Republicans Hope Trade Fears Fuel Farm Bill

Lawmakers from agriculture-heavy districts are nervously eyeing the looming tariff war with China.

Soybeans sorted by weight at Taylor Seed Farm near White Cloud, Kan., on April 5
AP Photo/Orlin Wagner
April 17, 2018, 8 p.m.

With the farm bill only a week old and already being written off as an impossible feat this year, House Republicans have begun selling it in a new way: The bill, they say, could protect farmers if they incur losses in the event of a trade war.

Republicans, particularly those who represent agriculture-heavy districts and states, have said President Trump’s announced tariffs against China and the Asian powerhouse’s proposed retaliatory tariffs have caused anxiety in U.S. fields and ranches.

Pork, sorghum, and soy stand to be hit particularly hard should China follow through on its threat of retaliation. As a result, Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway said he has tried to convey to the president that his trade negotiations should be handled swiftly.

“My constant message is, ‘Mr. President, don’t screw it up, but get it done quickly,’” Conaway said. “I try to help remind anybody that’s going over to say so.”

That’s just what the message was at a meeting of agriculture-focused members at the White House last week. Furthermore, some members told the administration that the farm bill could be critical in the event of a long trade war.

“I pointed out to him, and I don’t think I’m speaking out of turn, that it’s important that we do a new farm bill or we extend the present farm bill, because we need the safety net in the farm bill as we go through what will be some turbulent times as this negotiation,” said Rep. Frank Lucas, the former chairman of the Agriculture Committee. “I think he understood that, and I think everybody in the room agreed with that.”

Trump reportedly proposed subsidies for farmers in the event they are financially harmed by a trade war, but some Republican members at the meeting retorted that farmers do not want welfare.

Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota—a Senate candidate who represents the congressional district with the largest acreage of soybean farms, according to the Agriculture Department's 2012 agricultural census—suggested a more nuanced response. “Farmers’ message over to the president isn’t so much that we don’t want any subsidies; the message is we prefer trade to a handout,” he said.

Cramer said the farm bill could be a good vehicle for those subsidies, and that Democrats may also be receptive to that message. He said he has heard some hand-wringing among his Democratic colleagues who are worried that casting a vote against a farm bill could lead to political repercussions against them in the upcoming midterm elections.

“It does present a vehicle for some sort of assistance. Unfortunately, I think that’s less than fortunate because the farm bill is tricky enough, and it’s not like it’s gotten less tricky,” he said. “Although I will tell you, if there’s something a little extra in there for protection in a protracted trade war, it makes it even harder for Democrats from farm states to just say, ‘Hell no.’ A lot of them are in a tough spot.”

Democrats have by and large disengaged from the farm-bill talks over objections to provisions that would impose work requirements on low-income citizens who collect aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps.

Rep. Collin Peterson, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, told AgWeb that he’s “not gonna trust one damn thing [committee Republicans] say from now on,” because they were not forthright about what they would do to the SNAP program.

The House bill will be marked up in committee Wednesday and faces hurdles to being passed in the House. In the Senate, it is likely a nonstarter, because any bill would need Democratic votes to pass.

Meanwhile, members are still pushing back, albeit gently for the most part, against the president’s tariffs, and urging him to negotiate with China to minimize the chances the country will impose retaliatory tariffs on the agriculture sector.

“There’s a level of anxiety in the discussion on trade,” said Rep. Glenn Thompson, a member of the Agriculture Committee. “But the administration I think understands that, so to speak, agriculture is low-hanging fruit and that’s the first place a country will look for retaliatory tariffs.”

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts told National Journal that Trump placed U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, in charge of taking another look at his trade policies on agriculture.

“I said, ‘Mr. President, are you enabling me to go out and talk to the aggie press and everybody else that’s worried about trade and tariffs, that you’re going to take another look?’ He said, ‘Yes, we’re going to deputize Bob Lighthizer and Larry Kudlow,’” Roberts said.

On Friday, a group of more than 40 House Republicans sent a letter to Trump asking that he support farmers, particularly those who work with pork, soy, and sorghum, if they take a financial hit due to Chinese retaliation.

“It is no secret that some of your strongest support comes from communities that rely on agriculture for survival,” the letter read. “All our hard-won gains in Farm Country, however, are at serious risk of being wiped away because China is threatening retaliation against American farmers.”

Alex Rogers contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
SHE IS AMBASSADOR TO CANADA AND A GOP DONOR
Kelly Craft Nominated for UN Post
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
1 weeks ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 weeks ago
THE DETAILS

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login