Congress wrangles with farm bill

For the full article, click on the headline above.

If you were looking for changes in this year's farm bill, you won't get it from the House side. But if you want more of the same, than House Ag Chairman Collin Peterson dished out just that with his chairman's markup or proposal. Add on comments from Senate Ag Chairman Tom Harkin stating he's considering writing a six to seven-year farm bill, rather than the standard five to alleviate budget fears and timely floor debate. It's maneuvering time in D.C. and the fight has barely even begun.

On the Senate side, Harkin said if the farm bill can't find floor time before the August recess, he won't hold a markup until Congress returns in September. The ongoing debate on the FY08 defense authorization bill is leaving little floor time for the farm bill, Harkin said.

Peterson's House proposal got kudos from several farm groups, but groups looking for change were not impressed.

The largest farm group, the American Farm Bureau Federation, voted in support of Peterson's proposal. According to AFBF, the chairman's mark contains critical components for the future farm bill, which include: maintaining baseline funding for both the commodity and conservation titles; reauthorizing each of the three safety net components (direct payments, counter-cyclical payments and loan payments); keeping loan rates counter-cyclical and direct payments in accordance to the 2002 farm bill; and increasing funding for conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

While Farm Bureau was pleased there were no cuts to payment limits in the proposal, the organization will watch the debate closely in the future, a statement from the group said.

Newly confirmed American Soybean Association President John Hoffman, said Peterson's proposal is a step in the right direction. Peterson's proposal includes a soybean target price of $6.10. ASA's Farm Bill proposals call for a soybean target price of $6.85.

National Farmers Union President Tom Buis welcomed the proposal, especially the provision for a permanent emergency disaster program, a high priority for NFU members. "While far from perfect, Chairman Peterson's mark is a realistic attempt to take the necessary steps in passing a new farm bill prior to the current law's expiration. There will certainly be opportunity to improve upon the proposal before it becomes law, and we look forward to working with the members of the committee and the full House of Representatives to accomplish this goal," Buis said.

The dark side

If we want to live by international trade rules, changes do need to be made to current farm policy to prevent the "bullseye" on our back from getting bigger, as Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns pointed out earlier this month. And although the "talk of change" was in the air, it's quickly deflating.

American Farmland Trust President Ralph Grossi said the "recommendations for Title I commodity subsidies extend the outdated, broken system of the past-moving policy in the wrong direction and making bad policy worse."

During the course of the last farm bill, large numbers of producers were left out of the safety net system and received little or no protection in times of need. "Farming is a risky business and the government should provide a safety net and tools to help producers manage risk-but extending the existing counter cyclical programs will not do that," Grossi said. "The current system in which Congress sets support prices will encourage overproduction of certain crops, distort the marketplace and continue to leave many farmers unprotected when they face declines in yield."

Grossi fears the farm bill "creates a fiscal time bomb waiting to explode not if, but really when, high commodity prices drop."

The outlook for wheat producers doesn't look to be improving either. The National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) wanted their fixed direct payment more than doubled, from 52 cents a bushel to $1.15. The Peterson proposal did not increase it, despite wheat's strong roots in Minnesota.

Food for thought

Love him or hate him, Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group is pushing for change. In his blog, The Mulch, he outlined some forces in today's farm bill debate. This is an excerpt from his July 9th posting.

"The House agriculture committee's 46 members (of 435 in the House) represent congressional districts that accounted for fully 42.4% of crop subsidy payments between 2003 and 2005 (program years)--$14.7 billion out of $34.75 billion spent by taxpayers over that period. We break it down here.

"Six committee members represent districts that collected over $1 billion in crop subsidies in just three years; nine collected over $700 million, including Chairman Peterson, whose Minnesota district brought in more than $873 million. To state the obvious, these are large districts in area (two are at-large, encompassing entire states) and they are major producers of the five crops that account for over 90% of the Title I subsidies (corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybeans).

"But within the committee, some members may have a much bigger stake in perpetuating the current distribution of funding than others.

"Only 24 of the committee's members, all of whom represent districts that received more than $124 million over the three years, accounted for 40% ($13.9 billion) of total commodity subsidies between 2003 and 2005.

"Many of the other members might well wonder what's in it for their constituents if the full committee simply rubber stamps an extension of current crop subsidy programs, a position the subcommittee with jurisdiction over those programs approved just last month.

"Fourteen (14) members--a third of the full committee--saw $30 million or less come into their districts through crop subsidies, less than $10 million per year on average."