The House on Wednesday voted down an attack on federal checkoff programs led by a pair of Republicans who argued the farmer-funded research and promotion efforts fail to fully disclose how they spend their revenue.
An amendment aimed at barring USDA from operating the programs was defeated overwhelmingly Wednesday afternoon, 49-377, as the GOP-controlled House completed debate on a fiscal 2024 spending bill for USDA, FDA and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
In the afternoon voting, the House also soundly rejected an amendment that would bar USDA from requiring electronic tracking of cattle and narrowly defeated a proposal to cut off funding to USDA’s Equity Commission.
The votes were largely symbolic, since it’s not clear that the FY24 spending bill has enough GOP support to pass the House, and it would be dead on arrival in the Senate regardless.
The bill relies on $8 billion in rescissions of pandemic assistance and Inflation Reduction Act allocations to USDA. Without those rescissions, which are unlikely to happen, the FY24 bill’s total funding level would be reduced to its 2001 level, according to Democrats.
However, the amendment debate did test support for the checkoff programs, as well as for a range of USDA agencies and programs that hard-line, populist conservatives tried to cut even more than the bill already would. In votes early Wednesday, the House overwhelmingly rejected deep cuts in a range of programs from the Office of Civil Rights to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
GOP Reps. Victoria Spartz of Indiana and Tom Massie of Kentucky led the attack on checkoff programs.
“If you want to force farmers to pay some money, I think farmers need to know where their money goes," Spartz said, suggesting the programs “promote very wealthy jobs for very people in fancy suits” rather than the commodities produced by farmers.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., led the defense of checkoffs, arguing that the opposition was led by animal rights activists that he said ultimately want to reduce consumption of animal products.
“These programs are voluntarily created by producers, for producers, and they don't receive taxpayer dollars for any of their activities, or for USDA oversight of their activities,” Thompson said.
Still, Thompson signaled a willingness to continue discussing oversight of the programs during developing of a new farm bill. “Increasing transparency is not unacceptable,” Thompson said. “I just see the farm bill process as the appropriate path forward for that.”
Only 28 Republicans and 21 Democrats ultimately voted for the amendment.
Legislation known as the OFF Act has been introduced in the House and Senate to impose a range of new restrictions, including reporting and auditing requirements, on checkoff programs.
Another farm bill-related amendment, proposed by House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Kelly, R-Pa., to stop operation of the price support program for sugar was never offered during the debate.
Don't miss a beat! Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! For the latest on what’s happening in agriculture in Washington, D.C. and around the country, click here.
Ahead of the debate, the American Sugar Alliance said that amendment would “jeopardy the safety net provided to fight against predatory foreign trade practices, including subsidies that enable overproduction and dumping of sugar onto the global market below the cost of production.”
Thompson also argued successfully against the proposal by Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., to bar USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service from requiring electronic IDs for cattle and bison. The amendment failed, 97-336.
Hageman called the APHIS plan a “dangerous precedent” that would be a “paperwork nightmare,” while encouraging more vertical integration and ultimately making producers “nothing but serfs to the big ranches and packers.”
Thompson argued that “traceability resources are paramount when dealing with an animal disease outbreak.”
The APHIS proposal would help producers by reducing quarantine times in cases of outbreaks, he said.
The House rejected a proposal by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., to cut off funding to USDA's Equity Commission, 210-216, but narrowly approved, 217-214, a Boebert amendment to bar USDA from using funds for LGBTQ-related courses, books and study guides.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
