|
May 21
|
Farm
Bill; and the Ag Economy- Tuesday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 21, 2013
Farm
Bill
Yesterday
afternoon, the Senate proceeded to consider the Farm
Bill (S.954).
“Democrats and
Republicans disagree on many things. So it’s really remarkable and encouraging
to see how well Senators Stabenow and Senator Cochran — the
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee — worked
together to bring the agriculture jobs bill to the floor. Their work
has been exemplary — some would say old-fashioned — the way things used to be,”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said yesterday.
“In an
effort to expedite the floor process, the committee even included many of the amendments
that were adopted last year, when the Senate considered and passed a farm bill.
I hope their cooperative spirit guides our work on this important legislation.
American farmers are counting on us. So is the economy,” Leader Reid noted;
while adding that, “But to keep American farms strong, Congress must pass a
strong farm bill.”
In remarks
on the Senate floor yesterday (video
replay here) Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie
Stabenow (D., Mich.) stated that, “Most of us don’t have to worry
about how many days it’s been since the last rainfall. Or whether or not
it’s going to freeze in May after the fruit trees are blooming. Most of us
don’t have to worry about decisions and weather conditions around the world and
how it affects our livelihood. And that’s why we have the Farm
Bill. We have a Farm Bill because farmers are in the riskiest
business in the world.”
Chairwoman
Stabenow noted that, “We are putting in caps on payments to farmers, we’re
closing loopholes that allowed people who weren’t actually farming to receive
payments, and we’re strengthening crop insurance so farmers can go to
an agent and buy insurance to protect their crops from bad weather or market
swings.”
Committee
ranking member Thad Cochran (R., Miss.) also addressed the
Senate chamber yesterday (video
replay) and “focused on farm program reforms and savings in the
legislation, as well as the importance of agriculture to the American
economy,” according
to a news release.
Meanwhile, Ramsey
Cox reported yesterday at The Hill’s Floor Action Blog that,
“Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said the House farm bill
cuts to food stamps, also called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP), could not pass in the Senate [video
replay, full remarks].
“‘We
shouldn’t be cutting federal nutrition programs,’ Brown said Monday. ‘[The
Senate] bill cuts $4 billion from SNAP and that’s already $4 billion too much.
… The House’s $20 billion in SNAP cuts won’t pass muster in the Senate
and certainly won’t get my support.’”
DTN Ag
Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link
requires subscription) that, “Reid would like to clear the
Senate calendar of legislation such as the farm bill with the plan to provide
as much time as possible in June for the Senate to debate the
comprehensive immigration reform bill now being debated in the
Judiciary Committee.
“That said,
it took all of about 30 minutes on the floor Monday before Sen. John
McCain, R-Ariz., threw the first wrench into the farm-bill
machinery. Introducing
an amendment co-sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
D-Calif., McCain said the
amendment would eliminate the crop-insurance premium subsidy for
tobacco. McCain pointed to the $10 billion tobacco subsidy bailout to
question why taxpayers now subsidize crop insurance for tobacco.”
The DTN
article noted, “‘Well, it turns out Joe Camel’s nose has been under the tent
all this time in the form of hidden crop-insurance subsidies,’ McCain said.
“McCain
then questioned the justification for subsidizing crop insurance for tobacco
considering the cost tobacco use creates for taxpayers in terms of more
expensive health care [audio
of a portion of Sen. McCain’s remarks available here (MP3- 2:37)].
David
Rogers reported yesterday at Politico that, “Senate Agriculture
Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) urged
her colleagues to look at the crop insurance program with a ‘broad lens’ and
not focus on one crop singled out for its impact on health care.
“The
underlying farm bill, in fact, ends direct cash subsidies to producers — a
costly system dating back to the mid-90’s. And while
the government absorbs about 62 percent of the premium costs for crop
insurance, the farmer never sees that subsidy. What he or she sees is
the bill for the remaining 38 percent — not some cash handout like today.”
Mr. Rogers
noted that, “‘We’ve moved to a system where we’re
asking farmers to put some skin in the game,’ Stabenow said. ‘We’re saying you
have to have crop insurance, you have to be part of paying for it.’
“‘As we
move to that cornerstone, I would hope that we could keep that in place and not
see efforts that will weaken it around the edges.’”
A news
update yesterday from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D.,
N.H.) stated that, “[Sens. Shaheen], Pat Toomey (R-PA)
and Mark
Kirk (R-IL) today are announcing plans to implement
commonsense reforms to the U.S. sugar program by amending the Senate Farm Bill with
a bipartisan effort that will save consumers money. The trio will
introduce the Sugar Reform Act as an amendment to roll back
unnecessary provisions that unfairly benefit wealthy sugar famers at the
expense of consumers. This legislation, introduced earlier this year as a
stand-alone bill with bipartisan, bicameral support, will reform domestic supply
restrictions, lower price support levels, and ensure adequate sugar supplies at
reasonable prices.”
And a news
update yesterday from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D.,
Ore.) stated that, “Today, Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley
announced that he would put forward an amendment to the Senate farm bill
that would repeal a controversial provision of the recently-passed
continuing resolution known as the ‘Monsanto Protection Act.’
“‘The
Monsanto Protection Act is an outrageous example of a special interest
loophole,’ said Merkley. ‘This provision nullifies
the actions of a court that is enforcing the law to protect farmers, the
environment and public health. That is unacceptable.’
“To avoid
public scrutiny, the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ was quietly and anonymously
inserted into the continuing resolution passed this March to avert a government
shutdown.”
Meanwhile,
a news
release yesterday from Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D.
