WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts today voted against final passage of the 2014 Farm Bill conference report because he said it goes backward toward protectionist subsidy programs, instead of forward with innovative and responsible solutions for producers and the taxpayer. The report was approved by the Senate with a vote of 68-32 and now heads to the president’s desk to be signed into law.
Monday night, Roberts again spoke on the Senate floor regarding his concerns with the conference report, especially for Kansas farmers and ranchers.
The following is text of Senator Roberts’ remarks from his floor speech Monday as prepared for delivery:
I am here today to go beyond my philosophical concerns with the direction of the legislation and will instead focus on how the 2014 farm bill will negatively impact agriculture in Kansas, my home state.
Remember, the Farm Bill is not a simple reauthorization or continuation of our nation’s farm and food programs. We have already done that once with a one year extension of the 2008 bill.
Instead, the legislation before us should be a whole sale rewrite of the programs and policies at the Department of Agriculture.
When this bill is signed into law by the President and fully implemented, producers will have to make choices among new safety net programs, new regulations, and rules.
Some of these choices will happen only once and will be irrevocable – they cannot change – for the next five years.
We owe it to these farmers, ranchers – small businesses owners – as well as the next generation of producers, to get this legislation right.
Unfortunately, I believe that Congress has missed the mark, and that the conference report goes backwards towards protectionist subsidy programs, instead of forward with innovative and responsible solutions.
I am not alone in that assessment, as reported by the Kansas City Star on Friday, January 31st – “All four Kansas House members voted no — on what is arguably the single most important piece of federal legislation in Kansas.”
That should grab everyone in America’s attention – the entire House delegation from the wheat state – was united in opposing this version of the farm bill.
It is not that we do not appreciate agriculture or the producers and their families in our state, it is entirely the opposite – we care so much that after three years of work we will not settle for supporting backwards legislation “just to get something done.”
I call it a look in the rear view mirror.
I understand that compromises were made, but I cannot support a bill that marches backwards towards producers making decisions based off of government subsidies, retaliation against our livestock producers, and once again agriculture taking a disproportionate cut in spending compared to federal nutrition programs.