Thread: FARM BILL advances in Congress - Ag Jobs to be attached

Farm Bill Advances In Congress
This article was published on Saturday, October 27, 2007 7:07 PM CDT in News
By Aaron Sadler
THE MORNING NEWS

WASHINGTON -- As Congress moves closer to adoption of the 2007 Farm Bill, Arkansas farmers are preparing to fight again a decades-long battle over subsidy payments.

The legislation to reauthorize the nation's agriculture programs advanced from the Senate's agriculture committee last week and headed to the Senate floor, where a showdown along geographical lines is expected.

Midwest senators are expected to try to reduce the amount of government money eligible to farmers. Southern lawmakers are opposed, contending that crops like cotton and rice are more costly to produce and deserve the funding.

Arkansas Agriculture Secretary Richard Bell said southern growers had sacrificed enough during negotiations for this year's version of the Farm Bill, which is typically renewed every five years.

Both the House and Senate versions of the bill eliminate the "three-entity rule," which allowed for additional subsidy payments for farmers in business partnerships; and toughen income limits for payment eligibility.

"I don't want to have any more concessions," said Bell, a former chairman of Riceland Foods, and former official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "We made concessions going through the House bill and I think that's as far as we need to go."

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., has long said the government programs are necessary to make sure farmers stay solvent, food stays inexpensive and America competes in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

The government "safety net" to protect farm revenue keeps food safe, abundant and affordable, said Lincoln, an Agriculture Committee member.

"We promised that we would come and look for real reform in the payment limitations ... something that could be real reform, but that our growers could live with," she said. "It is true reform, it is the most substantial reform that has been in the Farm Bill in decades."

The House passed its version of the $290 billion legislation in July. The House and Senate bills must be reconciled before going to the president, who has said the measure is too costly.

In addition to subsidies, the Farm Bill pays for billions in crop insurance, conservation and energy initiatives, and nutrition programs. Food stamps and the federal school lunch programs are administered as part of the bill.

The fight over subsidies has gone on through countless Farm Bill debates, Bell said.

This year, lawmakers from states that depend on the subsidies thwarted a bid by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, to redirect funding intended for subsidies into other agriculture programs.

That sets up an effort by Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to limit annual payments to $250,000. The current payment cap is $365,000, based on three different grant and loan programs.

Another proposal, by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., would set an across-the-board direct payment schedule for all farmers, regardless of crop, and would rely on insurance to compensate farmers for lost yield.

Lugar said the existing subsidy system "distorts" market prices, thus violating international trade rules.

"U.S. farm programs have cost taxpayers too much and hurt American agriculture in the process," Lugar said, adding that subsidy programs have ruined the family farm by creating an incentive for farm consolidation.

Lincoln said this year's Farm Bill answers critics who complain that wealthy farmers obtain a windfall from the farm program.

She fought a proposal by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., that would immediately cap annual gross income for people eligible for subsidies at $750,000.

The current cap is $2 million. The Senate bill would phase in a $750,000 income limit over several years.

"Family farms don't just exist in other parts of the country," than Arkansas, Lincoln said, though the state's "family farms" may be larger out of necessity to stay competitive, she said.

The House bill is less restrictive than the Senate's on farmer payments, Bell said.

He accused Midwestern lawmakers of being misguided when it comes to beneficiaries of farm subsidies.

"Sen. Grassley, for example, doesn't seem to realize the amount of money going to his Iowa farmers under this ethanol program," Bell said. The legislation includes funding for research and development of corn-based ethanol as fuel.

"It's not direct, but it's indirect. He talks about the subsidies the South gets, but he's not looking at the entire picture," Bell added.

Harkin proposed, and the Senate bill includes, an optional, revenue-based subsidy program for farmers.

Participants may opt out of other farm subsidies for the Average Crop Revenue program, which provides money based on acreage and state crop revenue prices.

The plan would not benefit Arkansas farmers, Lincoln said.

Officials with Arkansas Farm Bureau said the state's growers will not choose the alternative because it would cut direct payments.

Additionally, both the Farm Bureau and Bell said they were concerned about the Senate's proposed reallocation of $7 billion from subsidies to other programs within the Farm Bill.