N.D.) stated that, [Sen. Heitkamp] will spend the
week pushing for agriculture policies that work for North Dakota as the full
Senate debates a long-term Farm Bill. Heitkamp is
committed to preserving the provisions she supported in the current bill, which
passed the Senate Agriculture Committee in a strong bipartisan fashion last week.…‘This is a critically important week for the
Farm Bill,’ said Heitkamp. ‘Now is the time for
the Senate to step up and pass this major reform legislation, which will send a
clear signal to the House of Representatives that this work must get done.
While we can’t know for sure if the House will actually bring a Farm Bill to
the floor for a vote this year, it is our duty in the Senate to show leadership
and move this legislation forward.”
Speaking yesterday on
the AgriTalk radio program with Mike
Adams, Senior Director of Congressional Relations for the American
Farm Bureau Federation, Mary Kay Thatcher, noted that, “I think
the Senate floor, you’re likely to see some hits on crop
insurance, probably quite a few. I think you could have people come
in and just try to repeal the ability to rely on permanent law to
get this bill done every four years or five years. And then you’re going
to have just a whole host of conservation and nutrition type amendments.
And if you were a betting person, you’d bet at least 100 amendments
will be filed on the bill.”
More
specifically on the commodity title Ms. Thatcher noted that, “Well,
certainly peanut and rice producers have wanted a reasonable target price
throughout the debate on this bill. They have, in general, felt like
a revenue program or like the ARC program or the RLC over in the House, or a
crop insurance program doesn’t work as well for them as it works for other
commodities, and so they’ve pretty much said we don’t want to look at some of these
shallow loss revenue programs. We just want a target price that will be
set, that target price will stay set for the life of the bill, we’ll worry
about our own yields and revenue, etc., just give us
the target price… [N]ow, the target prices on the
Senate side, you would have to say, are less trade distorting than those on the
House side, number one because they are lower, and number two because they’re
tied to the old base acres rather than tied to current planted acres…”
With
respect to the House
side, Ms. Thatcher noted on yesterday’s AgriTalk program that, “I think the House
floor is just going to be a nightmare. We are going to have so many
nutrition amendments, and we have so many fewer rural people on the House
side. I can’t really see a way that you make either the Senate or
the House bill much improved from where they are now, and I can see lots of
ways that they could get a lot worse.”
A floor
schedule update posted recently at the Senate Democrats webpage
indicated that, “The Senate stands in adjournment until 10:00am on Tuesday,
May 21, 2013. Following any Leader remarks, the Senate will be in morning
business for one hour with the Majority controlling the first half and the
Republicans controlling the final half. Following morning business,
the Senate will resume consideration of S.954, the Farm bill.”
With
respect to executive branch perspective on the Farm Bill,
Reuters writer Charles
Abbott reported yesterday that, “The Senate should cut crop
insurance subsidies, the most expensive part of the farm safety net, by $1
billion a year before it passes the new farm bill, the White
House said on Monday.
The Reuters
article noted that, “It [the executive branch proposal] would reduce the
federal subsidy on premiums, now averaging 62 cents of each $1, by 3 percentage
points on the most heavily subsidized and most popular policies, which shield
crop revenue from low prices and poor yields.
“Premium
subsidies would be cut by an additional 2 points on policies that base the
revenue guarantee on market prices at harvest time rather than the price
projected at planting time. One analyst said those policies were unduly
expensive in the 2012 drought because commodity prices soared in the fall.
“The
administration also would limit insurers to a 12 percent rate of return, down 2
points, and lower the annual payment, now $1.3 billion, to defray overhead
costs.”
And
in a statement
yesterday, Sec. of Ag. Tom Vilsack noted in part
that, “I also appreciate efforts by Chairman Lucas and Congressman
Peterson to pass a bill out of the House Agriculture Committee. I am deeply
concerned about portions of the House version of the bill, including
significant cuts that would deny struggling families and their children access
to food assistance. The Administration strongly supports the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a cornerstone of our Nation’s
food assistance safety net, which is why it was not subject to cuts in the
President’s Budget.”
Agricultural
Economy
Gregory
Meyer reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “US
farmers driving floodlit tractors into the night have planted the most corn in
any week on record in a sprint that could force prices lower on world
agricultural commodity markets.
“US
Department of Agriculture data suggested farmers seeded a record 42m
acres (17m hectares) in the seven days to Sunday – an area larger than
Austria, Ireland or South Korea. Seventy-one
per cent of corn fields were planted in the main farm states by Sunday,up from 28 per
cent the week before.”
The FT
article added that, “Planted Illinois corn acreage
jumped from 17 per cent to 74 per cent in the week, USDA
reported.
“In Iowa,
the biggest corn-growing state, the jump was from 15 per cent to 71 per
cent.”
Mr. Meyer
explained that, “Corn prices have remained high this spring as steady rain left
fields too muddy to plant. This threatened to expose late-germinating corn
stalks to severe midsummer heat.”
AP
writer David
Pitt reported yesterday that, “Clark Kelly plans to spend a lot of
time on the links this spring. The Illinois farmer is plowing the Hend-Co-Hills Golf Course near tiny Biggsville
into a cornfield.
“He’s not
the only one turning over soil in unlikely places. Across the Midwest,
farmers are planting crops on almost any scrap of available land to take
advantage of consistently high corn and soybean prices. Growers are
knocking down old barns, tearing out fencerows and digging up land that had
once been preserved for wildlife.”
