Farm Bill; Ag Economy; and, Immigration- Wednesday Posted By Keith Good On July 10, 2013  Farm Bill- A Farm Only Farm Bill, Without A Nutrition Title Matt Fuller reported yesterday at Roll Call Online that, “House Republican leaders have decided to drop food stamps from the farm bill and are whipping the farm-only portion of the bill for a vote that will likely come this week, according to a GOP leadership aide. “The nutrition portion of the bill would be dealt with later. “The Rules Committee is expected to post the text Tuesday night and meet Wednesday, the aide said.” Mr. Fuller explained that, “The ‘new’ farm bill would be the bill as it finished on the floor before the break, with the addition of a repeal of the 1949 law that requires the passage or extension of a farm bill. “Rory Cooper, a spokesman for Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said leadership has not yet decided to schedule a vote. “‘There has been no decision made to schedule a vote on a farm bill, in any form,’ he said in a statement to CQ Roll Call.” Erik Wasson reported yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that, “Still, House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) told The Hill Tuesday he is open to the idea if it would help get a farm bill done…‘[I] am open to thinking outside the box. Splitting the farm bill would certainly be thinking outside the box,’ he said. ‘We’ve got to get a farm bill done.’ “Cantor has been pushing the idea of splitting the bill, which Lucas previously has been reluctant to embrace. “At a closed-door meeting Tuesday, Lucas said Cantor and other leaders are taking the right approach, and this could provide a boost to bringing a split farm bill to the floor soon, an aide said.” Mr. Wasson noted that, “Another aide said Lucas still prefers to keep the farm bill in one piece but noted he has previously told local Oklahoma media he would support splitting the idea if leaders decided that is the way to go. “Lucas on Tuesday said splitting the bill would be ‘contrary to tradition.’” The Hill update indicated that, “[Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), the ranking member on the Agriculture committee] predicted though that the move in the end would kill the farm bill in conference. Sending just a farm subsidy bill to the Senate would result in the House-Senate conference sending back just $5 billion in food stamp cuts, he said. Such a bill would not have enough House GOP support to pass.” Yesterday’s Hill update added that, “‘I just don’t see how this gets it done,’ [Peterson] added. ‘All this does is allow the House to blame the Senate. “‘When 532 groups send you a letter saying don’t do this, it’s pretty stupid to do this I think,’ Peterson said.” Bloomberg writer James Rowley reported yesterday that, “Removing food stamps and other nutrition programs for low-income Americans from the farm bill may enable Republican leaders to gain support within their own ranks to pass the agricultural subsidies without the support of Democrats, who had objected to the legislation’s $20.5 billion in cuts to the food programs over a decade. “House Republican leaders hope to pass the agriculture portion before the August recess, said the aide, who wasn’t authorized to publicly discuss the plans and spoke on condition of anonymity.” The Bloomberg article pointed out that, “Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, has said that a farm bill without food stamps is a non-starter.” Mr. Rowley added that, “The plan to separate food stamps from farm programs has the support of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republican vice presidential nominee last year, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, a former Agriculture Committee chairman.” However, the Bloomberg article indicated that, “Today, Peterson called the two-bill proposal a ‘crazy strategy’ and said it would backfire.” David Rogers reported yesterday at Politico that, “The Farm Bill’s future remained in serious doubt in the House Tuesday even after a reluctant Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas said he would support splitting the measure to allow separate votes on the nutrition title — a strategy promoted by Majority Leader Eric Cantor. “In a members-only meeting of Republicans, senior lawmakers on the Agriculture panel continued to express reservations to the Oklahoman. Early soundings by the House whip organization Tuesday afternoon indicated that the leadership still had an uphill climb to get to 218 Republican votes. “Lucas may have anticipated this when he told POLITICO after his committee meeting: ‘If there are not 218 votes, if there is no assurance of success, why try the effort.’” The Politico article quoted Chairman Lucas as saying, “This is not just a committee bill anymore.  It has become a process involving the whole House.  I’m trying, I’m trying.” And AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick reported yesterday that, “Republicans were assessing support for the idea, and a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said no decisions had been made on how to revive the bill.” Ms. Jalonick pointed out that, “Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, said that splitting the bill is ‘stupid’ and he doesn’t believe any Democrats would vote for it. “‘Even if they got this through the House, I don’t see how you are successful in getting a bill out of conference and signed by the president, because you have alienated so many people in the process,’ he said.” A separate Roll Call update yesterday by Matt Fuller stated that, “House GOP leaders’ plan to strip food stamps from the farm bill ran into trouble Tuesday when it failed to win over conservative groups who helped tank the measure three weeks ago.” Mr. Fuller explained that, “The new bill would include a repeal of the 1949 law that requires the passage or extension of a farm bill as a carrot to conservatives. The nutrition portion of the bill, the aide said, would be dealt with later. But GOP leaders have yet to announce an official way forward as they struggle to line up the votes.” The Roll Call item noted that, “Heritage Action for America CEO Michael Needham and Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., came up with the plan to split the bill more than a year ago. But Needham released a statement Tuesday criticizing the latest effort as a ploy. “‘This is nothing more than a naked attempt to get to a conference committee with the Senate,’ Needham said.” “Needham, along with 20 other conservative group leaders, signed an open letter to Speaker John A. Boehner that applauded the Republican leader for splitting the bill but implored him to bring the legislation to the floor under an open rule.” Mr. Fuller noted that, “Peterson said he thought the best way forward for farm bill passage was not to proceed with a partisan bill but to take away the Southerland amendment and give the farm bill another vote.  [See similar remarks from Rep. Peterson on a possible path forward from June 21]. “‘I want them to take the Southerland amendment out and put the bill back on the floor,’ Peterson said. ‘That’s what I told them … before they had the vote, I told them that.’ “‘They’re the ones that screwed this up, not me,’ Peterson added. ‘I had the votes until they put those amendments up.’” Concluding, the Roll Call article stated that, “But Peterson predicts that Republicans will soon have to face the reality that they do not have enough Republican support for passage. “‘They’re whipping right now, and my guess is in a few days they’ll figure out they don’t have the votes and then we might get back to reality,’ Peterson said. “‘Hopefully,’ he added.” David Grant reported yesterday at The Christian Science Monitor Online that, “Without robust support from fiscal hawks in the GOP, which still seems unlikely, agriculture advocates worry that pursuing a GOP-only bill risks a second failed vote on the farm bill. “For most legislation, being brought back to the floor after losing once is a moonshot. But twice? “‘You can come back from the dead once, but I don’t think you can do twice,’ says Representative Peterson, who worked hand-in-glove with Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R) of Oklahoma each of the last two years to try to get a bipartisan farm bill, including food stamps, to the floor. ‘We can’t bring this bill up again unless it will actually pass.’” Mr. Grant added that, “But in the House, where [Dan Glickman, a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center and former Agriculture secretary under President Clinton] estimates only 60-some districts are predominantly agricultural, splitting the bill opens it up to criticism from all parts of the political spectrum in a way that could make it almost impossible to pass in the future. “‘It’s a very bad idea because I think split farm and food stamp [bills] ultimately jeopardizes both,’ says Glickman. The farm program, particularly, represents ‘too narrow of a demographic to sustain itself in the House.’” Joseph Morton reported today at the Omaha World-Herald Online that, “Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, called separating the sections of the bill a ‘terrible idea.’ “‘If they succeed in doing that, that’s the end of farm bills,’ he said. “Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., served as secretary of agriculture under President George W. Bush and has not supported peeling off food stamps in the past. Johanns said Tuesday that it’s difficult to see the coalition that could get a farm bill passed without food stamps.” And Dave Helling noted yesterday at the Kansas City Star Online that, “A farm-subsidy bill without food stamps has zero chance of passing the Senate. A stand-alone bill that dramatically cuts food stamps also has no chance of passing in the Senate. “So there will be votes, but Congress will be no closer to an actual farm bill at the end of the week than it is today. “That’s the definition of dysfunction.” At a Heritage Foundation Bloggers Briefing yesterday, Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) made his case for splitting the nutrition title from the Farm Bill- video replay here. In part, Rep. Stutzman stated that, “And as I said at the beginning, the farm bill is, it kind of is a reflection of how bad Washington works.  And so just to separate the bill really is a huge change to the way Washington operates.  And I think that’s why this is such a big deal.  People didn’t send me to Washington to continue the status quo…[A]nd I think this is a real game changer for us as conservatives in separating the food stamp bill from the farm bill.” In responding to a question about potential SNAP reforms, Rep. Stutzman indicated that, “And just about every food pantry will tell you that if they got the amount of money that the food stamp program gets,they would turn that dollar into either $1.50 or $2.00 to help people that really, genuinely need help, compared to the probably $.75 to $.80 that actually get to people with the food stamp program because of overhead cost. “And so I think that’s the solution, that we should be working with our charities and food pantry infrastructure that’s already in place.” Rep. Stutzman also acknowledged that under current political realities, his goals of reform will likely take time to achieve: “Well, I don’t…with this administration, I don’t think you’re going to get there.  We’re not going to get to the end game we want with this administration and with the Senate that only cuts $4 billion.  It’s just…that’s peanuts.  I mean, it’s not…I don’t even know if you can really say with a straight face to people back home that we’re cutting food stamp spending with $4 billion in cuts, because to me this program has always exceeded…well, the facts are that the program has always exceeded CBO scores in previous bills, so we might as well call this, even though it’s not a trillion dollar bill technically, it’s a trillion dollar bill because it’s going to surpass the score, I believe.” Meanwhile, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.) noted in part yesterday that, “The decision by House Republican leaders to drop anti-hunger programs—most notably food stamps—from the farm bill puts the final nail in the coffin of the coalition that ensured farmers could make a living and struggling families could put food on their table. Far from the days of Bob Dole and Jacob Javits, the current extreme group has done nothing but cut programs that fight hunger here at home.” Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) tweeted yesterday that, “A divided #FarmBill is yet one more attempt to gut/eliminate #SNAP by a house GOP consistently focused on that as a goal.” Also, Rep. Betty McCollum (D., Minn.) stated yesterday that, “House Republicans embarrassed themselves when their Farm Bill was rejected by 62 of their own members. The new GOP desperate scheme to bring a micro-Farm Bill to the House floor without nutrition programs is a display of political arrogance that destroys House tradition and regular order. “I completely reject this Republican move to play political games with the livelihoods of U.S. farmers and the lives of hungry Americans. It is time for the House to take up and pass the bipartisan Senate Farm Bill.” Similarly, Sen. Pat Leahy (D., Vt.) tweeted yesterday that, “Split #FarmBill into pieces? That’s House GOP leaders’ latest (bad) idea. The real solution? Allow vote on Senate’s bipartisan bill” Also, Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) tweeted yesterday that, “#Farm Bill: If bill is split in 2 & Ag sections are a separate bill from nutrition, Food Stamps must be sunset after 5 yrs 2 force reform.” National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson noted in part yesterday that, “Splitting farm programs and nutrition assistance into two separate bills is a disservice to farmers, ranchers, rural residents and consumers.” Meanwhile, Mark Peters and Corey Boles reported in today’s Wall Street Journal (“As Agriculture Booms, Farm Bill Gets Yawns”) that, “R.D. Wolheter has gotten a stream of mailers from farm groups urging him to help pressure Congress to pass a farm bill. But as the agricultural sector remains strong, the grower of corn and soybeans on 3,000 acres in northeast Indiana has let them stack up on his desk. “For decades, the farm bill has served as the main vehicle for U.S. agriculture policy, getting renewed about every five years to keep billions of dollars flowing to farm subsidies and rural development programs. But lobbyists and lawmakers say the measure is drawing less grass-roots support from the Farm Belt this time around as the House struggles to pass the measure for a second straight year.” The Journal article noted that, “‘There has not been the sense of crisis people might have expected,’ said Bill O’Conner, a former House Agriculture Committee staff member, who now lobbies Congress on farm issues.” Peters and Boles added in today’s article that, “Rep. Collin Peterson, who represents a district in rural Minnesota and is the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, has warned that if the farm bill is split, no House Democrats would vote for it, and it would die in negotiations with the Senate anyway. He says he fears that without a farm bill, growers would become more exposed to a sustained decline in prices. “Farmers ‘are very quick to forget the bad times,’ Mr. Peterson said. ‘Right now they’re not too worried about this.’” Speaking earlier this week on the AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams, Mary Kay Thatcher, Senior Director of Congressional Relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, noted that, “You know, nobody’s going to their House member and slamming their fist on the table and saying we’ve got to have this farm bill.” Ms. Thatcher added that, “[I]t tells me prices are pretty good for most commodities and so people aren’t as focused on the need for a safety net.  And it also tells me, I’ve heard lots of feedback, Mike, in the last few weeks that members will say I don’t really need a farm bill, just give me crop insurance.  And they’re not really understanding that crop insurance is, in essence, part of the farm bill now.  They view it as something separate.  And it’s probably an education necessity that we haven’t done well enough yet.” In other news, Bloomberg writers Phil Milford and Jen Skerritt reported yesterday that, “U.S. meat industry groups, joined by Canadian counterparts, sued the Agriculture Department seeking to block rules requiring meat producers to increase the amount of information about countries of origin on their products. “Regulations adopted in May require producers to specify where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered. Retail packages can’t mix muscle cuts from different countries under a general label, the groups said yesterday in a federal court complaint in Washington.”   Agricultural Economy Reuters writers Michael Hirtzer and Julie Ingwersen reported yesterday that, “Last year’s U.S. drought, the worst since the Dust Bowl, is delivering its final sting to major grains buyers like Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge Ltd and Cargill Inc, who are paying record-high premiums for dwindling supplies of last year’s crops. “Premiums at the moment are as high as $1.75 a bushel above benchmark futures prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, which have been depressed by signs of a record harvest this coming autumn. The most active agriculture contract, December corn , hit a two-year low last week near $4.90 a bushel. “The residual effect of last year’s drought has triggered an unprecedented bidding war for immediate supplies. Ethanol plants, soy processors and livestock farmers, unwilling to pay the lofty premiums, are cutting operations instead.”   Immigration Seung Min Kim reported yesterday at Politico that, “Congressional Democrats are drawing a firm line in the immigration debate: No reform without a path to citizenship. “The four Democratic members of the Senate Gang of Eight pressed that point to their House counterparts in a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning, and attendees made it clear that without a pathway to citizenship, immigration reform won’t happen.”   -- Keith Good President FarmPolicy.com, Inc. Champaign, IL (t) 217.356.2269   FarmPolicy.com is a FREE newsletter and is made possible by the generous support of McLeod, Watkinson & Miller- Attorneys at Law. To subscribe to the FarmPolicy.com Email, send a note to, farmpolicy-on@list.farmpolicy.com. To unsubscribe, send a note to, farmpolicy-off@list.farmpolicy.com. For instant updates, follow me on twitter.    June 28 Farm Bill; Ag Economy; CFTC; and, Immigration- Tuesday Posted By Keith Good On July 9, 2013  Farm Bill Robert Costa reported yesterday at National Review Online that, “In a tense, closed-door meeting today at the Capitol, House majority leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) scolded several Republican committee chairmen for voting against the farm bill, which failed to pass the House last month. “According to several sources, Cantor told the chairmen it was ‘unacceptable’ for them to not vote together on final passage, especially since the leadership supported their amendments to the agricultural package. “Representative Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, the agricultural committee chairmen, expressed hope that the House would take up a farm bill again this summer, and Cantor reportedly agreed with him. The majority leader went on to tell the group that he doesn’t want another headache if he does that.” Mr. Costa added that, “Near the end, Cantor coolly reminded them that the leadership is much more likely to usher their bills to the floor if they stick with him on votes. “Sources say the chairmen were slightly surprised to hear such a warning from the mild-mannered Virginian. But with rank-and-file Republicans angry about the farm bill’s collapse, they know Cantor is facing pressure.” Jerry Hagstrom reported yesterday at National Journal Online that, “How the House Republican leadership tries to salvage the failed farm bill is becoming a test of the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and it will alsopit the power of the farmers and antihunger activists against the conservative groups that want to dismantle both the farm and food-stamp programs. “But the real political and policy issue is whether House members have become more responsive to national conservative groups than to farmers and antihunger advocates in their own districts who know the importance of the farm bill to a major industry and to providing food to jobless and low-paid people.” Mr. Hagstrom pointed out that, “But even if the farm bill is split in two, it looks like Heritage and the Club for Growth would still recommend that members vote against it, because they object to the underlying programs. Heritage said in a memo that its six principles for farm-bill reform are separating food stamps from the farm program, turning food stamps into a ‘work activation’ program, adding no new farm programs, avoiding any increase in the cost of crop insurance, capping premium subsidies, and repealing the sugar and dairy programs on the grounds that they raise food prices. Since there is no way that a single farm bill or two bills will contain all those provisions, there seems no possibility that lawmakers who vote for the farm bill can get relief from a barrage of conservative criticism.” Yesterday on the AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams, Mary Kay Thatcher, the Senior Director of Congressional Relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, discussed larger themes and realities regarding the political climate in Congress. Ms. Thatcher indicated that, “[T]he problem continues to be that we have fewer and fewer really competitive congressional districts in this country, and so the people who are in a very Republican district fear that someone more to the right of them might run against them in a primary, and therefore they’ve got to be really careful about A– big, big cuts in food stamps or B– do I go too far on immigration, so it’s the same issue, I think.” She added that, “You know, if my memory serves me, we probably only have 45 or 50 districts out of the 435 that are truly competitive between Democrat and Republicans now, so the Democrats worry about are they liberal enough, or is somebody more liberal going to run against them in a primary, and the Republicans worry about someone more conservative running against them in the primary, and I think it drives a lot of their votes.  They’re not really worried about the general election anymore.” With respect to more immediate prospects on the Farm Bill, Ms. Thatcher stated yesterday on AgriTalk that, “I think what we’re looking for is the first person that comes to Speaker Boehner with an idea that is viable on how they get to 218 votes, that’s what they will bring to the floor.  It could be this week, it could be the end of the month.  Certainly that’s what the leadership is aiming for.  It could be November.” Ms. Thatcher also reminded listeners that, “What we forget when we do this is we not only have to pass the House now, but we have to then go to conference and come back and pass both the Senate and the House with that conferenced bill.  It’s more than one step to be considered.” Greg Sargent noted yesterday at The Plum Line Blog (Washington Post) that, “On the farm bill, the collapse of the measure already shows that Boehner can’t count on conservative support even for bills that contain major concessions to them (such as the farm bill’s $20 billion in cuts to food stamps). The response from conservatives will be to insist on still more spending cuts in the bill.” An update posted yesterday at the Heritage Foundation Online stated that, “[Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.)] a fourth-generation farmer from Indiana, will speak at The Bloggers Briefing on Tuesday [today] about his #SplitTheBill campaign. The Bloggers Briefing begins at 11:30 a.m. ET and will be broadcast on Livestream.” Meanwhile, Carol Stender reported yesterday at The Post-Bulletin (Rochester, Minn.) Online that, “Seventh District congressman Collin Peterson said it’s ‘probably not a good idea’ to attempt to pass a farm bill by splitting it from food nutrition legislation. “Republican friends have told him their party has decided to propose the split. “Peterson, speaking at a farm bill and ag issues forum, hosted by Eighth District congressman Rick Nolan, said the Senate might not agree to the split.” Ms. Stender added that, “Keeping food, nutrition and the farm program together has worked well, Peterson said. He’s concerned that separating them might cause deeper cuts in the farm program.” The Post-Bulletin article indicated that, “‘Cantor has been pushing to have a partisan bill that has no Democrats voting for it,’ he said. ‘We told him we didn’t think that would work.’ “For the first time in his 23 years in the House, Peterson said he has no idea what will happen. “‘This is the first time that I’ve ever said that in my career,’ he said. ‘… And I don’t think the Republicans have any idea, either. It’s a mess.’” An item yesterday by Sarah McCammon on the Marketplace Morning Report (“Food stamps may be cut from new farm bill”) stated that, “‘There’s a level of co-dependency on each policy,’ says Rep. Steve King of Iowa (R-Iowa), who voted for the farm bill. ‘It requires the people from the cities, and primarily the inner cities, to support some kind of ag policy if they’re going to get their nutrition piece, and vice versa.’” The Report added that, “‘It’s been a marriage that’s worked quite well and we don’t want to see it split,’ says Mary Kay Thatcher with the American Farm Bureau Federation.” Ken Anderson reported yesterday at Brownfield that, “Although the idea of splitting the farm bill into separate bills for farm and nutrition programs seems to be gaining support, it’s not a realistic long-term solution. “So says University of Nebraska Extension public policy specialist Brad Lubben.” Mr. Anderson indicated that, “‘There’s a reason farm and food came together some 40 years ago,’ Lubben says, ‘because it got the coalition of support to consider farm legislation that already then was recognizing a diminishing presence.’” “‘You’ve got redistricting and gerrymandered districts that have become more politically polarized, such that you have fewer and fewer districts that really bridge the rural-urban divide,’ [Lubben] says. ‘So who are you going to find to push legislation in the House relative to farm and farm-related programs?’” The Brownfield link included a replay of an interview with Dr. Lubben. Brett Neely reported yesterday at Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) Online that, “For decades, Congress rolled food stamps and farm subsidies together into one giant bill. The tactic generated lots of rural and urban votes from politicians in both parties. Everyone got something out of the deal. “That longtime marriage, though, is in trouble. With federal money tight, old alliances are starting to fray.” The MPR item noted that, “Former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and other observers say each of the commodity groups has been too busy trying to get their own best deal to see the big picture. “‘The agriculture groups need to be working as a team rather than dairy working dairy, sugar working sugar and corn working corn,’ Glickman said.” Meanwhile, Phil Izzo reported yesterday at The Real Time Economics Blog (The Wall Street Journal) that, “Food-stamp use rose 2.8% in the U.S. in April from a year earlier, with more than 15% of the U.S. population receiving benefits. (See an interactive map with data on use since 1990.) “One of the federal government’s biggest social welfare programs, which expanded when the economy convulsed, isn’t shrinking back alongside the recovery. “Food stamp rolls increased on a year-over-year basis, but were 0.4% lower from the prior month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported. Though annual growth continues, the pace has slowed since the depths of the recession.” The Journal item added that, “Mississippi was the state with the largest share of its population relying on food stamps — 22% — though Washington, DC was a bit higher overall at 23%.” Also with respect to nutrition, Julian Hattem reported yesterday at The Hill’s RegWatch Blog that, “The Obama administration wants to add Greek yogurt to school lunch menus. “On Monday, the Department of Agriculture announced it was looking to buy the yogurt for schools participating in a federally assisted program that subsidizes school lunches.”   *** In a look at Senate activity related to the Farm Bill, Ramsey Cox reported yesterday at The Hill’s Floor Action Blog that, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called on Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to stop using the Hastert Rule — only taking up legislation that has the support of a majority of Republicans [video replay at FarmPolicy.com Online]. “‘The Hastert Rule has been bad for this country, and Speaker Boehner should get away from it,’ Reid said on the Senate floor Monday. “Reid said that if Boehner wasn’t using the rule named after former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the House could pass the bipartisan Senate farm bill and immigration reform bill.” The Hill update added that, “Reid said if Boehner continues to insist on using the Hastert Rule, any legislation passed in the House has ‘no hope of passing’ in the Senate or being signed by the president. “Reid pointed out that the House couldn’t even pass its own farm bill last month, therefore Boehner should try to pass the Senate farm bill with the help of Democrats.” A news update yesterday from Sen. Kay Hagan (D., N.C.) stated that, “[Sen. Hagan] today visited Rudd Farm in Greensboro to talk about the importance of approving a Farm Bill. In June, Hagan helped pass a bipartisan Senate Farm Bill that contained major victories for North Carolina farmers. “‘I am deeply disappointed that the House has not passed a Farm Bill,’ said Hagan. ‘My first priority in Washington is to boost our economy and create jobs in North Carolina.’”   *** In executive branch perspective on Farm Bill developments, Sec. of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was a guest over the Fourth of July holiday on “The Insiders” television program (WHO-TV, Des Moines, Iowa) and provided analysis on variables that contributed to the House failure to pass a Farm Bill.  The former Iowa governor also addressed specific issues associated with the SNAP program, including remarks on the idea of splitting nutrition from the farm programs in the overall bill. A video replay of “The Insiders” discussion with Sec. Vilsack is available here, while a brief audio clip from the program can be heard here (MP3- 2:30).   Agricultural Economy Purdue University Agricultural Economist Chris Hurt indicated yesterday at the farmdoc daily blog (“Pork Producers Can See the Promised Land”) “Pork producers can see the ‘promised land’ of lower feed costs which will provide an extended period of profitability. Those lower costs are not here yet, but could be just weeks away as prospects for U.S. corn and soybean production have improved in recent days. Producers can see prospects for $2.00 per bushel lowercash corn prices by harvest and $130 per ton lower soybean meal prices in the July to October futures spread. While they see the market’s anticipation of lower feed costs on the near-horizon, they recognize there are still unknowns about acreage, weather for the remainder of the growing season, and early frost.” Andrew Johnson Jr. reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “Growing conditions for the country’s corn crop improved slightly last week, a weekly report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed Monday. “The U.S. corn crop was rated as being 68% in good-to-excellent condition as of Sunday, up 1 percentage point from a week earlier, the USDA said.” In trade related news, Reuters writer Doug Palmer reported yesterday that, “The United States and the European Union, after nearly two years of preparation, start talks on Monday aimed at securing a free-trade agreement to squeeze new economic growth out of the world’s largest trade and investment relationship. “‘We go into these negotiations with the goal of achieving the broadest possible, most comprehensive agreement that we can,’ U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman told Reuters.” With respect to the U.S.- EU trade talks, Lydia DePillis penned an update yesterday at the Wonkblog (Washington Post) titled, “Talks over a huge U.S.-Europe trade deal start this week. Here’s what you need to know.” James Politi reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “At the start of the negotiations, top EU and US officials were optimistic about the prospects for an agreement by the end of next year – an ambitious timeline given the many sticking points that have yet to be tackled by the negotiators.” And Howard Schneider reported in today’s Washington Post that, “U.S. labor and environmental groups, largely silent in the run-up to the U.S.-Europe free-trade talks, now say they worry that the negotiations could be used to weaken consumer, health and other standards on both sides of the Atlantic.” On a separate trade issue, an update yesterday (“China’s Genetically Modified Food Fight”) at the China Real Time Report (Wall Street Journal) indicated that, “A Chinese agricultural official’s unsupported claims about the carcinogenic risks of consuming genetically modified soybeans have rekindled a fervent debate about the use of genetically modified crops in a country with ever-expanding food needs. “Wang Xiaoyu, deputy secretary general of the Heilongjiang Soybean Association, a supporter of local non-genetically modified soybeans, recently told local media that people who consume soy oil made with genetically modified soybeans ‘are more vulnerable to developing tumors and suffering sterility’ (in Chinese).” Yesterday’s update noted that, “Experts were quick to call Mr. Wang’s methodology into question, with several noting that he had failed to present even a scintilla of laboratory evidence linking GMO soy oil with cancer or fertility problems. But in a country already deeply suspicious of genetically modified crops, social media users took the idea and ran with it, sending fear over carcinogenic oil seeping through the Chinese Internet.”   CFTC- Commodity Futures Trading Commission Jamila Trindle and Damian Paletta reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “The head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is proposing to partially delay controversial cross-border derivatives rules slated to go into effect Friday, according to people familiar with the negotiations. “The move is an about-face for CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler, who previously refused to delay a requirement that U.S. banks operating abroad comply with U.S. swaps rules, despite mounting pleas from fellow commissioners, lawmakers and overseas policy makers. Mr. Gensler now is floating a compromise that would implement some provisions almost immediately and delay others until the end of the year, said the people familiar with the negotiations. “The agency may vote as soon as Friday on the rules, which require that firms trading derivatives hold more capital and post collateral to a clearinghouse that secures the deal.”   Immigration AP writer John Flesher reported yesterday that, “For northern Michigan fruit grower Pat McGuire, the most potent symbol of the immigration debate isn’t grainy television footage showing people slipping furtively across the U.S.-Mexican border. Instead, it’s plump red cherries and crisp apples rotting on the ground because there aren’t enough workers to pick them — a scenario that could become reality over the next couple of months.” The AP article stated that, “From Christmas tree growers in the Appalachians to Wisconsin dairy farmers and producers of California’s diverse abundance of fruits and vegetables, agricultural leaders are pleading with Congress for an immigration bill that includes more lenient and less complex rules for hiring farm workers. “A measure that recently cleared the Democratic-led Senate contained provisions that the farm lobby said were promising. The Republican-controlled House is expected to take up the issue shortly. But with agriculture’s once-mighty political influence in decline as its workforce has fallen to 2 percent of the population, it’s uncertain how the industry will fare. Farmers’ complaints about a shrinking labor pool are being overshadowed by the ideologically charged issues of border security and giving legal status to people in the country illegally.” Sara Murray reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “After four years of on-and-off negotiations, a bipartisan group in the House has crafted more than 500 pages of new immigration legislation. “But whether that measure sees the light of day—and whether it gains any momentum—is an open question. “More than a week after the Senate passed its own sweeping bill, House Republicans will gather Wednesday to debate their approach to an immigration overhaul. Many are resisting the idea of passing a comprehensive measure similar to the Senate’s. Instead, some House leaders and rank-and-file Republicans are advocating a piecemeal approach, biting off individual elements of the immigration equation and passing narrow deals.”   -- Keith Good President FarmPolicy.com, Inc. Champaign, IL (t) 217.356.2269   FarmPolicy.com is a FREE newsletter and is made possible by the generous support of McLeod, Watkinson & Miller- Attorneys at Law. To subscribe to the FarmPolicy.com Email, send a note to, farmpolicy-on@list.farmpolicy.com. To unsubscribe, send a note to, farmpolicy-off@list.farmpolicy.com. For instant updates, follow me on twitter.    June 28 Farm Bill; and, the Agricultural Economy- Tuesday Posted By Keith Good On July 2, 2013  Farm Bill Erik Wasson reported yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that, “The leader of a House GOP effort to split the $1 trillion farm bill into pieces said Monday that he is gaining confidence his effort can succeed. “Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told Tea Party activists from Americans for Prosperity that his colleagues are rallying behind the idea. “‘I am finding a lot of interest for separation of the bill,’ he said.” Mr. Wasson noted that, “When pressed, Stutzman did not outline specific, additional food stamp or farm subsidy cuts that he is seeking. He praised the cuts to direct payments in the committee bill and talked of addressing overhead and delivery costs for food stamps. “‘It’s not that we want to take food away from people. We have a food stamp delivery problem,’ he said.” The Hill article added that, “Food stamp advocate Bob Greenstein of The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said Monday that failing to reauthorize food stamps could make the program vulnerable to cuts during the annual appropriations process. “‘I think that’s a short term gain but puts the whole program in greater political danger,’ he said. ‘We would actually recommend defeat of any stand-alone farm bill.’ “Greenstein said that many rural GOP lawmakers may resist the Stutzman push because once the farm subsidies are divorced from food stamps, they will be a the mercy of GOP budget cutters.” Emma Dumain reported yesterday at Roll Call Online that, “Splitting up the farm bill into two pieces won’t be enough to appease the Club for Growth, one of the conservative interest groups that claimed credit for the farm bill’s surprise defeat on the House floor last month. “‘Splitting up the Farm Bill is a good first step, but just splitting a bad bill into two pieces doesn’t suddenly make either piece better,’ said Barney Keller, a spokesman for the Club for Growth, in an email statement to CQ Roll Call on Monday afternoon. ‘Instead, Republicans should put farm subsidies on a path to elimination and devolve food stamps to the states, where they belong.’” Meanwhile, Will Beaton reported yesterday at the Grand Forks Herald (N.D.) Online that, “U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson said changes to food stamps sabotaged a new Farm Bill in the House of Representatives, but he is pushing for new legislation. “Dozens of area residents gathered Monday at the University of Minnesota-Crookston campus to visit with politicians about the Farm Bill, which was recently voted down in the House. “Peterson, D-Minn., and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gave the crowd an update about the bill and answered questions from the audience.” The article noted that, “‘It’s a mess,’ Peterson, who voted for the House version of the bill.” “‘We had the votes to pass this bill,’ said Peterson. ‘People blew it up on purpose.’ “Last minute additions to the bill involving the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food stamps to needy citizens, were among biggest concerns to those who voted against the bill.” The Grand Forks Herald article added that, “‘If they split the bill, I will vote against the food stamp part of it,’ said Peterson. “However, he believes that splitting the bill is not the right option, because the farm legislation may still not pass.” An update yesterday at WDAZ Television (Grand Forks, N.D.) Online, which included a two-minute news video, indicated that, “U.S. Congressman Collin Peterson says getting a new farm bill pasted has been like a four year nightmare. Peterson and U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar were in Crookston today to meet with those working in the Ag Industry about the sticky point on getting a bill passed.” “Peterson told those at the meeting there is now work being done to spilt the farm bill, making the farm programs separate from the nutrition programs, but he says that might make it even tougher to get a bill to pass,” the update said. An audio replay of the WDAZ video report can be heard here (MP3- 2:00). Christopher Doering reported yesterday at The Des Moines Register Online that, “The U.S. House plans to take up another farm bill this month, but Republican leaders are still reviewing what the legislation should ultimately look like to ensure they have the votes they need to pass it, Rep. Steve King [R., Iowa] said in an interview.” “‘We’re going to take a bill up in July,’ said King. ‘We don’t know what it’s going to be yet but we’re going to take another stab at it.’” Mr. Doering indicated that, “King said ultimately he doesn’t see breaking up the farm bill as a pathway forward. ‘I don’t think that there is support for splitting it,’ he said, adding that it is an idea he does not support. ‘I think leadership needs to go through that deliberation process and if they do that they’re likely to come to a similar conclusion that I have.’” And Jim Krencik reported yesterday at The Daily News (Batavia, NY.) Online that, “Amid a far-ranging conversation with Orleans County officials, Rep. Chris Collins [R., N.Y.] detailed plans for a halved-version of the previously voted-down farm bill to be passed by the House of Representatives this month. “According to Collins, the modified bill would split farm-specific legislation from legislation changing the funding level for federal nutrition aid to low-income families and individuals. Collins told 25 attendees of a Coffee with Chris event at Tillman’s Village Inn Saturday that he and a majority of House members would support the farm-only bill, which contains reforms to crop insurance and continuations of agricultural assistance programs. “‘We will, I promise, pass a Farm Bill by August,’ said Collins, who echoed his optimism at an event later Saturday in Ridgeway.” Also yesterday, Chris Clayton reported at the DTN Ag Policy Blog that, “Rep. Tom Latham, a Republican whose western Iowa district was reshaped due to redistricting, has been a member of Congress from the state since being elected in 1994. In his 19 years and two redistricting cycles, Latham has represented roughly two thirds of the state. “Latham and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey are touring southwest Iowa this week, which gave me [Clayton] a chance to ask Latham what he has been hearing on the farm bill and what direction the debate will go when Congress returns from break next week. “‘We’re getting input. Everybody wants to get it done, like I do,’ Latham said Monday. ‘The Speaker is committed to getting a bill passed in July so that’s what we’re looking forward to, so we get it through conference in August and get it done in September,’ Latham said.” The DTN update noted that, “‘I’m not sure you pass either section of it, as a stand alone’ (bill), Latham said. ‘I think it would be very difficult to get enough support, certainly for the food stamps by themselves. A lot of the urban folks in the House of Representatives probably would not be supportive of just the farm section of it by itself. So I don’t know how you pass it without what used to be the coalition of the urban folks with the food programs and the aggies.’ “‘The reason it is getting some traction is just trying to find a sweet spot on the food stamps and on the ag policy has been difficult with the vote we had so they are looking at all options trying to find a way to move a bill so we can find a way to get to conference,’ Latham said. ‘Technically, if you pass the food-stamp portion then you could conference with the Senate on a larger bill with the farm policy also in that.’ “Latham said he doesn’t know what the strategy will be at this point. ‘There could be changes. The Southerland amendment, we may need to have that removed. There are different ways of going about it, certainly, that would help us get more votes.’” The “Washington Insider” section of DTN noted in part yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “[R]ep. Peter Roskam, R, Ill., told the press that the House leadership might be helped by the Independence Day recess because some members who voted against the bill are ‘starting to realize the political effects that could have on farm-state Republicans. I think there were some members who voted no, but when they reflected back and heard how important this actually was to their own members, I think they may come at it with a different position.’ “So, the smart money seems to on a ‘clean bill’ option that would strip the ‘poison pill’ amendments and try again. At the same time, there are lingering doubts that the deep-seated opposition to the Nutrition programs held by many House members can be overcome by yet another trip home. An example widely cited is the House committee and subcommittee chairman who got their favorite amendments passed, but still opposed the bill on the final vote.” Charles Lane indicated in a column published in today’s Washington Post that, “House Republicans want to cut SNAP by at least $20 billion over the next decade, and Democrats want to preserve it pretty much as is. The dispute sent the 2013 farm bill — legislation in which SNAP has traditionally been twinned with subsidies for farmers — down to an unexpected defeat last month. “Fortunately, there is a solution. Abolish food stamps, on one condition: Congress would have to distribute the SNAP budget among other programs for the poor, for which many SNAP recipients also qualify. “The result would be a safety net as generous as today’s but considerably more efficient and transparent — and without the Faustian linkage to subsidies for agribusiness.” Mr. Lane noted that, “Supporters hail SNAP as a key income support for the working poor, seniors and the disabled, as well as an ‘automatic stabilizer’ that bolsters demand during economic downturns and then recedes during recoveries. “That’s true — but the government already has programs, and bureaucracies, for each of those groups and policy goals. For example, a third of the seniors living on food stamps also get Supplemental Security Income (SSI). “And unlike food stamps, the other programs — SSI, the earned-income tax credit, unemployment insurance — deliver benefits in the form most poor people find most useful: cash. “Reallocating the SNAP budget to beef up the rest of the safety net would also eliminate food stamps as a perennial political target.” More broadly on the current political environment in the House, an update yesterday at the NBC News “First Read” webpage pointed out that, “When it comes to productivity, only 15 legislative items have become law under the current Congress. That’s fewer than the 23 items that became law at this same point in the 112th Congress, which passed a historically low number of bills that were signed into law. These numbers might not be surprising given the legislative stalemates so far this year — on the sequester, the farm bill, and student loans.” Also, Gerald F. Seib noted yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “Many House Republicans—particularly the younger freshmen and sophomore members who now make up a stunning 46% of the caucus—don’t much care what conventional wisdom says they should do. They are happy to rock the boat.” And Juan Williams indicated yesterday at The Hill Online that, “Democrats are bashing Boehner too: ‘If he were a woman, they’d be calling him the weakest speaker in history,’ said his predecessor, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She explained that the House GOP majority led by Boehner ‘are not able to get anything done.’” In other news, an item in the July edition of Amber Waves (USDA- Economic Research Service) by Alisha Coleman-Jensen (“Food Insecurity Increased in Most States From 2001 to 2011”) stated that, “As the 2007-09 Great Recession and its accompanying higher unemployment took its toll on U.S. families, food insecurity at the national level increased. In 2011, 14.9 percent of U.S. households were food insecure—up from 10.7 percent in 2001. Food-insecure households are those that were, at times, unable to provide adequate food for one or more household members due to insufficient money or other resources for food. States differed both in the percentage of households that were food insecure and in the change in that prevalence rate during the period. Changes in food security may signal worsening or improving economic conditions in a State or shifts in the composition of a State’s population.” In more specific policy news relating to animal agriculture, an update yesterday at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Blog indicated that, “Late last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to limit the use of antibiotics in livestock production.  