WASHINGTON -- The Senate could vote as early as Wednesday on an amendment that would reduce price supports for sugar production. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., whose state has about 12,000 workers employed by sugar cane farms and sugar refineries, is vowing a fight. Last year, a similar amendment was defeated, when it secured 46 votes in the 100-member Senate....
WASHINGTON -- The Senate could vote as early as Wednesday on an amendment that would reduce price supports for sugar production. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., whose state has about 12,000 workers employed by sugar cane farms and sugar refineries, is vowing a fight.
Last year, a similar amendment was defeated, when it secured 46 votes in the 100-member Senate.
"We are going to be defending very strongly the sugar program that helps maintain robust production of sugar cane and sugar beets etc., at no cost to the taxpayer," Landrieu said. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., is also a defender of the sugar program.
But three senators, two Republicans and a Democrat, backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are pushing legislation to phase out the current minimum price of 22.9 cents per pound. Opponents said it keeps prices artificially high.
"The sugar program is broken and this is a smart, common sense fix," said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., whose state is the home to Lindt chocolates' U.S. operations. "American families are footing the bill for an outdated program that offers a sweet deal to a small group of sugar growers and processors. All the while, we're losing manufacturing jobs all over the country as a result."
The Senate farm bill, like a House bill that cleared committee last week, would eliminate direct payments to farmers, but make up for that by increasing other subsidy programs such as crop insurance, particularly for cotton, rice and peanuts.
"It is easy to take agriculture for granted," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., the bill's chief sponsor. "It is easy for many of us to forget the food we eat doesn't come from the supermarket, as some folks may think. The food we eat comes from the skill and the efforts of the men and women who work hard from sunrise to sunset, day in and day out, to put food on our tables."
Stabenow said the bill would cut farm spending, but continue a safety net for farmers.
In addition to sugar, a battle is expected over the refusal of the Senate sponsors, like their counterparts in the House, to include a provision backed by the Obama administration to switch U.S. food aid from being reliant mostly on shipments from U.S. farmers to more of a voucher system in which food commodities would be purchased abroad.
Also likely to be debated is the federal food stamp program, which benefits 968,000 Louisiana residents, or about one in every five state residents.
The House bill would cut the program, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), by almost $21 billion over the next 10 years, cutting off benefits to nearly 2 million of the current 47.8 million recipients nationally, according to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Senate bill cuts food stamp funding by $4 billion over 10 years.
Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee said the program has become too big.
"The (Farm bill) reforms the SNAP program for the first time since the welfare reforms of 1996," said Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas, R-Okla. "Our reforms rein in the cost of the program by enforcing the asset and income tests, ending recruitment activities that increase enrollment, and preventing states from circumventing the law to receive greater federal funding. We tighten restrictions to prevent lottery winners and traditional college students from participating in the program."
Rep. Juan Vargas, D-Calif., quoted the Bible's Book of Matthew in arguing the cuts would make it more difficult for families to keep food on the table. "I'm a Christian, and this chapter talks about how you treat the least among us," Vargas said.
The Senate Tuesday rejected an amendment that would have restored $4 billion in food stamp cuts over 10 years included in the Senate bill.
The Obama administration's proposal to scale back dramatically in direct food aid to foreign nations is being fought by a coalition of farmers and shippers who contend the current program is efficient and provides invaluable benefits as grateful recipients open up boxes of food with a Produced in the USA insignia.
The proposal is opposed by Landrieu and Vitter.
"The Food for Peace program has brought tremendous benefit to Louisiana's ports and agricultural community, and Sen. Landrieu will continue to be supportive of the program as we look for ways to encourage agricultural development abroad," said Matt Lehner, Landrieu's spokesman.
The Obama administration isn't giving up on the proposal, arguing that with budget limitations, the United States can feed 4 million more people for what it pays now to ship food overseas if the change is made to switch the program from mostly food shipments to financial assistance.
"Buying food locally can speed the arrival of aid by as many as 14 weeks--making up precious time when every day can mean the difference between life and death," said U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Rajiv Shah. "It can also cost much less--as much as 50 percent less for cereals alone. In complex environments such as Syria and Somalia, which are increasingly the kind of crises where we need to provide assistance, these more flexible tools are invaluable."