Also
yesterday, a news
release from the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC)
stated that, “A coalition of U.S. food and agricultural organizations led by
the [NPPC] is urging the Obama administration to press the European
Union to negotiate a ‘comprehensive’ free trade agreement, including addressing
sanitary-phytosanitary (SPS) barriers to trade.
“In a letter signed
by 47 organizations sent today to U.S. Trade Representative nominee Mike
Froman, the coalition expressed concern with
a resolution approved last month by the European Parliament that in negotiating
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United
States the EU should maintain the ‘precautionary principle’ for SPS
issues. Precautionary measures are implemented based on the mere
identification of potential risk or, worse, on public perception and political
considerations rather than on science-based risk assessments. The World Trade
Organization requires member countries’ SPS measures to be based on scientific
risk assessments.”
--
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.
|
May 20
|
Farm Bill; and the Ag Economy- Monday
Posted By Keith Good On May 20, 2013
Farm Bill
A floor schedule update posted recently at
the Senate Democrats webpage indicated that, “The Senate stands
in adjournment until 2:00pm on Monday, May 20, 2013.
Following any Leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 3:00pm.
“Following morning business, the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of S.954, the Farm bill.”
And the Congressional Budget Office on Friday
released its cost estimate of the Senate Ag Committee based
legislation, which can be viewed here, “S. 954, Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.”
Also on Friday, The Mississippi Business Journal Blog reported that,
“Politics, agriculture, and the economy were the hot topics on a rainy Delta
morning as hundreds gathered for the 78th annual meeting of Delta
Council, Friday, May 17, on the campus of Delta State University…[F]ollowing the business session of the annual meeting, United
States Senator Thad Cochran introduced United States Senator
from Michigan and Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry
and Nutrition Debbie Stabenow as thefeatured
speaker.”
Friday’s update noted that, “‘We passed a Farm Bill last year with a
broad, bipartisan vote – in the middle of an election year, no less,’ said
Stabenow. ‘Unfortunately, the House did not take up the Farm Bill on the floor
and the 2008 Farm Bill expired on September 30. This was unacceptable to us, as
was the partial extension that was added to the fiscal cliff deal on January
1st of this year, which left out many key programs, including disaster
assistance. So when Senator Cochran and I sat down at the beginning of
this year, I told him I wanted to build on our successes from last year and
give America’s farmers the Farm Bill they deserve. We had made great
progress, and we knew that, together, we could make even more. Together, we
worked to craft another strong Farm Bill that gives farmers the ability
to manage their risk; that streamlines programs and cuts
red tape for farmers; and that recognizes the diversity of
agriculture from the cotton fields in the Mississippi Delta to the cherry
orchards of Traverse City in northern Michigan.’
“Stabenow thanked Senator Cochran for his leadership, noting that
writing a Farm Bill that works for every region of the country can
be challenging. ‘I’m glad Senator Cochran joined the leadership team and helped
build the Southern connection we needed to make sure this bill works for
everyone – that cotton, rice and peanut farmers receive the support
they need to succeed.’
“The Senator cited the changes in rice farming over the past
20 years as an example. ‘The high costs of rice farming have deterred
entry for new farmers, the number of rice farms has dropped by almost half, and
the average rice farm size has more than doubled between 1992 and 2007. We
took this and other aspects of rice and peanut farming into consideration when
creating a new price program. Under the Adverse Market Protection
program, which would operate very similarly to the existing
counter-cyclical program, payments are made on historic base acres and
decoupled from production. This way, farmers would still have the freedom to
decide what and where to plant,’ she said. ‘For most crops, payments would only
be made to farmers when prices drop below 55 percent of their historic rolling average. For rice and peanuts,
however, there will be a fixed target price, and producers would have the
opportunity to update their historic payment yields and acres. We also have
included the crop insurance program designed specifically for cotton that
we drafted in the 2012 Farm Bill that takes into account the unique
challenges of cotton growers.’”
Pete Kasperowicz reported
on Friday at The Hill’s Floor Action Blog that, “The main
business of the Senate next week is the $955 billion farm bill. Senate
leaders aren’t expecting to finish work on the bill next week, but it
will start the process of passing the nation’s next five-year
agricultural plan.
“The bill would cut $23 billion from current spending levels over 10
years, but some Republicans have noted with a similar bill last year, that this
cut is from post-stimulus levels. It also cuts $4 billion in food stamps, which
has led to some Democratic opposition.
“Still, the Senate seems likely to pass a version of the bill
passed the Senate last year in a 64-35 vote.”
With respect to Farm Bill perspective from the House, DTN
Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported on Friday that, “The
House Agriculture Committee will face floor fights on a number of issues from
both parties when the farm bill is taken up, but should be able to hold
together its version of the bill for eventual negotiations with the
Senate later this summer, ranking member Collin Peterson said
Friday.
“Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota, also expressed confidence the
farm bill could be done before the August recess if both versions are
able to get past their respective floor debates in the coming weeks.
Peterson said his conversations with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank
Lucas, R-Okla., suggest the legislation will be debated in mid-June.
Floor debate begins on the Senate bill Monday afternoon.
“‘Having said that, we have challenges facing us when we get to the
floor,’ Peterson said.”
Mr. Clayton pointed out that, “Peterson noted 13 of 21 Democrats on
the committee voted for the bill, ‘which was better than I thought.’
Peterson said it showed there is ability to get Democratic votes despite
$20.5 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
“In the coming weeks, Peterson said he, Lucas and others will be
talking with House leaders about how to manage the floor debate. Peterson
said without restrictions on amendments, the floor debate will become too
unwieldy to manage.
“Peterson still sees significant battles on the floor, starting
with nutrition programs and cuts.”
