now also promoted for increasing native wildlife populations. This budget would prohibit new enrollments in the CRP, significantly reducing the acres that farmers are paid to not farm. This would save $5.6 billion over ten years." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit New Enrollment In The Conservation Stewardship Program. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support prohibiting new enrolment in the Conservation Reserve Program, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The savings options outlined below illustrate some of the necessary steps toward a limited, constitutional government that lives within its means. [...] The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) encourages agricultural producers to adopt more environmentally sustainable practices on their working land. The program subsidizes agricultural producers to use conservation techniques that many have already adopted. Agricultural producers already have an existing incentive to conserve their resources and practice sustainable farming. Therefore, paying agricultural producers to use techniques they have already adopted does not enhance conservation efforts. This budget would prohibit new enrollments in the CSP. Land that is currently enrolled in the CSP would continue to be eligible to receive payments until the contract expired. This would save $10.5 billion over ten years." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing The Cap On The Overall Rate Of Return For Insurance Providers From 2017 To 2026 As Part Of A Five Year Transportation Reauthorization. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against increasing crop insurance rate of return as part of a five year transportation reauthorization. According to Congressional Quarterly, "the measure also repeal[ed] provisions in last month's Bipartisan Budget Act that used savings from the federal crop insurance program as an offset for that law." The underlying legislation would have "reauthorize[d] federal-aid highway and transit programs for five years, through fiscal 2020, at increased levels." The vote was on the conference report. The House approved the legislation by a vote of 359 to 65. The Senate later passed the legislation and the president later signed the legislation. [House Vote 673, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 22]
The Bipartisan Budget Act Reduced From 14.5% To 8.9% The Cap On The Overall Rate Of Return For Insurance Providers For Each Fiscal Year From 2017 To 2026. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Bipartisan Budget Act "require[d] that the [Standard Reinsurance Agreement] be renegotiated by Dec. 31, 2016, and at least once every five years thereafter, and it reduces from 14.5% to 8.9% the cap on the overall rate of return for insurance providers for each fiscal year from 2017 to 2026. CBO estimates that this provision would reduce direct spending by $3 billion over the 10-year period." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
Crop Insurance Is Federally Subsidized To Increase Farmer Participation In The Program and To Reduce The Need For Federal Disaster Assistance. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In an effort to encourage farmer participation in crop insurance and thus reduce the need for federal disaster assistance, the federal crop insurance program subsidizes the purchase of crop insurance policies. Crop insurance is sold only through approved private insurance companies whose losses are reinsured by the Agriculture Department under the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA), which is negotiated between the department and the insurance companies. The SRA, which was last negotiated in 2011, spells out expense reimbursements and risk sharing by the government, including terms for government subsidies and reinsurance on eligible crop insurance contracts. It does not affect the policy premiums paid by farmers." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Had Assured Senate Agriculture Chairman To Reverse Crop Insurance Cuts. According to Roll Call, "Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts has assurances from his leadership to reverse crop insurance cutbacks in the budget and debt limit deal that's currently on the Senate floor. This commitment is in reference to the obvious need to remedy the language adversely affected our nation's farmers and ranchers now included in the bipartisan budget act," the Kansas Republican said Thursday. [...] McConnell affirmed House leadership would work first to reverse the cutbacks as part the omnibus spending debate come December, and that he would work to support that effort to find new offsets for the $3 billion that will not be saved by reversing the crop insurance changes." [Roll Call, 10/29/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Cutting $3 Billion From The Federally Subsidized Crop Insurance Program As Part Of The Bipartisan Budget Act Of 2015. In October 2015, Schweikert voted against cutting $3 billion from the federally subsidized crop insurance program as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. According to the Des Moines Register, the agreement "slash[ed] $3 billion from the federally subsidized crop insurance program." The measure was part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which also "would suspend the debt limit until March 15, 2017 and increase[d] the discretionary spending cap for fiscal 2016 by $50 billion and for fiscal 2017 by $30 billion, with the increases split equally between defense and non-defense spending" among other provisions." The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 266 to 167. The Senate later passed the bill and the president later signed it into law. [House Vote 579, 10/30/15; Des Moines Register, 10/28/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1314]