If enacted, the ‘Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act of 2013’ would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restrict the use of antibiotics critical to human health in livestock production unless they are used to treat clinically diagnosable diseases.   The bill, co-sponsored by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Jack Reed (D-RI), would also require drug companies and livestock producers to demonstrate they are using the drugs to treat sick animals.” And DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “The president of the Humane Society of the United States [Wayne Pacelle] says Congress is blocking a commonsense solution to providing certainty for the egg industry, and it’s costing votes in getting the farm bill passed.” The DTN article explained that, “Pacelle is still smarting from a setback for his organization in the farm bill debate as both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees declined to take up a bill stemming from an agreement struck between HSUS and the United Egg Producers. Since 2011, the two groups have been championing the Egg Products Inspection Act that would create a national standard for the treatment of egg-laying hens. “The U.S. egg industry is a $6 billion industry. Pacelle noted several major egg trade associations, consumer groups and veterinarians all back the egg bill. “‘The egg industry deserves a vote and we deserve a vote on this issue,’ Pacelle said. ‘It’s clear at this point Congress is jeopardizing this agreement and jeopardizing the future of the egg industry and all of the farmers involved with it.’” Mr. Clayton noted that, “Yet, one of the reasons for proposing national standards comes as an unintended consequence of a Humane Society win in California. Proposition 2 in 2008 created new confinement requirements for laying hens, veal calves and breeding hogs to provide each with the ability to stand up, turn around and extend their limbs. The proposition goes into effect Jan. 1, 2015. After it was passed, the California Legislature passed a law that applied Proposition 2 standards to sales, including eggs. So for a company to sell eggs in California beginning in 2015, it would have to meet the same standards for laying hens.” Yesterday’s article added that, “Rather than adhere to the rules of Prop 2, the House farm bill instead has an interstate commerce provision crafted by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. The provision would prevent any state from banning food products produced in another state that meets USDA or Food and Drug Administration guidelines. It would effectively undercut Prop 2, but it also is opposed by lawmakers for the possible impacts that King’s provision could have in eliminating other state laws as well. “‘I don’t think King survives. I think people realize it’s a radical overreach. I don’t think it survives at the end of the day. (Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie) Stabenow is against it. A lot of people are against it.’ “Despite the lack of support from House Ag Committee leaders and Republicans, Pacelle said he believes the egg amendment would have won if it had gotten a vote on the floor.” In other news, Thomas M. Burton reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “The Obama administration has missed a deadline for issuing congressionally mandated rules on imported foods—a delay highlighted by a U.S. outbreak of hepatitis A cases linked to Turkish pomegranate seeds.” The Journal article noted that, “Under the proposed rule, an importer would need to ascertain whether farms and processors overseas are taking steps to cut or eliminate risks at its facilities. The FDA would then inspect records and work with its counterparts overseas to confirm standards were met. About 15% of food consumed in the U.S. is imported, including about 80% of seafood and 30% of produce. The FDA has made other new food-safety rules public, such as one for produce. “The White House Office of Management and Budget declined to say when it might finish vetting the import rule, which was due to go into effect this January. The office’s website that states it ‘has not yet quantified the cost and benefits’ of the import rule, which it said might impose ‘significant’ burdens and affect about 60,000 importers. A spokeswoman said the office is committed to food safety and has made steady progress in reducing the time rules spend under review.”   Agricultural Economy University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Darrel Good indicated yesterday at the farmdoc daily blog (“Corn and Soybean Market Prospects Following USDA Reports”) that, “The USDA’s June 1 Grain Stocks and Acreage reports contained estimates that were generally as expected for soybeans, but both reports contained surprises for corn. The estimates were friendly for old crop price prospects, but negative for new crop prices, at least in the short run.” After specific analysis, yesterday’s update noted that, “The June 1 stocks estimates for corn and soybeans confirmed very small inventories and the need to continue to limit consumption until new crop supplies are available. As a result, old crop corn and soybean cash prices are expected to be well supported through the summer months. There is considerably more uncertainty about new crop production and price prospects. We expect planted and harvested acreage of both crops to be less than revealed in the June survey. However, production will be influenced more by yield prospects than by acreage estimates. The period for determining yields is just beginning, with July and August weather critical for both crops. Based on current crop condition ratings and near term weather forecasts,prospects for yields likely exceed current market expectations, particularly for corn. If weekly condition ratings remain high, new crop prices are expected to remain under pressure.” And Brad Plumer reported yesterday at the WonkBlog (Washington Post) that, “Crop yields have been steadily improving since the advent of synthetic fertilizer and modern agricultural techniques. So those yields will just need to keep improving in the years to come. “But there’s a big problem: This isn’t happening. Or at least, it’s not happening fast enough. A recent peer-reviewed study in the journal PLOS ONE found that crop yields haven’t been rising at a sufficient pace to meet projected demand by 2050. Here’s the key graph.” The Post update noted that, “The study takes a careful look at historical improvements in crop yields for corn, rice, wheat and soybeans. As you can see, yields per acre have been growing fairly constantly in all four areas. The solid lines show what would happen if this growth continued. “And it’s not enough. The dashed lines above show how productivity would need to grow even more rapidly for the world to satisfy expected demand and double global food production by 2050 in a sustainable manner, without razing more forests for farmland. ‘Current rates,’ the authors note, ‘are not achieving this goal.’” In trade developments, Stephen Castle and Eric Schmitt reported in yesterday’s New York Times that, “European officials and politicians reacted angrily on Sunday to reports that the United States has been spying on its European Union allies, saying the claims could threaten impending talks with Washington on an important trade agreement.” The Times article stated that, “The United States and the European Union are scheduled to begin talks on a trans-Atlantic trade agreement over the summer and to complete them by November 2014. Those talks would be threatened by the espionage revelations, according to Viviane Reding, the European Union’s commissioner for justice. “‘We cannot negotiate over a big trans-Atlantic market if there is the slightest doubt that our partners are carrying out spying activities on the offices of our negotiators,’ Ms. Reding said at a meeting in Luxembourg on Sunday. ‘The American authorities should eliminate any such doubt swiftly.’” AP writer Tom Raum reported yesterday that, “Even before the latest disclosures, talks at the upcoming free-trade sessions were expected to be fragile, with disagreements surfacing over which items should be covered or excluded from an agreement. The United States has said there should be no exceptions. But France has called for exempting certain cultural products, and other Europeans do not appear eager to give up longtime agricultural subsidies. “[Pres. Obama] said the Europeans ‘are some of the closest allies that we have in the world.’ But he added, ‘I guarantee you that in European capitals, there are people who are interested in, if not what I had for breakfast, at least what my talking points might be should I end up meeting with their leaders. That’s how intelligence services operate.’”   -- Keith Good President FarmPolicy.com, Inc. Champaign, IL (t) 217.356.2269   FarmPolicy.com is a FREE newsletter and is made possible by the generous support of McLeod, Watkinson & Miller- Attorneys at Law. To subscribe to the FarmPolicy.com Email, send a note to, farmpolicy-on@list.farmpolicy.com. To unsubscribe, send a note to, farmpolicy-off@list.farmpolicy.com. For instant updates, follow me on twitter.    June 28 Farm Bill; Ag Economy; Regulations; and, Immigration- Monday Posted By Keith Good On July 1, 2013  Farm Bill Erik Wasson reported on Friday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that, “Congress has left Washington for the 10-day Fourth of July holiday without figuring out how to deal with the failed farm bill. “House Democratic and Republican sources said they expect a decision shortly after the recess ends. “Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said the GOP whip count on a split farm bill had not finished as of Friday afternoon.” Mr. Wasson explained that, “Peterson said that he had ‘no idea’ how a House-Senate farm bill conference would work if the House passed a farm bill without food stamp changes in it. He said that the Senate would likely feel entitled to ignore any House demands for additional cuts to the program. “The ranking member said he has not yet decided whether he would vote for the split farm bill or whether he would whip support for it. “The fate of the farm bill is holding up consideration of a 2014 Agriculture appropriations spending bill that has already gone to the Rules Committee.” The Hill update noted that, “Sources said the 2014 spending bill was on the back burner because it would attract the same type of amendment debate that plagued the farm bill and there would be no reason to stir the pot until the bigger $940 billion bill’s fate is figured out.” Rep. Kristi Noem (R., S.D.) indicted on Friday in a column at the Rapid City Journal Online that, “The next step is unclear, but I remain committed to passing this Farm Bill and remain hopeful we will be able to regroup in the coming days. We need to figure out a way to bring a bipartisan majority of the House together in support of this bill.” Bloomberg writers Derek Wallbank and Alan Bjerga reported late last week that, “Food assistance has been part of farm legislation since 1977, when Jimmy Carter was president, marrying the interests of urban and rural lawmakers. Since then, the number of participants in what’s officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has more than doubled to more than 47 million from 17 million, while the ranks of rural lawmakers has declined, making them more dependent on representatives of urban districts with needy constituents to back farm subsidies. “Mounting federal debt has brought fresh scrutiny to both types of aid, as agriculture profits are projected to reach a record $128.2 billion this year and food-stamp costs more than doubled from 2008 to $78.4 billion last year. The House Republican Study Committee, the party’s largest caucus, has pushed leaders to treat the issues separately, as has a coalition of small-government groups that consider food-assistance and crop-subsidy spending wasteful.” And, Dale Denwalt reported last week at the Enid News and Eagle (Okla.) Online that, “[House Ag Committee Chairman Frank Lucas], R-Cheyenne, said Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor are looking at all the options. “‘One of those is the concept of splitting the bill into a nutrition title and basically everything else, the farm bill, staying in a separate bill,’ he said. ‘My personal prospective is the coalition has been successful in the past for 50 years almost for addressing these issues at the same time. But if leadership chooses to go the route of two separate bills, then of course I’ll be supportive.’” An update on Friday at a Heritage Foundation blog noted that, “Splitting up the bill is the first step toward reforming both food stamp and farm spending.” Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) tweeted on Friday that, “It’s time to #SplitTheBill & have a real farm-only #farmbill.” On the other hand, National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson noted on Friday that, “Separating farm programs from nutrition programs and proposing two bills would be a huge mistake. The likely result would be to kill the bill. This will allow Congress to continue to take no action to provide certainty to U.S. family farmers, ranchers, rural residents and those who depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).” Also, Chris Casteel reported on Friday at The Oklahoman (Okla. City) Online that, “Republican leaders might commit ‘political malpractice’ if they separate food stamps from farm policy to move the critical legislation through the House, Rep. Tom Cole said Friday. “‘Count me as skeptical of that strategy,’ said Cole, R-Moore.” The article pointed out that, “Cole said that separating the two components would be a high-risk move, particularly since both parts likely would be shaped to satisfy the most conservative wing of the House Republican conference. Even if they passed the House, he said, they ultimately would have to be reconciled with the farm bill passed by the Senate, where Democrats are in the majority and object to major cuts to food stamps. “Cole said House GOP leaders should defer to Lucas on strategy because of the Oklahoman’s expertise in agriculture and the House politics of farm bills.” In other Farm Bill news, Zack McDonald, writing on Saturday at The News Herald (Panama City, Fla.) Online, provided additional perspective on the “Southerland amendment,” a measure that was added to the Farm Bill near the end of the House floor debate that dealt with work requirements and the SNAP program.  Some have noted that this amendment may have been the breaking point for many Democrats when it came to voting for the final passage of the Farm Bill. The News Herald article indicated that, “Southerland’s amendment to the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act allowed states to apply federal welfare work requirements to the food-stamp program. Most adults who receive or apply for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — including those who support children through the program — would be required to work or participate in a work or training program for at least 20 hours a week to receive SNAP benefits.” Mr. McDonald added that, “Southerland said the amendment’s work requirements would only apply to ‘able-bodied people’ and states would determine the criteria for an ‘able-bodied status.’ He argued the work amendment would not keep disabled, elderly or children from benefits of state food programs. Southerland also said the amendment was ‘very liberal’ in its approach to the definition of work, including training, looking for work or volunteering. “‘The point is, people are producing a result not just in their own best interest, but in the best interest of the community,’ Southerland said. ‘And what we are doing to people who have never known work — we are doing a great injustice by not showing them the empowering element in having some say in your future through the gift of work.’” Chris Cillizza noted in today’s Washington Post that, “Politics is a team sport. Except the way House Republicans have played it for the past few years…[T]he farm bill was perhaps most illustrative of the lack of team spirit in the House GOP. Among the 62 Republicans who voted against the bill, five were committee chairmen — positions they hold thanks to the very party leaders they bucked in voting ‘no.’ “‘We have younger members [who] seem incapable of following and who constantly make the perfect the enemy of the good,’ explained one GOP lawmaker, who spoke candidly on the condition of anonymity. ‘We have chairmen . . . who seem to think they have no obligation to the majority that gave them gavels or even to their fellow chairmen.’” In a related article on Speaker Boehner’s leadership style, Paul Kane and David A. Fahrenthold reported over the weekend at The Washington Post Online that, “Never — ever — is there a sense of real anger from the Ohio Republican [Speaker Boehner]. His leadership style does not involve rapping knuckles, breaking arms or even threatening to rap knuckles or break arms. He has sworn off intimidation and punishment, in a House that has rarely been run on anything else. “As a result, Boehner has allowed rank-and-file Republicans more freedom to vote their will, with him or against him, than any speaker in modern times.” The Post article added that, “The speaker’s inner circle contends that not only does he have the right approach with his raucous caucus, but also that it is the only one that might work. Many House Republicans first won election in 2010 or 2012, and almost certainly ran on a pledge of transparency and against backroom deals, usually citing Obama’s health-care reform as Exhibit A of a bad legislative process. “With pledges like that, a top-down style probably would cost Boehner his job, said Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi (R-Ohio), who is close to the speaker. ‘I don’t think it would work on the Republican side. Not with the dynamics of where the Republican Party is today, with its decentralized approach.’” Separately, on the dairy issue, AP writer M.L. Johnson reported on Friday that, “Dairy farmers expressed frustration this week with Congress’ failure to pass a farm bill, saying the uncertainty made it hard to do business and some could go under without changes to the federal milk program. “Farmers also worried that if a current nine-month extension of the 2008 farm bill expires with no action, a 64-year-old law will kick in, sending milk prices spiraling. While that might provide short-term profits, they say, it’d hurt them in the long run because no one wants to buy milk at $6 a gallon.” The article noted that, “Wisconsin farmers grow more of their own feed than those in states like California, the nation’s top milk producer. Dean Strauss, 41, who milks 1,900 cows in Sheboygan Falls, said growing 3,000 acres of feed provides some protection from high feed prices but doesn’t reduce the need for a new farm bill, which would likely have better crop insurance programs.” Marcia Zarley Taylor reported on Friday at the DTN Minding Ag’s Business Blog that, “[Rep. Ron Kind (D., Wis.)] charged more reforms are needed for crop insurance, arguing that the ‘government guarantees a 14% profit for insurance companies with virtually no risk to the companies, while paying 100% of administrative and operating expenses.’ His amendment, which was narrowly defeated, would have curbed underwriting gains and agent commissions; established a limit of $50,000 in subsidies to any person (about 1,100 acre Iowa corn grower or 2,000 acre Kansas wheat grower); and also required anyone with gross sales over $250,000 to pay unsubsidized insurance rates on policy coverage. Other provisions would have required USDA to make certain crop insurance claims public information. “Rick Gibson, a consultant for NAU Country Insurance and one of the executives who pioneered revenue-based crop insurance in the 1990s, questions Kind’s premise and has encouraged agents to rebut it. “The charge that the insurance industry is guaranteed a profit ‘just isn’t true,’ he says. ‘If we were guaranteed a profit, how did we lose money last year?’” The DTN item stated that, “The industry and USDA are still counting losses from the Great Drought of 2012, he notes. It’s made complicated because each company has a different loss sharing agreement. Estimates vary but some believe that private industry could lose $3 billion to $5 billion, he says. “Crop insurance companies also lost money in 1983, 1984, 1988, 1993 and 2002, according to the National Crop Insurance Services. It claims that is in sharp contrast to providers of everyday property and casualty insurance, which have only lost money once over the past 50 years. That loss was in 2001—the year of the 9-11 attacks.” And in other news, Al Kamen reported on Friday at The Washington Post Online that, “The White House cranked out nominations this week for ambassadorships and some top sub-Cabinet jobs… Krysta Harden , chief of staff at the Department of Agriculture and before that assistant secretary for congressional relations, was nominated to be the department’s deputy secretary…and… Robert Bonnie, a senior policy adviser at the Agriculture Department and before that a longtime official at the Environmental Defense Fund, got the nod to be the department’s undersecretary for natural resources and environment.”   Agricultural Economy Emiko Terazono and Jack Farchy reported on Friday at The Financial Times Online that, “New crop corn prices to be harvested later this year fell sharply as US farmers planted the largest acreage of the commodity since 1936, despite a wet, cold spring that delayed fieldwork. “Although farmers had been expected to plant record levels of both corn and soyabeans in response to last year’s surge in prices brought on by the drought, there had been uncertainty over the scale of new plantings this year due to poor weather.” The FT writers added that, “The latest release from the US Department of Agriculture showed that the planted area for corn totalled 97.4m acres, the highest figure since 1936 when an estimated 102m acres were planted. The number was 2m acres, or 2 per cent, higher than analysts’ forecasts of around 95m acres, and up marginally from last year’s 97.2m acres. “The data took analysts and traders, who were expecting the planting numbers to fall rather than rise, by surprise.” Owen Fletcher and Jeffrey Sparshott reported in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal that, “The forecast suggests that U.S. corn supplies could increase sharply if summer weather is favorable for the nation’s crop. Last year, a severe U.S. drought battered the Farm Belt, sending corn prices to a record $8.3125 a bushel on Aug. 21. But futures have fallen since then due to tepid demand from foreign importers and expectations that the U.S. could produce a record crop this fall. “The USDA said corn supplies as of June 1 totaled 2.76 billion bushels. That marked the lowest level in 16 years and was below analysts’ forecast of 2.86 billion bushels, but traders focused instead on the fact that the government didn’t reduce projected corn acreage. “The government also raised its estimate of planted soybean acreage to a record 77.7 million acres this year, up 1% from last year but still shy of expectations. Analysts expected the USDA to estimate this year’s domestic soybean plantings at 78.02 million acres, in part on the view that farmers unable to plant corn would switch to soybeans, which have a later growing season.” On Friday, University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Darrel Good provided analysis and perspective on the reports from USDA in an interview with Todd Gleason of University of Illinois Extension; a replay of their discussion can be heard here (MP3- 4:55).   Regulations Ben Goad reported on Friday at The Hill’s RegWatch Blog that, “House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton and a pair of the panel’s subcommittee chairmen called Friday for an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s alleged ‘sue and settle tactics.’ “The EPA has come under fire from conservatives, who question agency lawsuit settlements that trigger new regulations. Critics say the practice allows environmental groups to coerce the agency into setting policy as a result of the litigation. “Upton (R-Mich.), along with Reps. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) and Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), are requesting that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) launch a probe into the practice, saying they are worried about the decisions being made behind closed doors.” The New York Times editorial board indicated today that, “President Obama’s new regulatory agenda on climate change will face inevitable legal and political challenges. But in all fields — not just energy and the environment but health, safety and labor — one of the most formidable obstacles to reform has been the administration’s own resistance to finalizing new rules, even when it has expressed support for the causes those rules would address. “Recently, 136 draft rules from executive agencies were under review at the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, a branch of the Office of Management and Budget. Of them, 72 have been held up for longer than the 90-day limit set by executive order, and of those, 38 have languished for more than a year, including 24 from 2011 and three from 2010.” The Times noted that, “In January 2011, Mr. Obama signed a major food-safety law. But three rules to implement the law, submitted to OIRA by the Food and Drug Administration in November 2011, are still not completed. Two of them, on produce safety and food-related illness prevention, got preliminary clearance from OIRA in January, which allows the F.D.A. to resume work on them before resubmitting them to OIRA for final review. A third rule, to enhance the safety of imported food, has not budged.” “At the end of the day, what the public needs most is not just a more timely and transparent review process but a president unafraid of Republicans or corporate interests and determined to enact his regulatory agenda,” the Times said.   Immigration Janet Hook reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “For all the battles in Congress over immigration, the issue isn’t likely to be a decisive one in many individual campaigns for House seats in 2014, strategists for both parties say.” Ms. Hook explained that, “With few House members of either party feeling pressure to make any concessions, the politics of the House go a long way toward explaining why the prospects for the legislation are uncertain as it moves to the House from the Senate. “Lawmakers said Sunday it would be tough for the House to pass an immigration plan, although backers held out hope for a final deal by the end of the year.” AP writer Philip Elliot reported yesterday that, “The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee [Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.)] said Sunday [on CNN's "State of the Union"] that any attempt at comprehensive immigration legislation cannot offer a ‘special pathway to citizenship’ for those in the United States illegally.” The AP article noted that, “Illustrating the strong opposition among conservative lawmakers in the House, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said flatly [on “Fox News Sunday”]: ‘The Senate bill is not going to pass.’ “Bowing to those pressures, House Republicans have said they would consider each piece of immigration separately as they tried to navigate the politically dicey subject that could complicate not only their efforts to reclaim the White House but also thwart some incumbent GOP lawmakers’ attempt to win re-election. “House Speaker John Boehner has ruled out taking up the Senate bill and said the Republican-controlled chamber would chart its own version of the legislation with a focus on border security.”   -- Keith Good President FarmPolicy.com, Inc. Champaign, IL (t) 217.356.2269   FarmPolicy.com is a FREE newsletter and is made possible by the generous support of McLeod, Watkinson & Miller- Attorneys at Law. To subscribe to the FarmPolicy.com Email, send a note to, farmpolicy-on@list.farmpolicy.com. To unsubscribe, send a note to, farmpolicy-off@list.farmpolicy.com. For instant updates, follow me on twitter.    June 28 Farm Bill; Ag Econ; Regulations; and, Immigration- Friday Posted By Keith Good On June 28, 2013  Farm Bill David Rogers reported yesterday at Politico that, “Moving further to the right, the House Republican leadership is actively pursuing a strategy of splitting its failed farm bill into two parts so that the nutrition title and food stamps funding can be considered on their own. “Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is driving the new approach, which dovetails with the agenda of outside conservative groups. But Speaker John Boehner’s office signaled Thursday that he also is open to the two-bill strategy and a final decision will be made after the July Fourth recess. “‘We are going with this play and see where it gets us,’ a senior leadership aide told POLITICO. ‘We are trying to break the bill apart to get something to conference with the Senate.’” (Note that in a news briefing yesterday with Speaker Boehner, the following exchange took place, QUESTION: On the farm bill, do you support the — the notion of splitting food stamps away from the [farm program] as a possible…? “BOEHNER: There’s a lot of conversations going on about the farm bill and a way forward. There have been no decisions” (Audio clip.)) In his Politico article, Mr. Rogers explained that, “Even if successful in getting out of the House, the two-bill strategy raises real parliamentary problems about what the scope of future House-Senate talks will be. Leadership aides admitted some uncertainty as to whether negotiators will be able to meld the two pieces back together again. And the commodity title of the farm bill includes tariff provisions which make it technically a revenue measure. “For Boehner and larger American agriculture interests, the two-bill approach represents a major challenge: Do they allow themselves to be whittled down more from the right or embrace a larger reform agenda that rebuilds the old urban-rural coalition more from the middle? “The food stamps fight has dominated farm bill politics to date. But last week’s floor debate also reflected a bipartisan appetite for more reforms in crop insurance and international food aid — a path that could attract votes from both sides of the aisle.” Yesterday’s article also noted that, “I told John, `We need to get together and fix this, and the sooner the better,’” [Rep. Collin Peterson] told POLITICO of his conversations with the speaker. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), a friend of the speaker with a background in farm debates, may be enlisted in the effort. “Indeed moving far to the right on the farm bill can become a trap for the speaker. “It exposes him to attacks from conservatives down the road, when the final House-Senate conference report — which will almost certainly be a more centrist document — comes back to the House floor.” Mary Kay Thatcher, the Senior Director of Congressional Relations at the American Farm Bureau pointed out yesterday on the AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams that, “But I think one thing you have to keep in mind is it’s not just about passing it this time, it’s about making sure we have enough votes to come back once it’s through conference and pass the House and the Senate.” Also, Emma Dumain and Matt Fuller reported yesterday at Roll Call Online that, “House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is looking at splitting food stamps and farm programs in an effort to unite Republicans to pass a farm bill so leadership doesn’t have to count on Democratic votes. “‘Cantor believes the best path now is to move forward with a bill that has 218 Republican votes since Democrats proved they cannot be trusted to work in good faith, and that path may be splitting up the bill,’ a GOP aide told CQ Roll Call on Thursday morning.” Corey Boles reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “No final decisions have been made on how to move a farm bill forward, the aide said, but Mr. Cantor (R., Va.), who controls the House agenda, is pushing for a vote by the full House in July after a one-week recess. Two senior GOP leadership aides said decisions aren’t likely to be made until lawmakers return from the Fourth of July break.” Mr. Boles indicated that, “[Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.), an advocate for splitting the Farm Bill] said he had attended a meeting between a group of conservative lawmakers and Mr. Cantor where the issue was discussed, and had a one-on-one meeting with the majority leader on Thursday.” The Journal article added that, “Mr. Stutzman said that he thought there would be 218 Republican votes—the minimum number needed to approve legislation if every representative casts a vote—for a standalone bill covering the core farm programs. But he acknowledged that food-stamps funding would likely be cut substantially to get enough Republican support to clear the House.” Yesterday’s article stated that, “Rep. Frank Lucas (R., Okla.), the House Agriculture Committee chairman, who is the main author of the current farm bill is strongly opposed to splitting food-stamps funding from the core farm bill. “‘When you look at the so-called political activists groups on the East Coast—the paid mercenaries—they don’t want a farm bill and that’s why they advocate for these things because they see it as the best way to kill the farm safety net,’ Mr. Lucas said Wednesday during an interview with Radio Oklahoma Network.” Bloomberg writer Derek Wallbank reported yesterday that, “The largest House Republican caucus, the Republican Study Committee, has been pushing leaders to treat the issues separately, a position advocated by a coalition of small-government groups. “‘We should separate food stamps from what we call the commodity title,’ Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, an RSC member, told MSNBC on June 24. The Bloomberg article added that, “Senate Agriculture Chairman Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, has said a farm bill without food stamps is a non-starter.” Also, Erik Wasson reported yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that, “Conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he opposed splitting the bill. He said that, heading into a conference with the Senate, a combined bill is the only way to get Democrats to swallow any food stamp cuts. “‘What I want from leaders is a plan to get 218 votes on a combined bill by the time we leave here for July 4,’ he argued.” In addition, O. Kay Henderson reported yesterday at RadioIowa Online that, “Republican Congressman Steve King admits there’s a chance congress cannot come up with a compromise on the Farm Bill. “‘At this point, I don’t know if we can do it,’ King says.” Meanwhile, speaking yesterday on WDWS Radio (AM- 1400, Champaign, Il.), Ag Committee Member Rodney Davis (R., Il.) noted that, “I think, after talking with Chairman Lucas yesterday, I think we’ll try and craft some minor changes to this bill and go into a conference committee in good standing with a good ability to find that common sense solution,” the freshman lawmaker added that, “But we’ve got to get a bill out of the House to even be able to sit down across the table and find that common sense solution.” (Related audio here (MP3- 2:09)). And on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams, Mary Kay Thatcher noted that, “So I suspect in the end there will be a way to find one or two or three amendments that could be jiggered, or new ones offered and accepted and this bill can pass.  But I don’t think we’ve figured out the vote counting yet.  It’s really not that big, Mike, you know.  You’ve got some people who were already [let] away, you know, saying, well, you can vote no.  They promised to vote yes on the bill if it came really close, but when it was defeated by [as many] they let them go.  