In the telenews conference with reporters on
Friday, Rep. Peterson stated: “That’s a tricky thing because you have
some Democrats that have taken a position, which I think is
not defensible, that SNAP can’t be cut one penny. I think that’s a ridiculous
position. You’ve got people on the other side that
want $130 billion of cuts, and that’s ridiculous.”
Noting that without administration opposition to the Farm Bill, and no
veto override vote to plan for, Rep. Peterson stated that only 218 votes
were needed in the House to pass the measure; he added that, “We don’t
expect…you know, [Speaker] Boehner is not going to be for this
bill. [Majority Leader] Cantor, I would be surprised if he
is. But I think Kevin McCarthy probably will be for
the bill, who’s the whip, so I expect, at the end of the day, there will be
some help on their side, and there will help on our side. Leader
Pelosi is behind us. I’ve been talking to her. She
will be supporting what we’re doing.”
On the crop insurance issue, Rep. Peterson noted
that, “I’ve been looking into the flood insurance situation. Flood
insurance is being subsidized roughly the same amount as crop insurance, so
if we’re going to have this discussion and they want to reduce government
subsidy in crop insurance, then I would argue we ought to be looking at flood
insurance as well, because I think there’s more reason for the government
to be behind crop insurance than there is flood insurance, because crop
insurance supports the food production system, which is a national security
issue, and has much bigger implications than whether you’re going to build
a mansion on the Outer Banks that gets wiped out every other year and why the
government should subsidize that. So that’s where, when we get to this
discussion, that’s where I think it should be focused.”
A reporter asked Rep. Peterson on Friday: “Congressman, the
conservation compliance tie-in with crop insurance in the
Senate, on the House Ag Committee bill, how do you see that issue coming
together as we get to the floor and ultimately into conference?
“Rep. Peterson: Well, that will be a fight.
The chairman feels strongly about this. I supported him. So
the position of the committee is to not tie the two together. There
will be an amendment on this on the floor. This will be a tough
fight. We may not win. But we’ll deal with what comes out of
the situation.”
Beyond crop insurance issues, Rep. Peterson pointed out that, “We’re
going to have challenges in certain areas on the floor. The dairy
issue will be a contentious issue. There will be a vote on sugar,
which will also be contentious. There will be other issues in other
areas, so it’s not going to be easy…And it looks like the Senate is on track to
get their bill moved. And at the end of the day, this bill is
going to be written in conference, and we just need to figure out how to get
this to conference. That’s the trick.”
Eric Wasson reported on Friday at The Hill’s
On the Money Blog that, “Pelosi’s office clarified Friday that the
minority leader supports moving forward on a farm bill, but has not weighed in
on the substance of the Agriculture Committee bill.
“‘As Ranking Member Peterson stated today, Leader Pelosi is
supportive of getting a five year farm bill reauthorized. She is hopeful
that the Republican leadership will bring the committee-passed bill to the
floor under an open rule so that Members will have an opportunity to weigh
in. Sixteen million jobs are on the line, including 800,000 jobs in
California,’ spokesman Drew Hammill said.”
Ted Booker reported on Friday at the
Watertown Daily Times (N.Y.) Online that, “The new margin insurance program
[for dairy producers] is expected to be hotly contested in the
House, even though it is included in versions of the farm bill passed by
committee, according to U.S. Rep. William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh
[N.Y.] The free, voluntary insurance program is designed to help dairy farmers
combat low milk prices and high feed costs. It would reimburse farmers when the
difference between their costs and milk prices surpasses a certain threshold.”
The article noted that, “Because the Dairy Freedom Act [an alternative
dairy proposal] is supported by House Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr.
Owens said, it has a strong chance of being approved on the floor. If
that happens, he said, the fight over that policy would then be waged between
the House and Senate before a final bill is sent to the president.”
To listen to remarks on the dairy issue by Rep. Peterson from
Wednesday’s Ag Committee markup of the Farm Bill, just click here (MP3- 6:00).
In executive branch perspective on Farm Bill issues,
on Thursday’s AgriTalk radio
program with Mike Adams, Sec. of Agriculture Tom
Vilsack noted that, “I think frankly, at the end of the day, it
isn’t going to be target prices that is the most difficult hurdle to cross
here. I think it’s going to be the dairy program that absolutely needs to
be done. We have too much volatility in dairy prices. It’s not
stable. I think Rep. Peterson has taken a good shot at trying to
resolve the volatility issue. I think he’s got some challenges with
the speaker of the house on the supply side piece of it.
“But at the end of the day, he’s right that you can’t have a
program that just opens up the checkbook. There has to be
some constraint and restraint on that. But at the same time you need
a system that provides better assistance and help for dairy producers when
prices are low or feed costs are high.”
Also last week, Bloomberg writers Eric Martin and Alan Bjerga reported
that, “U.S. House and Senate agriculture committee proposals for a new
farm law represent a ‘good faith’ effort by lawmakers to resolve a trade
dispute over cotton with Brazil, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said.
“The proposals passed this week may modify farm subsidies enough to
satisfy the South American nation, Vilsack said today in an interview in Mexico
City. The U.S. competes with Brazil in exporting grain, soybeans, beef and
cotton.
“‘We would not intentionally pass legislation with the knowledge or
awareness that it was going to invite a series of challenges,’ Vilsack said
after a meeting with Enrique Martinez, Mexico’s agriculture
minister. Farm-bill subsidy plans, which emphasize crop insurance over
price-pegged supports, represent ‘a real good-faith effort to resolve that
issue with Brazil and to get it finished once and for all,’ Vilsack said.”
