Top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, Representative Collin Peterson of Minnesota, is one such House member who begrudgingly voted for the bill, citing that "this bill is a sad substitute for what is really needed, a long-term farm policy." One of the main reasons he disagrees with the bill is because it helps sheep and cattle farms, but "dairy and specialty crop producers will be left hurting and there is no assistance for pork and poultry producers" (TIME). .
Agriculture Committee Democrat, Jim Costa of California, opposed the bill. "The drought relief package that we are voting on I believe is sadly more about giving the Republican leadership relief when they go back to their districts in August than helping our nation's farmers, ranchers and dairymen." Many Democrats agree that the Republicans voted for the bill simply to avoid having to explain to rural constituents why they put off acting on the five-year farm policy bill (TIME). .
The Senate attempted to quell remarks that they were not acting on any of the proposed bills by passing a five-year farm bill in June that made revisions to existing subsidy programs. Under the recent revisions, farmers will no longer receive direct payments if they don't plant crops. The revisions also call for $100 billion annually for subsidy, conservation, and food stamp programs. The House approved a similar legislation a month later (TIME). .
"We do not oppose passage of a disaster assistance bill, but note that almost identical provisions to retroactively extend these four programs are included" in both the Senate and House farm bills, read a statement written by groups representing growers of corn, soybean, wheat, and milk. "Farmers and ranchers always face decisions that carry very serious financial ramifications, such as planting a crop, buying land, or building a herd, and we need clear and confident signals from our lawmakers," they wrote (Abrams).