"Sen. Harkin has put a lot of extraneous things in there he likes, but I'm not sure it fits well for Arkansas," Bell said.

Two items of Arkansas interest that may emerge in the farm legislation involve fruits and vegetables, or specialty crops, and catfish, Bell said.

Lawmakers are considering a measure to allow growers of specialty crops to collect subsidies as long as the products are used for canning.

That could be lucrative to northeast Arkansas farmers and Siloam Springs-based Allens Canning, he said. Those farmers have refused to produce vegetables for Allens in the past because they can make more money growing cotton.

Another provision would put in place a USDA inspection system for production and processing of catfish. The inspections would be similar to those for beef, pork and poultry, Bell said.

In addition, Lincoln sought in the bill a study by the USDA's chief economist to determine the benefits of animal waste as an energy source.

The study would also measure the impact of applying laws that do not typically apply to agriculture to the industry.

Lincoln's request is a direct result of her bid to prevent animal waste from being considered as hazardous material under the federal Superfund law.

Environmental groups oppose the exemption.
http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/ ... ogcomments

Reader Comments (2 comment(s))

Madison wrote on Oct 28, 2007 1:38 PM:

" Don't be fooled by all of this.They are also trying to attach amnesty for illegals to the farm bills,and we all know that Lincoln always votes in favor of amnesty."

zeezil wrote on Oct 29, 2007 11:09 AM:

" If Senator Feinstein's Ag Jobs amendment is attached to the Farm Bill, it will result in amnesty for as many as 3 million illegal aliens. Crops are not rotting in the fields as evidenced by the successful harvests all across the country. Immigration enforcement will not cause the agricultural industry to collapse. Even with the illegal hiring practices by agribusiness, 55% of farm workers are citizens and legal residents of the U.S. Agribusiness has displaced many legal workers with the wanton hiring of illegals because, bottom line, it's cheaper and realizes even greater profits. This statement applies to all business in America: "If you can't do business legally, then you have no business being in business." Call your Senators and the Senate Agricultural Committee and tell them in no uncertain terms: No to Ag Jobs amnesty and NO AMNESTY to illegal aliens in any way, shape or form. "

Farm bill arrives; Senators note benefits for Gem State producers
By Carol Ryan Dumas, Ag Weekly editor
Friday, October 26, 2007 4:16 PM CDT

TWIN FALLS, Idaho — It seems it’s been a long time in coming, but the Senate Ag Committee on Thursday released its farm bill — a month after the 2002 Farm Bill expired — and is sending it to the Senate floor.

“Everybody in American agriculture is probably smiling today … in finally getting a farm bill written,â€

Why does anyone making that kind of money need susides?
The Rats will attach the ags bill you can bet on it!


------------ACTION ALERT! ---------Monday..10/29
ACTIVIST...."AG'S JOB BILL RAISES IT'S UGLY HEAD AGAIN" PLEASE MAKE CALLS, E-MAILS AND FAXES!! NOW!!!
Link to action thread!!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-88376.html
Contact Info...Senators, Representatives & USEFUL INFORMATION
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... c&p=384761

A Farm Bill in tune with the times
Sunday, October 28, 2007

Since a relatively small percentage of Americans are farmers, many people tune out of the debate on the Farm Bill now being considered in Congress.

But the measure has profound implications for issues ranging from the security of the United States to the health of millions of American children and families.

Changes in the political world have begun to powerfully influence the debate over the Farm Bill, traditionally dominated by interests in the big four “commodity crops,â€

House, Senate Push Their Respective Farm Bill Proposals
Richard Davis rdavis@farmprogress.com
October 28, 2007

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed its version of a new Farm Bill. Now it is the Senate’s turn to come up with a bill of its own.

Bob Sutter, chief executive officer of the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association explained the differences between the House Bill and what has so far come out of the Senate during the Association’s Annual Meeting, held recently in Lewiston-Woodville, N.C. Lawmakers will eventually try to work out a compromise between the two bills and send the result to the president. If President Bush signs the legislation it will become law.