Also on the Farm Bill, David Rogers reported on Friday that, “Pigs,
chickens, the U.S. Constitution — and a dose of olive oil — all got thrown
together in a House farm bill markup that took a remarkable turn from
the barnyard to the judicial bench late Wednesday night.
“‘I’m one of these country lawyers, which is no lawyer at all,’
Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) was candid to say at the outset. But
that didn’t stop him or most of the House Agriculture Committee from plunging
into an hour-long debate on the constitutional fine points of the
interstate commerce clause and state laws excluding eggs or meat that don’t
meet local production standards.”
(Note that at a FarmPolicy.com transcript of
the full debate from Wednesday on this issue is available here).
Mr. Rogers added that, “Before the dust settled, the committee had
adopted a far-reaching amendment that infuriated animal welfare groups,
delighted the pork and beef lobbies and broke more than a few eggs. Where
it goes next in the context of the larger farm bill debate, no one truly knows.
But scores of state laws could be impacted and it surely reaches well beyond
its initial target: sunny California.
“Most simply the language would bar any state from excluding the
marketing of ‘agricultural products’ if they have been grown in a manner
‘pursuant’ to federal law and the laws of the state or locality from which they
come.
“Proponents argue that this is needed to allow the free flow of farm
commerce across state lines. But for animal welfare groups, it’s a huge Catch
22, since the same committee continues to resist any new federal standards for
raising livestock — preferring to leave the issue to farmers and individual
states.”
And Ron Nixon reported in Saturday’s New York
Times that, “In response to the Obama administration’s plans to overhaul the
nation’s international food aid program, which provides food to
disaster-stricken regions, Congress this week began laying the groundwork for
its own changes.
“Farm bills passed this week by the House and Senate Agriculture
Committees do not go as far as the Obama administration’s proposal,
which would move the $1.4 billion program from the budget of the Agriculture
Department to the foreign affairs budget in an effort to speed delivery and cut
costs. The bills reauthorized the food aid program and left it largely
intact, in the agriculture budget.”
Mr. Nixon indicated that, “Senator Debbie Stabenow,
Democrat of Michigan and the chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee,
said she had had conversations with the Obama administration about changes to
the food aid program.
“‘We chose to keep it in the Agriculture Department, but give
it more flexibility,’ she said in a conference call with reporters on
Thursday. ‘I think it’s a big step forward, and it had bipartisan support.’
“Tamara Hinton, a spokeswoman for the House Agriculture
Committee, said there was also widespread support among members of the
committee for keeping food aid in the farm bill.”
Meanwhile, University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Nick
Paulson noted on Thursday at the farmdoc
daily blog (“A Farm Bill Update: More Changes to Commodity Programs”) that,
“After creating a one-year extension to the 2008 Farm Bill in the midst of
larger budget issues at the end of last year, Congress has resumed the Farm
Bill process. Both the Senate and House Ag Committees have released 2013 Farm
Bill markups (see Senate version here;
House version here). Both the Senate and House drafts are
similar to the versions passed by the full Senate and House Ag Committee in
2012 (see previous posts from Carl Zulauf summarizing
those here and here) in that the majority of existing commodity
programs (direct, countercyclical, ACRE, and SURE programs) are repealed to
achieve spending reductions. However, there have been some slight
changes to the programs created to replace those being repealed, particularly
in the new version from the Senate. Today’s post provides a summary of some of
those commodity program changes. Discussion of continued changes in other
titles, such as Crop Insurance, and the budget implications will be saved for
future posts.”
Agricultural Economy
Michael Birnbaum reported in Saturday’s
Washington Post that, “Many Europeans see American farming and its reliance
on genetically modified crops as more Frankenstein than Farmer in the Dell.
“Now, the opposition here [Lennewitz,
Germany] to U.S. agricultural practices is threatening to become a
major battle in discussions starting next month that could sweep away trade
barriers between the United States and Europe.”
The Post article noted that, “Many here worry that a trade pact would
ease regulations that have made it difficult for genetically modified crops and
products to reach European shores. Genetically modified crops are
broadly unpopular in Europe, and farmers and environmentalists fear that if
trade restrictions are lowered, both genetically modified seeds and U.S.-grown
genetically modified products would quickly take over European farmland and
grocery stores.
“Some farmers are hoping to stop the talks if rules that govern their
work are thrown into the mix, and they are determined to keep U.S.
industrial farming an ocean’s-length away.”
Michael Wines reported in today’s New York
Times that, “The land, known as Section 35, sits atop the High Plains
Aquifer, a waterlogged jumble of sand, clay and gravel that begins beneath
Wyoming and South Dakota and stretches clear to the Texas Panhandle. The
aquifer’s northern reaches still hold enough water in many places to last hundreds
of years. But as one heads south, it is increasingly tapped out,
drained by ever more intensive farming and, lately, by drought.
“Vast stretches of Texas farmland lying over the
aquifer no longer support irrigation. In west-central Kansas, up to
a fifth of the irrigated farmland along a 100-mile swath of the aquifer has
already gone dry. In many other places, there no longer is enough water
to supply farmers’ peak needs during Kansas’ scorching summers.
“And when the groundwater runs out, it is gone for good. Refilling the
aquifer would require hundreds, if not thousands, of years of rains.”
And on Friday, Reuters writer Sam Nelson
penned an article titled, “U.S. farmers dodge showers to plant corn at breakneck pace.”
--
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.
|
May 17
|
Farm
Bill Issues; and, the Ag Economy- Friday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 17, 2013
Farm
Bill
In
a telenews conference with reporters yesterday,
Senate Ag.
