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

Farm bill likely to help state growers
Click-2-Listen
By LARRY LIPMAN
Palm Beach Post Washington Bureau
Saturday, October 27, 2007

The Senate agriculture committee passed its $288 billion version of the five-year measure Thursday, and the full Senate is likely to consider it early next month.

The House passed a similar $286 billion version in late July on a contentious 231-191 vote caused by Republican opposition to a last-minute provision aimed at closing loopholes that allow some U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations to avoid taxes by establishing headquarters in offshore tax havens.

The final bill will be hammered out in a conference between the two houses.

President Bush has threatened to veto the House version because he said it would not adequately shift the system of crop supports away from wealthy farmers.

Further fights may break out in the Senate regarding an alternative crop-support payment system.

But for Florida farmers, either the House or the Senate version would be better than the farm bill which was adopted in 2002.

Specialty crops, such as fruits and vegetables, are the big winners in both versions.

Sugar growers also would do better under either bill than under current law.

Both bills would dramatically increase the federal emphasis on promoting fruits and vegetables, including provisions that would expand the healthy food snack program in public schools from the current 14 states to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and more than 100 American Indian jurisdictions.

"It's the first time that specialty crops have really been a major player in the farm bill," said Casey Welch, director of congressional relations for Florida Citrus Mutual.

Mike Stuart, president of the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, called the Senate bill a "good package" but expressed concern that it authorizes less money for research and in block grants to the states than the House bill.

Even so, specialty crops are in line for a big increase.

Those crops were authorized for $41 million in a special 2004 farm bill, although only about $7 million has been spent.

Unlike with traditional crops such as wheat, cotton and rice, federal spending on specialty crops does not go directly to farmers. Instead the money is spent on research, marketing and nutrition programs such as school snacks.

The House bill totals about $1.6 billion over five years for specialty crops.

The Senate bill totals about $3 billion, but Stuart noted that about $850 million was added specifically for disaster relief and - for accounting reasons - no money is authorized for the fifth year of the program.

Within the overall specialty crop totals are block grants to the states devised according to their share of that market.

That's good news for Florida, Stuart said, because it ranks second to California in specialty crop revenues.

The House earmarks $365 million in block grants; the Senate offers $270 million.

Florida farmers also want to see a boost in research spending.

The House bill offers $200 million for pest and disease research; the Senate bill has $80 million.

The Senate bill earmarks another $80 million for pest and disease research specifically directed to organic crops.

Research money is particularly important to citrus growers who are combating citrus greening, which causes trees to produce bitter, misshapen fruit.

Both bills would boost loan payments to sugar growers for the first time in 22 years.

The House bill would increase the loan rate from 18 cents a pound to 18.5 cents a pound.

The Senate version would bump it up a quarter of a penny each year from 2009 to 2012, when the rate would reach 19 cents.

Stuart said the biggest concern among farmers is that nothing will get done. But he noted that next year is an election year.

"I can't imagine the House or Senate leadership wants to send members back to their districts without a farm bill," he said.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/c ... _1027.html

Reaction to Senate Farm Bill Runs the Gamut
Jason Vance jvance@farmprogress.com
October 26, 2007

No one is arguing that the movement of the farm bill from the Senate Agriculture Committee to the Senate isn't a positive step forward. However; when it comes to the bill that was voted out of committee, opinions begin to widely vary.

Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is very pleased with the bill that was ushered through the Senate Agriculture Committee and was passed by a unanimous vote.

"We were able to work within a very strict budget allocation to complete our work and pass a farm bill that I believe is good for agriculture, good for rural areas, conservation, energy security and good for better health of Americans," Harkin says.

While the National Farmers Union agrees with Harkin that the bill passed has many beneficial provisions that will positively impact America's farmers, ranchers and rural communities, the American Farm Bureau Federation is not as pleased.

"The comprehensive farm legislation is a significant improvement over the initial legislative package the committee started with earlier this week," says AFBF President Bob Stallman. "We remain concerned that when the budget numbers on the final Senate Agriculture Committee bill are finalized, we will find that commodity title funding will have been reduced in order to increase funding for other priorities."

The American Soybean Association voiced its approval of the step forward, but still has concerns about the legislation.

"While the bill passed by Committee does not fully reflect ASA’s priorities on support for soybean producer income and biodiesel production," says ASA President John Hoffman, "ASA will work with both Senate and House Conferees to address these issues and reach an agreement that will meet the needs of U.S. soybean farmers."

The National Corn Growers Association was most disappointed by the passage of an amendment offered by Senator Pat Roberts, R-Kan., which stripped the crop insurance integration from the Average Crop Revenue program.

"NCGA is deeply disappointed with this setback," said NCGA President Ron Litterer. "The amendment makes the revenue proposal a much less attractive option to growers."

Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner weighed in on the legislation Thursday afternoon. While he was pleased that the committee had included many of the administration's priorities, he said there was still much work needed to improve the bill.

"There's not enough reform in this, not enough in terms of the AGI limits, not enough in terms of loan rates and target prices, a number of areas that are vital to us," Conner said. "But we are confident that we can work these things out; that we can work with the members of Congress on this. The president is anxious to sign a farm bill this year and I know producers are anxious to have a farm bill as soon as possible so they can know the rules of the game."

Payment limitations were also a concern for Conner.

"The adjusted gross income limit that has been passed by the Senate Committee with its so-called soft cap we don't believe at this point represents real reform," Conner said. "And really equates to no reform at all."

An amendment from Senators Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to set a hard cap of $250,000 on farm payments is expected to be introduced on the floor, which will lead to some very spirited debate on payment limitations.

Another area that Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Keenum expects to see some lively debate is the controversial ban on packer ownership of livestock. It's not a complete ban, but a packer would be limited on the percentage of the livestock that they process in their packing plant and they would have to limit how many days they can hold livestock before it's processed.

"It's something that's been discussed for many years as an issue to address, what some people view as unfair competition in certain areas of the livestock arena," Keenum said. "It is controversial, it's going to be debated on the floor, and I'm sure it will be a conferenceable issue when the House sits down with the Senate."

Previous attempts to limit packer ownership of livestock have not been successful. The provision was passed by the Senate in 2002, but was removed during the conference with the Senate.

Harkin says floor debate could begin early next week, however Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., may want to work on the Children's Health Insurance Program next week if the House approves it, which would push debate of the Farm Bill into the first week of November.
http://americanagriculturist.com/index. ... 7&fpstid=1

Is there a quote or blurb in one of these news stories about AgJOBS being attached? Regardless, we should assume that it will be, based on Reid's prior statements.

Activists: Please use this as the action thread against the AgJOBS amnesty:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-88376.html

Originally Posted by Populist

Is there a quote or blurb in one of these news stories about AgJOBS being attached? Regardless, we should assume that it will be, based on Reid's prior statements.

Activists: Please use this as the action thread against the AgJOBS amnesty:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-88376.html

Populist ...the "to be attached" is my own personal analysis. If a large and adamant public outcry against Ag Jobs isn't delivered to the Senate early this week, Feinstein with Reid's s manuevering WILL get it attached to the Farm Bill.

Good point zeezil.

Everyone: PLEASE CALL AGAINST THE AGJOBS AMNESTY !!

I know we're just coming off the Dream Act amnesty fight, but we have to fight this until they recess in mid-November. These next few days are important.