The Measure Reduced The Cap On The Overall Rate Of Return For Insurance Providers From 2017 To 2026 According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "require[d] that the [Standard Reinsurance Agreement] be renegotiated by Dec. 31, 2016, and at least once every five years thereafter, and it reduces from 14.5% to 8.9% the cap on the overall rate of return for insurance providers for each fiscal year from 2017 to 2026. CBO estimates that this provision would reduce direct spending by $3 billion over the 10-year period." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
Crop Insurance Is Federally Subsidized To Increase Farmer Participation In The Program and To Reduce The Need For Federal Disaster Assistance. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In an effort to encourage farmer participation in crop insurance and thus reduce the need for federal disaster assistance, the federal crop insurance program subsidizes the purchase of crop insurance policies. Crop insurance is sold only through approved private insurance companies whose losses are reinsured by the Agriculture Department under the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA), which is negotiated between the department and the insurance companies. The SRA, which was last negotiated in 2011, spells out expense reimbursements and risk sharing by the government, including terms for government subsidies and reinsurance on eligible crop insurance contracts. It does not affect the policy premiums paid by farmers." [Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15]
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Has Assured Senate Agriculture Chairman To Reverse Crop Insurance Cuts. According to Roll Call, "Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts has assurances from his leadership to reverse crop insurance cutbacks in the budget and debt limit deal that's currently on the Senate floor. This commitment is in reference to the obvious need to remedy the language adversely affected our nation's farmers and ranchers now included in the bipartisan budget act," the Kansas Republican said Thursday. [...] McConnell affirmed House leadership would work first to reverse the cutbacks as part the omnibus spending debate come December, and that he would work to support that effort to find new offsets for the $3 billion that will not be saved by reversing the crop insurance changes." [Roll Call, 10/29/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Suggest To Repeal Crop Insurance For Organic Crops As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for suggesting the repeal of crop insurance for organic crops. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The 2014 Farm Bill requires the federal government to pay higher prices when making insurance payouts for federally insured organic crops. These higher payments should be repealed." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Lowering The Annual Income Cap For Receiving Benefits From Federal Commodity And Conservation Programs From $1 Million To $950,000. 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 have "reduce[d] 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 $950,000 (the current limit is $1 million in annual AGI)." The House approved the bill by a vote of 216 to 208. A conference report later became law which set the limit at $900,000. [House Vote 353, 7/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Lowering The Annual Income Cap For Receiving Benefits From Federal Commodity And Conservation Programs From $1 Million To $950,000. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against the House's version of the 2013 Farm Bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "reduce[d] 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 $950,000 (the current limit is $1 million in annual AGI)." The House rejected the bill by a vote of 195 to 234. [House Vote 286, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing Farmers With An AGI Between $500,000 And $950,000, But Who Earn Less Than Two-Thirds Of Their Income From Farming, To Receive Federal Commodity And Conservation Program Benefits. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against the House's version of the 2013 Farm Bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "eliminate[d] 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 $950,000 in AGI would be eligible for subsidies regardless of the portion of their income that comes from farming." [House Vote 286, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Limit Federal Crop Insurance Premium Subsidies To Those With An AGI Of Less Than $250,000. In June 2013, Schweikert voted for limiting federal crop insurance premium subsidies to less well-off producers. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "limit[ed] federal crop insurance premium subsidies to producers with adjusted gross income of less than $250,000, limit per-person premium subsidies to $50,000, cap crop insurance providers' reimbursement of administrative and operating expenses in 2013 at $900 million and reduce their rate of return to 12 percent of the retained premium." The underlying legislation was a farm bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 208 to 217. [House Vote 276, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 216; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Preventing $20.5 Billion In Eligibility And Benefit Level Cuts To The State Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Paid For By Reducing Crop Insurance And Delaying Other Agriculture Programs. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the proposed 2013 Farm Bill that, according to the Associated Press, "would have eliminated the SNAP cuts [in the underlying bill] and taken the money from farm subsidies instead." According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment "would eliminate the bill's restrictions on eligibility and benefit levels for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps, which under the bill would reduce spending by $20.5 billion over 10 years." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 188 to 234. [House Vote 256, 6/19/13; Associated Press, 6/19/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/19/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 176; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