So you probably only have to find 10 to 12 people to pass this.” And with respect to an extension, Ms. Thatcher stated on AgriTalk that, “You know, Harry Reid said very forcefully, probably three months ago now, that if there was another extension, it would not include direct payments, so I think there was already pressure on the ag community to get something done, not necessarily because of the direct payments, because everybody knows they’re going away, but because without those direct payments you wouldn’t have the $5 billion a year to put towards deficit reduction and to put towards building a viable safety net.” In other news, Sec. of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was a guest yesterday on the “Morning Joe” television program (MSNBC) where he discussed mostly nutrition issues, but also commented on the Farm Bill in response to a question (video replay here). Sec. Vilsack noted that one of the consequences of not getting a new Farm Bill passed is the trade retaliation threat from Brazil that continues to loom due to an adverse WTO decision, something that could potentially impact all sectors of the economy, not just agriculture.  Brazil has held off on exercising this retaliatory option, but it does remain. Sec. Vilsack was also asked about the SNAP program. This portion of yesterday’s MSNBC interview can be heard here (MP3- 1:12). And Ben Goad reported yesterday at The Hill’s RegWatch Blog that, “Candy bars and Cokes will be replaced in school vending machines around the country with fruit cups and calorie-free flavored water under new snack standards unveiled Thursday. “The Department of Agriculture regulations apply to all food and drinks sold to kids in school, outside of the national school breakfast and lunch programs, which are already subject to new rules under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.” (Related USDA video available here). Stephanie Strom reported in today’s New York Times that, “The law, supported by Michelle Obama and drafted with an unusual level of cooperation between nutrition advocates and the food industry, required the Agriculture Department to set nutritional standards for all foods sold in schools. “The department had previously set the standards for fats, sugars and sodium in meals prepared in schools, and the new rules bring other foods under similar standards. When schools open in the fall of 2014, vending machines will have to be stocked with things like whole wheat crackers, granola bars and dried fruits, instead of M&Ms, Cheese Nips and gummy bears.” Rep. Lee Terry (R., Neb.) tweeted yesterday that, “#Gatorade and sugary drinks and chips banned in schools by @USDA.  # nannystate.” Meanwhile, Government Accountability Office (GAO) testimony yesterday (“SCHOOL LUNCH: Modifications Needed to Some of the New Nutrition Standards”) indicated that, “School districts faced several challenges implementing the new lunch requirements in school year 2012-2013, according to the eight districts GAO visited and food service and industry officials GAO interviewed from across the country; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) response to some of these challenges has been limited. For example, because USDA regulations restrict the amounts of meats and grains that can be served in school lunches each week, all eight districts GAO visited needed to modify or eliminate popular menu items. These changes sometimes led to negative student reactions. The meat and grain restrictions also led to smaller lunch entrees, making it difficult for some schools to meet minimum calorie requirements for lunches without adding items, such as gelatin, that generally do not improve the nutritional quality of lunches.”   Agricultural Economy Yesterday, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service released its monthly Agricultural Prices report, which stated in part that, “The corn price, at $7.02 per bushel, is up 5 cents from last month and 65 cents above June 2012 [related graph] …the soybean price, at $15.10 per bushel, increased 20 cents from May and is $1.20 above June 2012 [related graph] …and…the June price for all wheat, at $7.13 per bushel, is down 55 cents from May but 43 cents higher than June 2012 [related graph].” Emiko Terazono reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “Soyameal, the key ingredient for feeding chickens and pigs, hit a seven-month high on concerns over the low levels of soyabean inventories  in the aftermath of last year’s severe drought. “The meal, produced from crushing soyabeans, is mixed with corn to make animal feed. “Despite expectations of a bumper harvest later this year, prices for soyabeans and meal have remained high due to dwindling stocks for the commodities for immediate delivery.” The FT article noted that, “Details on planting, stocks and usage are likely to become clearer on Friday when the US Department of Agriculture publishes its quarterly planting and stocks report.” Ian Berry and Owen Fletcher reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “Buoyed by strong consumer demand and tight supplies, lean-hog prices have leapt 19% so far this year.” The Journal writers noted that, “The jump in prices is helping hog farmers counteract higher costs for feed grains after last summer’s severe U.S. drought, while meatpackers have been able to pass along the higher costs due to ample retail demand. Pork demand has risen due to its lower price compared with beef, which hit record prices at retail this spring.” Today’s article added that, “The rally in hog futures got a boost last month when Smithfield Foods Inc., the world’s biggest pork processor and hog producer, agreed to a $4.7 billion takeover by China’s Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd., in what would be the biggest Chinese takeover of a U.S. company. The deal led to speculation that U.S. pork exports to China will rise if the deal is completed. “Futures also have been lifted by tighter U.S. hog supplies. Supplies often shrink this time of year due to the animals’ breeding patterns—a trend accentuated by last summer’s heat in the Midwest, which curbed swine reproduction and resulted in fewer pigs this year.” Meanwhile, USDA’s Economic Research Service released a report yesterday (“International Food Security Assessment, 2013-2023,” by Birgit Meade and Stacey Rosen) which noted that, “Food insecurity in the 76 low- and middle-income countries examined in this report is expected to remain virtually unchanged between 2012 and 2013. By 2023, however, the number of food-insecure people is projected to increase nearly 23 percent to 868 million, with the share of the population that is food insecure growing from 20.4 percent to 21.5 percent.” In trade news, James Politi reported on Wednesday at The Financial Times Online that, “General government procurement accounts for more than 10 per cent of economic output in the US, according to the OECD, the Paris based group of countries that tries to promote growth. So a proliferation of Buy America bills – similar to the one supported by [Ron Young, a veteran Maryland legislator], which requires Maryland to choose domestically produced products over foreign ones where possible – are barriers that European officials would like to see removed in trade talks, due to begin next month. “‘What we are trying to establish in these negotiations is free trade – we’re not going to be able to do that everywhere but that is the general objective – and that means not discriminating between European goods or services and their American counterparts,’ says an EU official in Washington. ‘This is an issue for us because in Europe we have used procurement as an instrument to open up trade between member states, and in doing that we haven’t discriminated against foreigners.’”   Regulations Reuters writer Douwe Miedema reported yesterday that, “A top U.S. regulator charged former MF Global chief Jon Corzine over the collapse of the futures brokerage, blaming the former Goldman Sachs co-chief executive with being a key actor in one of the country’s 10 biggest bankruptcies. “The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said on Thursday it will seek in a civil case to ban Corzine and former Assistant Treasurer Edith O’Brien from the industry, and also seek penalties against the two.” In a statement yesterday, Sen. Ag Comm. Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) indicated that, “This is an important step forward and I appreciate that the CFTC continues to pursue this matter and fight for customers and market integrity.  As I have said before, there must be accountability in this case and we need to do all we can to help MF Global customers get their money back. The loss of $1.2 billion in customer funds represents an extraordinary breach of trust and devastated thousands of farmers, ranchers and small businesses who rely on the futures market to hedge business risk. The Senate Agriculture Committee will continue throughout the upcoming CFTC reauthorization process to consider additional protections to ensure that customer money is not used improperly and to prevent situations like the MF Global bankruptcy from happening again.” And Randy Neugebauer (R., Tex.), Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, noted yesterday that, “The CFTC’s conclusions track closely with my subcommittee’s findings that Jon Corzine’s decisions caused farmers, ranchers, and other customers to lose more than $1 billion.  He didn’t act in good faith as a steward of these funds, and he violated his legal obligations by failing to adequately oversee MF Global’s operations.  He should bear the responsibility for these unlawful and harmful actions.  I appreciate all the work the CFTC has put into this case.” On a separate issue, Reuters writer Charles Abbott reported yesterday that, “U.S. lawmakers will examine the proposed purchase of Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork processor, by Shuanghui International of China at a hearing in July, Debbie Stabenow, the head of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said on Thursday. “Smithfield Chief Executive Larry Pope will be among those to testify at the July 10 hearing. Other witnesses have not been announced.”   Immigration Sara Murray and Janet Hook reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “The Senate easily passed the most sweeping changes to immigration law in nearly 30 years, sending the landmark measure to the House, where conservative lawmakers threaten to slow the drive to grant legal status to many of the estimated 11 million people living illegally in the U.S. “The 68-32 vote Thursday marked a major step in a long-debated overhaul to the immigration system and drew ceremonial flourish. Vice President Joe Biden presided over the proceedings, and lawmakers rose from their desks to cast their votes, a rarely used gesture of formality. “Fourteen Republicans joined all of the Senate Democrats and two independents to support the measure, in a clear marker of how far the political calculus of immigration reform has shifted in the six years since a similar effort stalled on the Senate floor.” The Journal writers noted that, “House Republican leaders have pledged to chart their own path, which is sure to diverge from the Senate’s bipartisan approach. “In particular, the two chambers are likely to clash over the Senate-backed provision to grant legal status and a possibility of citizenship to illegal immigrants, an idea rejected by many House conservatives. “‘The House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes,’ House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday before the final Senate vote. But in a sign of how far House Republicans are from consensus on their alternative, Mr. Boehner wouldn’t say what he wanted to see in the bill.” Mike Lillis reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “The surprise failure of the farm bill last week is not a bad omen for immigration reform, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted Thursday. “The Democratic leader said the two issues are entirely separate and will be treated as such. “‘The farm bill was a bad sign for what happened on the farm bill,’ Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol. ‘Every day is a new day here in terms of the legislation and what the public demand for legislation is.’”   -- Keith Good President FarmPolicy.com, Inc. Champaign, IL (t) 217.356.2269   FarmPolicy.com is a FREE newsletter and is made possible by the generous support of McLeod, Watkinson & Miller- Attorneys at Law. To subscribe to the FarmPolicy.com Email, send a note to, farmpolicy-on@list.farmpolicy.com. To unsubscribe, send a note to, farmpolicy-off@list.farmpolicy.com. For instant updates, follow me on twitter.