Comm. Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) commented on how
quickly the panel’s Farm Bill will move from the Committee to the Senate floor:
“I don’t know if this is a record, but it’s got to be one of the — possible
records for getting a bill from committee on to the floor for
consideration, so I’m very pleased about that…after coming out of the
committee with 15 to five strong bipartisan vote, we did not have
objection to moving to the bill, and there are very few things that have
occurred this year, or in — in over the last number of years, that did not
require a motion to proceed, and several days of waiting, and a cloture vote,
and so on, in order to get to the bill.
“We did
not have to do that, there was not an objection to going to the bill, and I
hope that bodes well for — for moving things through next week.”
Later,
Chairwoman Stabenow indicated that, “We’re going to start debate, and we’ll be
moving on amendments, you know, as quickly as possible. So I absolutely
expect to be on amendments next week, and you know, urging people now to
put their amendments together, let them know — let us know what they are so we
can work with them.”
Speaking
yesterday on the Agriculture Today radio program (Red River Farm Network), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) stated that, “[The Farm
Bill] went directly to the floor, I don’t think
people– usually when you guys ask me questions its,
‘Okay, you got it through the Committee what’s next?’ And I say, ‘Well,
we hope in the next six months we will go to the floor.’ This time it
was six hours, and we have the bill on the floor.”
Sen. Klobuchar added that, “there’s good amendments and dumb
amendments and we’ll hear them all, get through them and get the bill
passed before Memorial Day.”
A news
release earlier this week from Sen. Bob Casey (D.,
Penn.) indicated that, “With frost hitting farms throughout the state, [Sen.
Casey], today, pushed for passage of a 5 year Farm Bill before the
Senate’s Memorial Day recess. During a conference call, Senator Casey
discussed data showing the benefits that farm bill will have for all
Pennsylvanians and highlight the Farm Bill’s inclusion of a crop insurance
provision which could aid farmers hit by the recent frost.”
Beyond
procedure, when asked yesterday about the House Ag. Comm. passed Farm Bill,
which contains much larger cuts to nutrition programs than the Senate
version, Chairwoman Stabenow stated: “Well, first of all, I
absolutely reject the level of cuts and the way this is done in the House.
They eliminate something called categorical eligibility, which
we’ve now voted down either two or three times on the Senate floor on a
bipartisan basis. It came up in committee this week,
it was voted down on a bipartisan basis.So
that policy does not have support in the U.S. Senate. I won’t support it in
conference, and so we will look for ways that we can continue to provide
savings by tackling abuse, or misuse.”
AP
writer Mary
Clare Jalonick reported yesterday that, “The
two chambers are far apart on how much the $80 billion-a-year program [SNAP]
should be cut, however, reflecting a deep ideological and at times
emotional divide on the role of government in helping the poor… At both committee
meetings, debate over the food stamp cuts was heated, with
defenders of the program saying the bills would take food out of the mouths of
children and the elderly.”
With
respect to the House Ag Committee debate on nutrition, Jerry
Hagstrom reported this week at National
Journal Online that, “But since the 2010 election, the panel’s membership has
consisted of very different types of people, who seem to enjoy being
hostile to each other…[W]hen it came time to
talk about nutrition, Republicans and Democrats couldn’t wait to show how
differently they view the world.”
Rep. Joe
Crowley (D., N.Y.) spoke on the House floor recently about cuts to the
SNAP program (video
replay here), and on the floor Wednesday, Rep. Barbara Lee (D.,
Calif.) noted that, “Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.70 in economic
activity. Yet the Republican farm bill cuts nearly $21 billion from our
Nation’s antihunger program while millions of
Americans continue to struggle from the impacts of the Great Recession.”
Speaking
yesterday with Mike Adams on the AgriTalk radio program, Rep. Steve
Fincher (R., Tenn.) indicated that, “And let me be clear about
this. The cuts [in nutrition programs] that we’re making are not cutting
people. They’re reforming programs, existing programs that have been
abused. There’s fraud. So what we’re doing is tightening these
up. The duplicate programs, we’re reforming those and putting them together,
and still making sure that our most vulnerable in our society are taken
care of.
“But at the
same time, this is a huge, huge program that’s really slipping away from us,
and we’ve got to do our part. I mean, our job in Congress is to make sure
that the taxpayer money that’s being sent to Washington is being spent in a
responsible way, and in a lot of these areas they’re not. We think
probably, in the end, we will be tickled if we can end up with that $20 billion
number. This is going to be a dog fight on the House floor.
So hopefully we end up with that number.”
On
potential procedural movement of the Farm Bill in the House, Mr. Hagstrom indicated in his National Journal article that, “[Chairman]
Lucas has said the House leadership has told him the bill will
come up on the floor in June. That would follow Senate consideration of the
legislation, which is expected to begin Monday. Senate and House
leaders want to finish a conference before Sept. 30, when the
current extension of the 2008 farm bill is scheduled to expire.”
In addition
to nutritional differences in the Committee passed legislation in each chamber,
a reporter on yesterday’s conference call noted to Chairwoman Stabenow:
“You were unable to get that egg bill into
your mark… Yet the House, as you know, last night, had a contentious debate
and included this amendment of Steve King’s to basically block states
from being able to impose rules on other states. What do you think
about that particular amendment, and how do you expect to address this
issue?”
(Note that
a FarmPolicy.com transcript of the debate on the King
Amendment is available
here, while a video replay can be found here).
Chairwoman
Stabenow stated that, “Well, our egg producers need some help.
