Source: POLITICO'S MORNING AGRICULTURE 5/17/18

Defenders of farm policy status quo avoided an array of farm bill amendments attempting to chip away at crop insurance and other subsidies as the House Rules Committee left out a number of controversial amendments introduced by conservatives and Democrats who have long sought big changes, report Pro Ag's Helena Bottemiller Evich and Liz Crampton.

Instead of waving through amendments attempting to limit crop insurance premium subsidies and commodity payments, and reduce the target rate of return on investments for crop insurance companies, the committee cleared an amendment from Rep. Tom McClintock (D-Calif.) that would phase out agricultural subsidies over time. House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions said the McClintock amendment is considered a catchall proposal that he believes addresses the goals of the various amendments introduced by other members.

Conservative angst: The lack of reform amendments is not likely to go over well with conservative groups, which have already criticized the bill, H.R. 2 (115), for not reining in subsidies. "Must be missing some amendments to be considered for House #farmbill," tweeted Daren Bakst, the lead on ag policy for the Heritage Foundation, late Wednesday night. "I mean legislators couldn't possibly care this little about the cronyism and dependence created by out of control farm handouts. Right?"

Tension on the House floor: The farm bill debate got off to a heated start Wednesday with Democrats forcefully opposing it and Republicans warning against amendments that could threaten the bill's fate in the House. "Our farmers and our people need us," pleaded Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.).

Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) called the legislation a "harm bill" — a moniker echoed by several Democrats — and said Republicans were never willing to let Democrats engage. "When Democrats arrived ready to work, the doors were shackled shut," she said.
Rep. Collin Peterson, ranking member of the House Ag Committee, said breaking up the traditional bipartisan coalition was a "huge mistake" and that "It does not bode well for farm and food legislation to come. No party can do this alone. It's too big of a job."

The most heated exchange by far came when Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) delivered an emotional speech in which he emphatically called the farm bill "racist."

"This is a racist farm bill, make no mistake about it," he said. Scott was not referring to SNAP changes, though he has in the past said he believes some support stricter work requirements because of misguided, racially charged stereotypes. The Democrat accused the House Agriculture Committee of not properly funding his initiative to create new scholarship programs at 1890s land-grant universities aimed at helping African-American students who pursue careers in agriculture. The farm bill package included Scott's bill but did not call for mandatory funding. "They took the money out, just like they did back in the 1890s."

House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway countered that the mandatory funding had never been in the bill. The exchange is here.

Debate resumes: Farm bill watchers are likely in for a couple of long days as the House is scheduled for at least five hours of debate starting Thursday. That will likely continue into Friday. A controversial sugar amendment from Rep. Virginia Foxx was given 20 minutes of debate, and the remaining amendments, 10 minutes each. Members are slated to consider some 50 amendments.

Could an effort to rein in sugar policy kill the farm bill? Foxx told POLITICO on Wednesday she thinks she has enough votes to pass the sugar overhaul proposal. The same evening, Conaway (R-Texas) told reporters that it will be shot down, and Democrats are expected to help with that effort. If Foxx's provision does succeed, Conaway has pledged to whip votes against the farm bill, Pro Ag's Catherine Boudreau reports.

In the last week, Foxx has rolled back certain parts of her proposal compared with a bipartisan version introduced last year, known as the Sugar Policy Modernization Act, H.R. 4265 (115), in hopes of attracting additional support from lawmakers.

The North Carolina Republican decided to drop one of the most controversial parts of her proposal: the Agriculture Department's non-recourse marketing loans for sugar processors, which guarantee a price for the crop and accept forfeitures as repayment. The amendment would still reduce loan rates and get rid of production limits, as well as give the Agriculture secretary greater flexibility in granting imports of sugar. It would also end a program allowing the government to sell surplus sweetener to biofuel producers.