Here are some of the similarities and differences between the House bill and a bill proposed by Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Commission as outlined by Sutter. Read more of the story in the November 2007 issue of Carolina-Virginia Farmer magazine:

• Both plans, Sutter explained, call for advance payments with the final payment in October, after the marketing year has ended.

• The Farm Bill passed by the House calls for an advance of 40%. Harkin’s plan calls for 50%.

• The House Bill retains the $355 per ton loan rate for peanuts.

• The House loan matures in nine months or June 30, whichever comes first. The Senate proposal calls for a nine-month loan with the loan rate being set at 85% of the Olympic average of price received over the past five years by farmers – an Olympic average drops the high and low years in that five-year period, averaging the remaining three years. “This would lower the current loan rate,â€

Farm proposal would aid Washington farmers, say senators

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both D-Wash., say they applaud the 2007 Farm Bill approved Thursday by the Senate agriculture committee.

The bill includes provisions that will benefit Washington farmers, who grow more than 250 varieties of fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops, according to the senators.

Washington ranks first in the nation in the production of several specialty crops, including apples, red raspberries, sweet cherries, pears and Concord grapes.

The 2007 Farm Bill now is headed to the full Senate for consideration in the coming weeks.

The specialty crop subtitle of the bill reflects legislation introduced earlier this year in the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act (S. 1160), which Murray and Cantwell co-sponsored. The provisions would provide some $2.2 billion for specialty crop block grants, marketing assistance, research, pest and disease mitigation, and other programs.

The Senate finance committee, of which Cantwell is a member, approved an additional $850 million to be set aside for specialty crops in a disaster relief trust fund. The tax package is expected to be added to Farm Bill during floor consideration, according to the senators' announcement.

"I am thrilled that for the first time the Farm Bill includes specialty crops in a comprehensive and meaningful way," said Murray. "Specialty crop growers contribute greatly to making agriculture Washington's largest industry.

"I am pleased that our efforts to include specialty crops were successful, and that we were also able to ensure that a safety net for Washington's wheat and pulse crop growers remains in place."

"Specialty crops like Washington's apples, cherries and asparagus are huge economic drivers for our state - providing for over 50 percent of our agriculture economy," Cantwell said.

"My top priority in this year's Farm Bill was working through the finance committee to make sure that our local farmers got the help they need," she said. "We were able to fully fund the highly targeted specialty crop block grant program, which has been incredibly successful in our state, so Washington's small farmers can compete in an increasingly competitive global market. There's a lot in this bill that will help our state, and I'm particularly pleased by the gains we made for our specialty crop growers."

The senators said Washington's specialty crop growers will benefit from several provisions in the bill, including:
- Increased funding for the specialty crop block grant program, which will allow state agriculture departments to join with stakeholders and assist growers with the specific investments that will increase the competitiveness of their crops.
- A research grant program that will allow producers to increase their efficiency and remain competitive in the global marketplace.
- Increased funding to enhance specialty crop exports, including the market assistance program and technical assistance for specialty crops.
- A number of programs to prevent and eradicate invasive pests and diseases, which can devastate specialty crops. The funding is included through the finance committee-passed package.
- Increased funding to expand a pilot program that ensures fresh fruits and vegetables are available in schools nationwide. The program is designed to improve the overall health of children, fight obesity and improve academic performance.
- A new program to compensate asparagus growers in Washington, Michigan and California who were harmed by the Andean Trade Preference Act.
- Increased payments to growers for tree removal and replacement after a natural disaster. The funding is included through the finance committee-passed package.
- A new program to ensure safe, virus-free plant materials are available to orchards, vineyards and other growers.

A single plant or grape vine has the potential to infect an established orchard or vineyard, and crops such as apples and grapes are particularly vulnerable to viruses, according to the announcement.
http://www.omakchronicle.com/nws/n071028a.shtml

Senators push to end crop subsidies, offer insurance

PURPOSE: Lautenberg says change would aid N.J. farmers
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/29/07
BY RAJU CHEBIUM
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON — As the Senate prepares to debate a $288 billion farm bill, a New Jersey lawmaker has offered an alternative measure aimed at increasing federal help to Garden State growers and saving taxpayers $20 billion over the next five years.

Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., seek to eliminate, not just reduce, the sacred cow of farm policy — agricultural subsidies for commodity crops like corn, soybeans, cotton and wheat over the next five years. Instead, their bill proposes a crop-loss insurance program for all farmers that guarantees they will recoup up to 85 percent of their lost harvests.

"Our bill is intended to help every farmer in America, not just those who grow a select few crops," Lautenberg said Tuesday before introducing the legislation. New Jersey "farmers are being hurt several ways. . . . We get one-tenth of 1 percent of the subsidies. Our farmers are looking for help. Temptations are enormous for them to turn (farms) over to builders and developers."

Lugar said 6 percent of the nation's farmers get 70 percent of federal subsidies for commodity crops, grown mostly in California, the Midwest and the South. Fruits and vegetables, so-called specialty crops, dominate New Jersey's agriculture; they aren't eligible for those subsidies, though growers of these crops can get money through farmland conservation programs aimed at curbing urban sprawl.

Lugar said their bill is intended to offer senators a choice as they consider farm legislation the Senate agriculture committee is preparing, adding that their bill boosts environmental protection, promotes nutrition and would cut the federal deficit by $3 billion over five years.

Additionally, the bill seeks to boost federal spending on specialty crop research and promotion and organic agriculture to $3 billion.

The agriculture committee's farm measure, expected to reach the Senate floor next week, contains $1 billion for specialty crops. A $280 billion farm bill the House passed in July contains $1.6 billion for specialty crops.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and a handful of other senators support the measure. Menendez has a related measure pending in the Senate. That narrower bill seeks to increase federal spending on conservation, organic agriculture and specialty crops.

Asked if the Lautenberg-Lugar bill could become law as written, Iowa State University agricultural policy scholar Chad Hart said it "probably won't" this year. However, he said, Lugar and other members of the Senate and House agriculture committees are worried about subsidies, which cost taxpayers about $6 billion a year. And there's a growing sentiment that the payments must be trimmed because of growing budget deficits, he said.

Lugar, a powerful member of the Senate agriculture committee, has long favored insurance over subsidies. But he said he hasn't introduced a comprehensive bill before now.

He and Lautenberg, who's not a member of the agriculture panel, "have put a marker in the sand today that will probably move (the subsidy debate) forward in the next few years," Hart said.

Powerful pro-subsidy agricultural interests are circumspect about the measure, as lobbyists focus more on the proposal the Senate agriculture committee is putting together.

Liz Friedlander, spokeswoman for the National Farmers Union, said the group supports ending direct subsidies but seeks to study how the Lautenberg-Lugar bill would eliminate them.

New Jersey Agriculture Secretary Charles Kuperus said even if the Lautenberg-Lugar bill doesn't become law, Congress should adopt key principles it espouses, such as ending subsidies, focusing more on conservation and encouraging people to buy locally grown produce.

Most importantly, Kuperus said, Congress should retool farm policy to benefit growers in New Jersey and other urbanized states, where farming isn't the biggest economic driver.

"Our farms are just as important as farms in the Midwest. We farm closer to where people live in most cases," he said. "Farm policy should be relevant to . . . every farmer in the nation, every farmer in the Northeast region, every farmer in New Jersey."

Raju Chebium at rchebium@gns.gannett.com
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl ... 90341/1007

Farm Bill Bulletin – Time for Californians to Call Our U.S. Senators
By Gary A. Patton
Executive Director
Planning and Conservation League

If properly drafted, the federal Farm Bill could be a boon for conservation in California. That's why the National Wildlife Federation, PCL, and over 30 other conservation groups requested that the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee dedicate an additional $6 billion to the bill's conservation programs.

Unfortunately, the Committee completed its "markup" of the Farm Bill Thursday and that $6 billion dollar target was not reached!

Committee leaders hope to debate the bill in the full Senate as early as this week, so now would be a great time to call California's U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to tell them that you want the Senate version of the Farm Bill to make a major commitment to conservation.