As A Result Of Underlying Bill's SNAP Changes, 1.8 Million People Would Lose SNAP Benefits, While Another 1.7 Million Would Have Their Benefits Cut By $90 Per Month. According to a letter posted by the Friends Committee On National Legislation, "Specifically, the House bill would result in at least 1.8 million people losing SNAP benefits entirely, and another 1.7 million people seeing their benefits reduced by about $90 per month. Our nation can ill afford to see SNAP weakened in the farm bill. Benefits are modest, averaging less than $1.50 per person per meal and are already scheduled to drop on November 1, 2013, with termination of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) benefit boost. This reduction, which will impact every SNAP beneficiary, will average about $25 per month for a family of three." [Friends Committee on National Legislation, 6/19/13]
The Amendment Would Have Cut Underlying Bill's Federal Crop Insurance Programs And Cotton Premium Payments To Offset The Cost Of Its SNAP Changes. According to Congressional Quarterly, "To offset the costs of the amendment, it would strike the supplemental coverage option for crop insurance and cap the overall rate of return for crop insurance providers at 12 percent, and delay for one year the start of the peanut revenue crop insurance program and the Stacked Income Protection Plan for cotton and limit the cotton premium payment to 65 percent." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/19/13]
AARP, Unions, And Religious Groups Supported Removing Underlying Bill's "Unconscionable And Harmful" SNAP Cuts. According to a letter posted by the Friends Committee On National Legislation, "We, the undersigned, support Rep. James McGovern's amendment (#146) to restore the $20.5 billion/10 years cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) currently in H.R. 1947[the underlying 2013 House Farm Bill]. As it stands, we oppose H.R. 1947 because it would increase hunger among millions of Americans - people with disabilities, children, seniors and struggling parents - those who work, as well as those who are unemployed or underemployed. At a time when more than one in six Americans struggle to put food on the table, the cuts to SNAP proposed in the House farm bill are unconscionable and harmful." The letter was signed by the AARP, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and numerous religious and social welfare groups. [Friends Committee on National Legislation, 6/19/13]
Amendment Opponents Said Tighter Eligibility Requirements For SNAP Would Ensure That Its Benefits Go Only To Those Who Need Them, Saving The Government $20.5 Billion. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said, "We're of the same heart here. We don't want people who need them and people who deserve them to go without SNAP benefits. On the other hand, we don't want to hand these out to people that are gaming the system, so to speak. So we've tightened the qualifications down on SNAP, and we've done so for a number of reasons. One of them is reports of a neon sign up on a tattoo parlor that says, ``We take EBT cards.'' You also have the report of an individual who bailed himself out of jail with an EBT card. I don't think that we want to borrow money from the Chinese to fund such a thing. I think those people can figure out how to bail themselves out and how to pay for their own tattoos. Instead, we tighten this down, and it's a savings of $20.5 billion. It was a tough enough negotiation to get to that point. I don't know what the gentleman from Massachusetts would say is enough, and maybe I don't know what I would say is too little. Someplace in between his opinion and mine is where we've settled today on this $20.5 billion that came out of this top line that is roughly 80 percent of the overall benefits that are in this bill." [Congressional Record, 6/19/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Reduce The Premium Subsidy In The Crop Insurance Program From 60 Percent To 50 Percent. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support reducing subsidies for crop insurance, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The savings options outlined below illustrate some of the necessary steps toward a limited, constitutional government that lives within its means. [...] The federal government subsidizes about 60 percent of the premiums paid for this program. Beginning in FY 2014, the federal government's subsidy would be reduced to 50 percent of the crop insurance premium. This would result in a savings of $13 billion over ten years." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2018: Schweikert Voted To End The Biomass And Bioenergy Subsidy Program. In May 2018, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "repeal[ed] the Department of Agriculture biomass and bioenergy subsidy programs." The underlying legislation was the 2018 House GOP farm bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 75 to 340. [House Vote 197, 5/17/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/17/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 619; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Phase Crop Subsidies Out By 2030. In May 2018, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "phase[d] out agricultural crop subsidies by 2030." The underlying legislation was the farm bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 34 to 380. [House Vote 194, 5/17/18; Congressional Quarterly, 5/17/18; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 607; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating Subsidies For Wool And Mohair. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating Certain Crop Subsidies For Maple Syrup. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating The Specialty Crop Technical Assistance. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating The Specialty Crop Block Grants. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating Crop Insurance For Organic Crops. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating The National Organic Certification Cost Share Program. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating The Biomass Crop Assistance Program. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Cutting Crop Insurance Subsidies. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating The Agriculture Risk Coverage Program And The Price Loss Coverage Program. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Allow Citrus Crop Farmers To Expense Replacement Crops Damaged By Natural Disasters. In September 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "allow[ed] citrus growers with at least a majority interest in replanted citrus crops to, under the tax code, expense the cost of replanting crops damaged or destroyed by natural disaster. The measure would [have] allow[ed] the expensing the costs of replanting such crops through Dec. 31, 2025." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House agreed to the motion, thereby passing the bill, by a vote of 400 to 20. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 528, 9/21/16; Congressional Quarterly, 9/21/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3957]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate Specialty Crop Block Grants Program (SCGGP) As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for eliminating Specialty Crop Block Grants. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The SCBGP provides grants to state agriculture agencies to support specialty crops. This special interest subsidy program is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars and should be repealed." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for eliminating the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center provides grants to support sheep and goat producers, including financing annual trips to Australia. This mature industry does not require taxpayer dollars to enhance its production and marketing. This program should be repealed." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The Biomass Crop Assistance Program As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for repealing the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). According to the Republican Study Committee, in its budget, the "BCAP would be eliminated beginning in FY 2016, saving $109 million over ten years, according to CBO." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The National Organic Certification Cost Share Program As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for eliminating the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program subsidizes organic producers up to 75 percent of their organic certification costs. This special interest program was highlighted as a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars by the RSC Sunset Caucus in 2010 and should be eliminated." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate Subsidies For Wool And Mohair As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for subsidies for Wool and Mohair. According to the Republican Study Committee, "Federal subsidies for wool and mohair were first established in 1947. There is no compelling economic or strategic reason to continue these subsidies. Beginning in FY 2016, subsidies would be eliminated, saving $10 million over ten years, according to CBO." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Transferring $5.5 Million From The Farm Service Agency To The Food Safety And Inspection Service. In June 2014, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the FY 2015 Agriculture, Rural Development and FDA Appropriations bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] increase[d] by $5.5 million the amount provided by the bill for the Food Safety and Inspection Service and [would have] decrease[d] the amount provided for the Farm Service Agency by the same amount." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 150 to 272. [House Vote 303, 6/11/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/11/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 858; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4800]
