The weeks Closer Looks focuses on US HR 2 – The 2018 Farm Bill.
Why does a self-professed hater of Congress (well, more of a hater of federal lobbying as a profession for myself – I don’t know how they do it everyday) want to take a closer look at a federal bill? First, it could actually pass, so that alone sets it apart from most Federal bills. When the Farm Bill is due for reauthorization, it is usually one of the few “must pass” pieces of legislation, though given the divisions both within the Republican party and between Republicans and Democrats, the Farm Bill might not pass. Second, the Farm Bill, if it passes in its current form, will have significant impact on the states. Certainly more than most pieces of federal legislation. And third, I had some requests.
Let’s start with the failure of the House to pass this version of the Farm Bill. Earlier this week, the House voted against passing the bill 198-213. Thirty Republicans joined every Democrat in voting against it. While the Democratic votes were probably centered o their philosophical issues with the bill, the Republican votes, mostly from the conservative House Freedom Caucus, were reportedly about immigration. Caucus Member Jim Jordan (OH-4) was quoted as saying, “Some members have concerns about the farm bill. but that wasn’t my main focus. My main focus was making sure we do immigration policy right.”
With that in mind, I pulled three sections from the Farm Bill for a closer look.
Title IV – NUTRITION; Subtitle A – Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; § 4015 – Workforce Solutions (a) Conditions of Participation. This section is among the most controversial of all the Farm Bill sections. It expands the work requirements for SNAP, the Federal benefit program better known as food stamps, recipients. The benefit portion of the food-stamp program is fully-funded through the Federal government. States administer the program, and split the administration cost with the Federal government. The proposed language requires most adults between 18 and 59 to work part-time or participate in a training program. The increase will impact between 5-7 million, of the roughly 40 million people who receive food stamps.
The controversy is over whether or not the expanded work requirements (which are 20 hours per week through 2025 then increasing to 25 hours, or enrolled in a qualified training program), which have been a key part of Republican welfare reform proposals for years, will keep the program from serving as the emergency safety-net program it is mean to be. Democrats argue that the requirements push people off the program, thus hurting families in need.
The lesser-publicized piece of this is an increase of the work training program from $9oM to $1B. This is a key piece of the Republican argument, as they claim that getting people on the program into better-paying jobs is the key to getting them off the program altogether. The issue for states is that the new language requires states provide a training spot for every eligible adult, though it is not clear that any state has the capacity to do so.
The House Agriculture Committee (who introduced the bill) and the Congressional Budget Office seem to agree that the changes will remove around 1 million people from the food stamp program over the next decade. They differ on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Democrats will argue it is because they were forced off, while Republicans will say it was because they found work. It is the age-old giving a man fish vs teaching a man to fish argument, and it is not likely to end soon.
Title XI – MISCELLANEOUS; Subtitle G – Protecting Interstate Commerce; § 11701 – Prohibition against interference by State and local governments with production or manufacture of items in other States & 11702 – Federal cause of action to challenge State regulation of interstate commerce. This is the so-called “King Amendment,” named for Congressman Steve King (IA-4).
These sections, depending on who you ask, would use Federal preemption, which means the law of a higher level of government (in this case Federal) supersedes a lower level (in this case State or Local) government, to force states to allow agricultural products approved in other states to be sold in all states. It would also create a Federal cause of action to challenge states that don’t (meaning states will be sued in Federal court). It stems from a ban in California on the sale of certain eggs (the egg issue is one that states are also dealing with on the state level – An Iowa bill was recently signed which would force certain grocers to sell non-cage-free eggs and thirteen states are challenging laws in California and Massachusetts that would ban the sale of certain eggs and meat in those states).
There are many sides against this amendment. Animal cruelty groups are against the amendment because they believe that the way some animals are raised for eggs, milk and meat is inhumane. Police groups are against it because they believe states should be able to set their own animal cruelty standards. Many groups are against it because it sets up a race for the bottom in terms of food safety standards, animal cruelty standards, environmental standards and more. I guess that many activists groups are against it, simply because it makes their work harder. I would hope states’ rights groups would be against it because, well because it tramples on states’ rights.
The bill also takes choice away from businesses. Wal-Mart and Kroger promised to switch to cage-free eggs. This bill, along with the Iowa bill, could put an end to that choice.
Trampling states’ rights, forcing government regulations on businesses, and opening up of the possibility of litigation is not what anyone would expect from Rep. King. Though protecting the interest of Iowa farmers (the largest U.S. producer of eggs) probably is.
Title IX – HORTICULTURE; Subtitle B – Regulatory Reform – State Lead Agencies Under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); Part I ; § 9101 – Recognition and role of State lead agencies. FIFRA is the section of code that regulates pesticides at the Federal level, and all states have similar legislation that regulates them further on the state level. If the Farm Bill passes in its current form, the changes will have an impact on some states, but and even more so for anti-pesticide activists.
Section 9101 (b) (3) – Condition on More Restrictive Regulation – will be changed by striking ‘‘A State may’’ and inserting ‘‘A State, but not a political subdivision of a State, may…” What does that mean? For the state, it means that only the state can change state’s pesticide law. That is not a significant change. Forty-three states have already passed some level of state-wide preemption.
So, if 43 states already follow this, how big of an impact will it actually have in the seven that don’t (which incidentally are Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, Vermont, though I would have argued Maryland already had state-wide preemption). The answer could be a lot. In two of the seven states that don’t have preemption, pesticide activists helped pass local pesticide bans (Portland, ME and Montgomery County, MD). While the Maryland ban was overturned in state court, the Federal change could possibly overturn the Portland ban, and more importantly end the chance of similar bans being enacted in other localities around the country.
Activists originally turned to local advocacy for a few reasons. One being that they were running out of states to try to enact pesticide bans. Two being that they were losing when they did try to pass these bans. And three being that local bans are the hardest to fight. Just as activists and advocates began to focus on the state level due to inactivity in Congress and more welcoming legislatures, pesticide activists found the need to focus on localities, because a state strategy simply wasn’t working anymore. Local bans are difficult to fight because they are difficult to track, especially if you are organized at the national or state level. But this strategy becomes moot if the Farm Bill passes, because once this becomes law, it will be very difficult to change.
About the Author – Michael O’Brien is the founder and principal of MOB Advocacy. He has more than ten years experience as a state and local lobbyist. Michael has lobbied governors, mayors, legislators, state and local agencies and regulators in more than 40 states.
About MOB Advocacy – MOB Advocacy is a full-service, nationally-scoped state and local government relations firm. We design and implement legislative, regulatory and procurement solutions tailored to meet any organization’s unique needs and specific goals.
Our clients range from established corporations, tech start-ups, to nationally recognized non-profits and advocacy groups. We provide a full range of services from national strategy, monitoring, direct lobbying, grassroots and procurement and we cover a wide array of issues, including education, environment and healthcare.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.