Normal 0 false false false

Kansas is the nation's No. 1 wheat producer. It's known as the breadbasket of thenation.

Yet, all four Republican Kansas representatives in a state where agriculture is the backbone of the economy voted against the farm bill.

In fact, according to the New York Times, which analyzed votes back to the 1950s, it is the first time all Kansas representatives have voted against a farm bill.

The bill is expected to cost $956.4 billion over the next decade. About 80 percent goes to food stamps.

"Eastern Kansans know I have been a strong advocate for the passage of a long term, five-year Farm Bill,which would provide certainty and stability for those who produce food, fuel,and fiber for the world," said Rep. Lynn Jenkins in a statement defending her vote. "The final conference report was full of missed opportunities and was one I could not support."

Jenkins also noted concern about Country-of-Origin Labeling, as did Rep. Mike Pompeo, who, in a press release, warned the bill would leave Kansas producers vulnerable to global trade disputes while failing to address concerns about Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration and Country-of-Origin Labeling.

"This legislation will cause serious trade and regulatory problems for our state's livestock producers. Washington must not ignore how important livestock is to our Kansas economy."

A day before the House vote, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association released a statement Tuesday saying it opposed the Farm Bill theway it is presented because of its mandatory country-of-origin labeling. The group does contribute to Pompeo and Jenkin's campaign.

As for Big First District Congressman Tim Huelskamp, no food stamp reform remains his top reason for voting no.

"This program is in desperate need of reform, and yet this bill makes only nominal changes," he said. "Instead of status quo in this, the fastest-growing welfare program in the entire government, we should have taken the opportunity to provide meaningful work reform requirements, especially forable-bodied adults, as we passed in the U.S. House."

Rep. Kevin Yoder hasn't vocalized why he voted against the legislation.

Here's what else they said:


Lynn Jenkins

"Today's Farm Bill costs too much and fails to achieve any significant regulatory reform. The inclusion of high target prices for commodities will create false production signals for producers and will lead to larger subsidy payments. Also, as a member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, I could not ignore policies which will trigger trade disputes. These are just a few examples of the many reforms that were left out of this bill and are issuesto which I have been a strong advocate for in the past.

"I did not expect to make easy decisions when I came to Washington. There are many good provisions which I support in this legislation, but unfortunately, the negatives outweigh the positives. Kansans know that this bill not only impacts our farmers and ranchers but every single American family. Over the coming weeks and months ahead, I will do everything in my power to continue to be a strong voice for both American agriculture and the American consumer."


Mike Pompeo

"Over the past two years I have worked to craft a Farm Bill that reflects Kansas values, supports Kansas producers, and respects Kansas taxpayers. While this legislation contains some positive provisions -- including strengthening crop insurance, ending direct payments, and providing stability for Kansas producers -- in total, this bill misses the mark."

"This open-ended welfare program continues to make up 80 percent of this bill. That means $800 billion of the $1 trillion legislation is out the door before the first dime is invested in agriculture. Unfortunately, this final bill makes only cosmetic changes to this out-of-control entitlement program." "Last year I voted in favor of a farm bill that was not perfect, but a step forward. Voting against this bill today was not an easy decision, but I believe it reflects a step backward to the old Washington of pet projects, reckless spending, and harmful regulation. I remain committed to ensuring that Kansas farmers, ranchers, co-ops, and other agribusiness have the support they need to compete in the global economy." 


Tim Huelskamp

"There are some good things in the bill. I believe the compromise dairy provisions are a positive step away from government control of milk markets. The crop insurance program has been strengthened, and is better equipped than ever before to assist producers in times of trouble. But these bright spots are not enough to warrant enacting this bill. We could have done so much better for farmers, ranchers, consumers and for the American taxpayer." 


st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}