CRS: The Farm Service Agency Is Both A "Lender Of Last Resort," Providing Direct Loans And Guarantees For Farmers Unable To Obtain A Loan Commercially; And A "Lender Of First Opportunity," Providing Loans To New And "Socially Disadvantaged" Farmers Not Yet Able To Obtain Business Credit Commercially. According to the Congressional Research Service, "USDA's Farm Service Agency is a lender of last resort because it makes direct farm ownership and operating loans to family-sized farms that are unable to obtain credit elsewhere. FSA also guarantees timely payment of principal and interest on qualified loans made by commercial lenders such as commercial banks and FCS [the Farm Credit System]. [...] Prior to the banking crisis in 2008, FSA usually made and guaranteed about $3.5 billion of farm loans annually. Supplemental appropriations during the financial crisis raised FSA loan activity to about $6.0 billion in FY2010. In FY2012, appropriations supported about $4.8 billion of FSA direct loans and guarantees. Direct loans are limited to $300,000 per borrower, guaranteed loans to $1,302,000 per borrower (adjusted annually for inflation). Direct emergency loans are available for disasters. Part of the FSA loan program is reserved for beginning farmers and ranchers (7 U.S.C. 1994 (b)(2)). For direct loans, 75% of the funding for farm ownership loans and 50% of operating loans are reserved for the first 11 months of the fiscal year. For guaranteed loans, 40% is reserved for ownership loans and farm operating loans for the first half of the fiscal year. Funds are also targeted to 'socially disadvantaged' farmers by race, gender, and ethnicity (7 U.S.C. 2003). Because of these provisions, FSA also is known as lender of first opportunity for borrowers who are not yet creditworthy for regular commercial business loans" (footnotes omitted). [CRS Report #RS21977, 2/7/13]
FSA Administers Multiple Agricultural Conservation Programs, Including The Conservation Reserve Program And The Source Water Protection Plan. According to the Farm Service Agency's website, "The United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) oversees a number of voluntary conservation-related programs. These programs work to address a large number of farming and ranching related conservation issues including: Drinking water protection; Reducing soil erosion; Wildlife habitat preservation; Preservation and restoration of forests and wetlands; [and] Aiding farmers whose farms are damaged by natural disasters." Among the programs then listed are "The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays a yearly rental payment in exchange for farmers removing environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and planting species that will improve environmental quality" and "The Source Water Protection Program (SWPP) is designed to protect surface and ground water used as drinking water by rural residents. The program targets states based on their water quality and population." [Farm Service Agency website, 4/11/14]
2013: Schweikert Was Absent During A Vote On Repealing Direct Payments To Farmers And Replacing Them With New Farm-Risk Management Programs, Saving Government An Estimated $22.9 Billion. In July 2013, Schweikert missed a vote on the House's version the agriculture program provisions of the 2013 Farm Bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would "repeal[] the Direct Payments, Countercyclical Payments and Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) programs and replaces them with a new farm 'safety net' program that CBO estimates would save $22.9 billion over 10 years. In place of these programs, the measure creates a new farm risk-management program under which producers of covered commodities who plant at least 10 acres could choose between two options: a Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program to guard against deep, multiple-year price declines and a Revenue Loss Coverage (RLC) program to help producers who experience a 15% or more loss in revenue." A conference report later became law, which also repealed the Direct Payments and ACRE programs, but established different, but related, replacements. [House Vote 353, 7/11/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642]
The 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]
The New Farm Risk-Management Program Included Coverage For Both Farmers Who Had A 15 Percent Loss In Revenue And Farmers Who Had Multiple Year Price Declines. According to Congressional Quarterly, discussing the full farm and nutrition bill that the House rejected in June 2013, "In place of these programs, the measure creates a new farm risk-management program under which producers of covered commodities who plant at least 10 acres could choose between two options: a Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program to guard against deep, multiple-year price declines and a Revenue Loss Coverage (RLC) program to help producers who experience a 15% or more loss in revenue." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
The New Farm Risk-Management Program Was Meant To Replace Direct Subsidy Programs And Become Farmers' Primary Method Of Risk Management. According to Congressional Quarterly, discussing the full farm and nutrition bill that the House rejected in June 2013, "[The bill] also modifies crop insurance programs to better help farmers and ranchers in their risk management (see below). With the repeal of direct and countercyclical payments, the goal of those crop insurance changes and new PLC and RLC programs is to make loss coverage and insurance the primary methods of risk management. ." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
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 Repealing Direct Payments To Farmers And Replacing Them With New Farm-Risk Management Programs. In June 2013, Schweikert voted against the House's version of the 2013 Farm Bill, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "repeal[ed] the Direct Payments, Countercyclical Payments and Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) programs and replaces them with a new farm 'safety net' program that CBO estimates would save $22.9 billion over 10 years. In place of these programs, the measure creates a new farm risk-management program under which producers of covered commodities who plant at least 10 acres could choose between two options: a Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program to guard against deep, multiple-year price declines and a Revenue Loss Coverage (RLC) program to help producers who experience a 15% or more loss in revenue." The House rejected the bill by a vote of 195 to 234. [House Vote 286, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