Here are two simple messages to convey to our Senators:

1.The Farm Bill conservation title (in which the federal government makes a commitment to programs that assist conservation) needs to include more than the $4.8 billion increase that the Senate Agricultural Committee bill provides. Please add significant new funding for conservation in the Farm Bill!

2. Reasonable reforms in the Farm Bill's commodity programs could save enough to allow more money to go into the conservation programs. The conservation programs serve all farmers, not just farmers who grow any of five specific subsidized crops (such as cotton and corn).

Senator Feinstein's offices:
San Francisco - 415-393-0707
Los Angeles – 310-914-7300
San Diego – 619-231-9712
Fresno – 559-485-7430

Senator Boxer's offices:
San Francisco - 415-403-0100
Los Angeles – 213-894-5000
San Diego – 619-239-3884
Fresno – 559-497-5109

Thanks again for your calls!
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com ... bulle.html

Farm subsidies are a scandal

In the 1990s, Congress finally bit the bullet and reformed welfare. Congress turned it from a lifetime entitlement back into temporary assistance for needy families.
It is time Congress did the same with farm subsidies. And there is movement afoot to do just that.

The abuses of the Department of Agriculture are legendary. Sarah Cohen of the Washington Post reported in July that in a seven-year period from 1999

to 2005, the federal government distributed $1.1 billion to the estates or companies of deceased farmers.

But even if it were managed well, the farm subsidy program is crazy. It costs taxpayers too much money, it subsidizes some farmers but not others, and it discourages innovation.

Surprisingly, one of the people calling for a change is Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the new chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who called for a $4.5 billion cut, although the final version did not.

"We have to consider new ideas," Harkin said. "We should not cling to a system that channels ever larger commodity payments to a relatively few, with two-thirds of American farmers getting none at all."

Iowa is second only to Texas in subsidy payments.

An alternative bill would replace subsidies with a crop insurance program. While it is given little chance now of becoming law, taxpayers can always hope.

Sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., that bill calls for an insurance program that would be open to all farmers and would pay benefits only when farmers lost money on their crops.

"We want to end out-of-date subsidies and provide a more equitable and less expensive safety net for all American agriculture," Lugar said.

The agriculture committees in both houses of Congress are filled with appointees from farm states. They have little incentive to rein in a program that has gotten too big and too abusive of taxpayers.

Lugar thinks the floor of the Senate might be a different matter. Here's hoping it is.
http://www.dailymail.com/story/Opinion/ ... a-scandal/

Opponents vow to lower farm subsidies from Senate's bill
MARY CLARE JALONICK
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - Legislation that would continue billions of dollars in payments to farmers won approval Thursday by a Senate committee, with critics pledging to work to reduce the subsidies.

The five-year farm bill, approved unanimously by the Senate Agriculture Committee, would provide more than $280 billion for agriculture and nutrition programs and leave in place most subsidies to producers of major crops.

Opponents say the bill helps wealthy farmers too much and should spend more on conservation programs, food aid for the poor or reducing the federal deficit.

"This committee could do much better on behalf of not just farmers, but all taxpayers," said Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., a committee member and former chairman of the panel who said he plans to challenge the bill in the full Senate. "Each passing year the policies seem ever more misguided."

The legislation does attempt to limit subsidies by eventually banning payments to "nonfarmers" whose income averages more than $750,000 a year. The bill defines farmers as those who earn more than two-thirds of their income from agriculture.

There would be no income-based limits on what a farmer could collect.

President Bush threatened to veto a House version of the farm bill that passed in July. That measure would ban payments to all who earn an average $1 million a year or more. The administration has proposed reducing payments to individuals who make more than $200,000. The current cap is $2.5 million.

Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner told reporters Thursday that the Senate committee's bill "really equates to no reform at all" and may have less of an impact on limiting subsidies than the House bill. But he stopped short of saying the president would veto it.

Lugar did propose cutting $1.7 billion from direct payments - subsidies often criticized because they are not based on current crop production or prices. His amendment would have shifted that money to nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency food assistance.

It lost by a 17-4 vote.
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/10 ... 7003.shtml