Are the Republicans out to sabotage the farm bill?

For the full headline, click on the headline above. 

The last time the agricultural community was closely watching a "cloture" vote was the 2005 Energy Bill. But we did finally get an energy bill after several attempts for cloture. Today the Senate failed to get the 60 votes for a cloture on its farm bill version - squelching hopes of passing a farm bill before Christmas. Democrats are crying Republican and White House sabotage, but the facts still remain: senators will head home for a 2-week recess without progress on the farm bill and they may not even return to the bill after arriving back in town at the beginning of December while farmers are left wondering how to plan for 2008.

The Senate failed to invoke cloture this morning by a vote of 55-42. The cloture motion, which requires 60 votes, would have allowed debate and votes on relevant amendments to the farm bill and limited debate to 30 hours, preventing the process from being bogged down. Four Republicans voted in favor of the cloture: Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Gordon Smith, R-Ore., and John Thune, R-S.D.

Over 400 amendments are currently proposed for the farm bill. And senators are deadlocked over which ones to allow. It appears Senate Ag Committee ranking member Saxby Chambliss is fighting hard against the Grassley-Dorgan payment limitation bill, one Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin strongly supports, and also has the ability to sweeten the package in the eyes of the Administration.

"Frankly, I worry that there is a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to derail the farm bill," Harkin said. "Indeed, the farm bill is just one car on a much longer train that includes the children's health insurance bill and most of the appropriations bills. Between Republican filibusters here in the Senate, and President Bush's barrage of vetoes and veto threats, they seem to be setting up a giant train wreck at the end of this session of Congress. Maybe, the President and Congressional Republicans think a train wreck at the end of this Congress is a good idea. But it is not in the best interests of the American people."

Harkin said he was hopeful, yet realistic, that he must continue to fight to get the bill done. "That fight will continue today, tomorrow and just as long into next month as it takes to get the job done," he said.

Extension introduced

With things in the Senate looking grim, over on the House side Thursday House Agriculture Committee ranking member Bob Goodlatte and Rep. Jerry Moran introduced a one-year extension of the 2002 Farm Bill. Currently, 22 Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors.

The bill's sponsors warned without an extension, several programs would revert back to the 1938 farm bill.

The underlying law does not reflect current farming and marketing practices, trade agreements or market circumstances. For example, permanent law does not authorize counter-cyclical payments or decoupled direct payments and imposes acreage allotments and marketing quotas for wheat and cotton. Moreover, the milk marketing year begins January 1 and without any new legislation in place, the milk price support would escalate to between 75 and 90% of parity, or between $30.52 and $36.63, as of October 2007. The current support price for milk is $9.90 per cwt. Due to the parity prices far exceeding market prices, even a short term escalation in milk prices of this magnitude would have long-lasting, devastating effects on dairy producers and consumers.

Goodlatte said, without stable farm policy farmers and ranchers cannot make planning decisions, finalize land-lease contracts or negotiate lending agreements. "This extension provides producers with a little certainty to make it through this crop year until we can get a long-term farm bill finished," he said.

Permanent agriculture law established by the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agriculture Act of 1949 are superseded by subsequent legislation, such as the 2002 Farm Bill, and remain dormant until the subsequent legislation expires.

However, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson said in a statement Thursday afternoon, talk about a farm bill extension is premature. The budget situation isn't getting any better, and a year from now, we may have less money available to write the farm bill.

Administration wants new farm bill

Acting Secretary Chuck Conner said he believes Congress has a responsibility to deliver a new farm bill. He again reiterated the Administration offered its proposals in January "for the very purpose of delivering a new farm bill before farmers faced difficult decisions due to uncertainty about future farm policy."

He added failure to pass a new farm bill would "continue a defective safety net." Conner stated the Administration heard a strong message from specialty crop growers of the need for more equitable support. Priorities such as conservation, nutrition and renewable energy would also be shelved without a new farm bill.
"There is still time for Congress to pass a new farm bill. The Senate must act quickly to engage in a full and open debate and to deliver a farm bill that contains honest bookkeeping without raising taxes," Conner said.