The New "Safety-Net" Farm Risk-Management Program Would Reduce Spending By $22.9 Billion Over 10 Years Compared To Current System of Direct Payments. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill repeals the Direct Payments, Countercyclical Payments and Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) programs and replaces them with a new farm 'safety net' program that CBO estimates would save $22.9 billion over 10 years." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
The New Farm Risk-Management Program Included Coverage For Both Farmers Who Had A 15 Percent Loss In Revenue And Farmers Who Had Multiple Year Price Declines. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In place of these programs, the measure creates a new farm risk-management program under which producers of covered commodities who plant at least 10 acres could choose between two options: a Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program to guard against deep, multiple-year price declines and a Revenue Loss Coverage (RLC) program to help producers who experience a 15% or more loss in revenue." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
The New Farm Risk-Management Program Was Meant To Replace Direct Subsidy Programs And Become Farmers' Primary Method Of Risk Management. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It also modifies crop insurance programs to better help farmers and ranchers in their risk management (see below). With the repeal of direct and countercyclical payments, the goal of those crop insurance changes and new PLC and RLC programs is to make loss coverage and insurance the primary methods of risk management. ." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/18/13]
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]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center. In June 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "strike[n] a provision of the bill that would extend through 2018 the $10 million annual authorization for the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center and replace it with language to repeal the law that created the center." The underlying legislation was a 2013 farm bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 235 to 192. The House later adopted the underlying legislation, but the final version of the bill did not eliminate, but modified the program. [House Vote 279, 6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/13; Congress.gov, H. Rept. 113-333; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2642; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 218; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1947]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate Wool And Mohair Subsidies. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support eliminating direct payments to farmers, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The savings options outlined below illustrate some of the necessary steps toward a limited, constitutional government that lives within its means. [...] The federal government first enacted price support for wool and mohair in 1947, and the National Wool Act of 1954 established direct payments for wool and mohair producers for the purpose of encouraging production of wool as an essential and strategic commodity. This support was last reauthorized in 2008 despite a complete lack of a compelling need for government support of mohair. Beginning in FY2014, wool and mohair subsidies would be eliminated, saving taxpayers $40 million over ten years." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The Direct Payment Program To Farmers. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support eliminating direct payments to farmers, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The savings options outlined below illustrate some of the necessary steps toward a limited, constitutional government that lives within its means. [...] Direct payments are currently the largest commodity program in the Farm Bill, and are capped at close to $5 billion annually. [...] The RSC budget assumes that savings from the elimination of this program will be used for deficit reduction and not for the creation of any new agricultural entitlement program. Elimination of this program saves $31 billion over ten years." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
Direct Payments Were A Set Payment Per Acre Made To Grain And Cotton Farmers Regardless Of The Value Of Their Crop Based On What Was Farmed In The 1980s. According to NPR, "Direct Payment subsidies are basically money the government pays to grain and cotton farmers. It's a set payment per acre, regardless of how much they grow (crop yield) or how much the crop brings in at market. Eligibility and amount are based on how many acres and what kind of crop they farmed way back in the 1980s." [NPR, 10/4/11]
Direct Payments Were Designed To Support Farmers After Price Supports Were Eliminated And Farmers Had Several Years Of Low Income. According to NPR, "Wait, why are we writing farmers checks regardless of their income? Well, these payments were conceived as a way to support farmers after the 1996 Farm Bill got rid of prices supports. That law had propped up grain prices for 60 plus years. Congress axed prices supports, saying the free market and export demand would be enough to keep farms alive. But, shortly after that, farmers entered some lean years, and Congress came up with direct payments to help farmers rally." [NPR, 10/4/11]