Right now there’s a patchwork of regulations around the country. I
mean, what happened last night in the debate is exactly the reason why we need
a national standard. And the egg producers came together to develop
something that’s workable only for them. I know others in the
livestock community think somehow that creates a slippery slope and the
possibility of pressure on them to do the same thing.
“I
really personally disagree. I think this is something that an
industry has done to step up and form an agreement so that the egg producers in
Michigan are going to be able to stay in Michigan and sell around the
country. But unfortunately, we did not have the support in committee to
put this bill into the farm bill.
“And I’m
going to continue to look for ways to help the egg producers, because I think they’ve
stepped up in a responsible way.”
Dan
Charles noted yesterday at the salt blog (NPR) that,
“When the agriculture committees of both House and Senate finished their
versions of the farm bill this week, all mention of guaranteed living
space for egg-laying hens had vanished.
“In fact,
the House committee adopted a provision that could make it more difficult for
states to set such standards. This amendment, offered by Rep. Steve
King, R-Iowa, would prohibit any effort by state governments to
control the way that their food is produced by out-of-state farmers. The
measure is aimed specifically at California’s Proposition 2, which is set to ban
farmers in Iowa or Idaho from selling their eggs in California if those eggs
come from chickens housed in traditional cages.”
On the
issue of crop insurance, Chairwoman Stabenow noted
yesterday: “Well, this is the number one most supported program in the farm
bill, from a farmer perspective. Everywhere we’ve gone, as I’ve
traveled around the country, farmers have said we’re willing to give up direct
payment subsidies. We know, from a taxpayer standpoint, that doesn’t make
sense that we receive help in good times, but crop insurance is what works for
us.”
Meanwhile,
differing perspectives on Title I of the Farm Bill continue to percolate.
Speaking
with reporters yesterday, Sen. Mike Johanns (R.,
Neb.) noted that, “This year’s farm bill presents some different problems
though. This draft, in my judgment — judgment, represents a step
backward for Ag policy. Instead of moving forward with a free market type
system, what this farm bill does, is it doubles
down on something called, target prices, which is really a subsidy for
certain commodities.
“That
was eliminated in last year’s farm bill. With bipartisan support, it actually
got 64 votes in the Senate, got out of committee, but now it’s back in this
bill. The government should not be involved in setting prices for
commodities. The government should not be involved in raising target prices,
which is exactly what’s happening.”
And earlier
this week on the AgriTalk radio program with Mike
Adams, Sen. Pat Roberts (R., Kans.) expressed similar
concerns with respect to the target price concepts and noted that he did not
think the current committee bill was “a reform oriented Farm Bill like we
passed last year”- Sen.
Roberts audio here (MP3- 4:00).
Mikkel
Pates reported yesterday at AgWeek Online
that, “Will farmers who opted out of the farm program so they could drain
wetlands to grow valuable crops now be forced to restore those wetlands if they
want to keep vital premium subsidies on their crop insurance?
“Sen. John
Hoeven, R-N.D., hopes not. North Dakota’s senior
senator tried in vain to pass a half-dozen amendments to the Senate Agriculture
Nutrition and Forestry Committee version of the 2013 farm bill that would
have kept crop insurance disconnected from conservation compliance, or at
least reduce the regulatory burden of compliance.
“That didn’t
work in the Senate Ag Committee bill, passed May 14, but Hoeven says he’s still working to keep the insurance and
conservation ‘decoupled.’ He says an opportunity is in a conference
committee with the House Ag Committee farm bill, also passed this
week.”
Mr. Pates
added that, “The House version, passed hours later on May 15, does not tie
crop insurance to compliance with conservation programs. Additionally, the
House bill saves $6 billion by consolidating duplicative conservation programs
and streamlining the delivery of incentive funds to farmers, ranchers, and
landowners.
“‘The
voluntary, incentive-based method of encouraging conservation in the House bill
is the right approach,’ says U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.
‘Farmers in North Dakota do not need Washington instructing them on how to farm
and care for their land. Ensuring crop insurance is decoupled from conservation
programs is a top priority for our farmers and ranchers.’”
Additional
lawmaker perspective on the House Ag. Committee passed Farm Bill included:
Rep. K.
Michael Conaway (R., Tex)- “The bill strengthens Title I by putting in
place a new safety net, one that will offer ranchers and farmers choices in how
to manage risk while reforming outdated policy. This move creates
regional equity among agriculture producers, increasing their choices and
implementing a broad approach to production agriculture.”
Rep. Kristi
Noem (R., S.D.)- “I fought for policies that
are most important to South Dakota, such as livestock disaster
programs, forestry provisions to help fight the pine beetle, conservation and a
permanent office of tribal relations within the Department of Agriculture.
I am proud they were included in this bill and will keep fighting on behalf of
South Dakota as the Farm Bill moves forward.”
Rep. Bill
Owens (D., N.Y.)- “Owens also applauded the inclusion of a number of
local initiatives he either sponsored or co-sponsored earlier this year.
H.R. 1297, the Agricultural Credit Expansion Act, and H.R. 1298, legislation
to increase export opportunities for local apple growers, were both
originally introduced by Rep. Owens and included this week in the Agriculture
Committee’s markup of the Farm Bill. In addition, H.R. 1272, the Maple
Tapping Access Program Act, was also included in the bill. Rep. Owens
joined Rep. Peter Welch as a co-sponsor in introducing that legislation earlier
this year.”
Rep. Adrian
Smith (R., Neb.)- “Passage of a responsible, long-term Farm Bill is
among my highest priorities and yesterday’s markup in the
Agriculture Committee was a step in the right direction.”
Rep. Rick
Crawford (R., Ark.)- “The House Farm Bill reflects the regional
diversity in American agricultural production, including the heavily
irrigated Mid-South. The Senate farm bill takes a positive step in sharing this
goal, which brings us closer than ever to a final product.”
Rep. Randy
Neugebauer (R., Tex.)- “I think there’s
more room to target our nutrition funding better.”
Rep. Tim
Walz (D., Minn.)- “Speaker Boehner and
Majority Leader Cantor should bring this bipartisan bill forward for a vote
without delay… [I]’m especially concerned about the large cuts to SNAP,
which helps hardworking families and seniors who are struggling to put food on
the table. Americans don’t want a handout, just a hand-up in times of need. I’m
hopeful much of this funding will be restored in conference with the Senate.”
Rep. John
Garamendi (D., Calif.)- “While there’s room for improvement,
particularly in light of the shortsighted cuts to food assistance, I believe
passing a Farm Bill out of the House Agriculture Committee is a good first
step.”
Rep. Jim
Costa (D., Calif.)- “We still have more work to do to ensure the 2013
Farm Bill works for all Americans, including revisiting cuts to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), but we are moving this
process forward…There is too much good in this bill to let it die before it
is heard on the House floor. Rural America cannot afford inaction. We owe them
a vote.”
Rep. Suzan
DelBene (D., Wash.)- “Today’s bill will
benefit our local producers of specialty crops, such as fruits and
vegetables, with programs to help them expand and enter new international
markets. The funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Specialty
Crop Block Grant Program increased significantly and will help our farmers who
rely on partnerships with our local universities to improve crop quality and
yields.”
Rep. Kurt
Schrader (D., Ore.)- “Overall, I was very pleased with our ability
to secure increased funding for our specialty crop programs. The
funding will allow the specialty crop industry to continue to exceed innovative
expectations, generate greater economic output and make sure that our food
continues to be the safest in the world. This industry is a big piece of the
puzzle in making sure that Oregon and American agriculture remain as
competitive as possible in the global marketplace for years to come.”
Rep. Annie
Kuster (D., N.H.)- “I am gravely
disappointed that this legislation undermines assistance for hungry families,
and I fought hard to protect this essential program. At the same time, this
Farm Bill contains many important reforms: it eliminates wasteful direct
payment subsidies, streamlines more than 100 duplicative programs, and includes
both an amendment I sponsored to support rural colleges and an amendment I
cosponsored to expand access to local, healthy food.”
Rep. Bob
Gibbs (R., Ohio)- “As past President of the
Ohio Farm Bureau, I believe that agriculture policy should be based on market-driven
principles. Including language for dairy farmers that effectively
equates to supply management is the exact opposite of a free market
system. Ohio dairy farmers need to be able to grow with the
market, and artificially setting limits on the milk they can produce will
only keep them more dependent on government subsidies.
“Finally, I
believe the commodity title, Title One, is drastically unfair to Ohio
farmers. The commodity title now includes target prices that are
set so high for certain crops, that some farmers may have guaranteed profits.
I believe farmers should be making decisions on what to plant based on market
signals, not on which crop will give them the most government subsidy. I
fully support a Farm Bill that gives farmers and producers ways to mitigate
their risk to continue to provide a safe and affordable food supply.”
Agricultural
Economy
Gregory
Meyer reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “Farmland
prices in the US corn belt have risen at double-digit clip this year despite
weaker grain markets in a move that will intensify debate over whether
loose monetary policy and congressional largesse are inflating a bubble.
“Agricultural
land values increased 15 per cent on last year during the first
quarter in a district that includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and
Wisconsin, the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago said on Thursday. The region’s farmland
values have trebled in the past decade.
“Whether
the market is overheating has become a feverishly discussed question among land
shoppers from farmers to pension funds. Past booms have ended in prolonged
declines, with US prices plunging by 66 per cent from 1919-1940 and more than
40 per cent from 1981-1987, according to research
published by the Kansas City Fed.”
--
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.
May 17
|
Farm
Bill Issues; and, the Ag Economy- Friday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 17, 2013
Farm
Bill
In
a telenews conference with reporters yesterday,
Senate Ag.
Comm. Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) commented on how
quickly the panel’s Farm Bill will move from the Committee to the Senate floor:
“I don’t know if this is a record, but it’s got to be one of the — possible
records for getting a bill from committee on to the floor for
consideration, so I’m very pleased about that…after coming out of the
committee with 15 to five strong bipartisan vote, we did not have
objection to moving to the bill, and there are very few things that have
occurred this year, or in — in over the last number of years, that did not
require a motion to proceed, and several days of waiting, and a cloture vote,
and so on, in order to get to the bill.
“We did
not have to do that, there was not an objection to going to the bill, and I
hope that bodes well for — for moving things through next week.”
Later,
Chairwoman Stabenow indicated that, “We’re going to start debate, and we’ll be
moving on amendments, you know, as quickly as possible. So I absolutely
expect to be on amendments next week, and you know, urging people now to
put their amendments together, let them know — let us know what they are so we
can work with them.”
Speaking
yesterday on the Agriculture Today radio program (Red River Farm Network), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) stated that, “[The Farm
Bill] went directly to the floor, I don’t think
people– usually when you guys ask me questions its,
‘Okay, you got it through the Committee what’s next?’ And I say, ‘Well,
we hope in the next six months we will go to the floor.’ This time it
was six hours, and we have the bill on the floor.”
Sen. Klobuchar added that, “there’s good amendments and dumb
amendments and we’ll hear them all, get through them and get the bill
passed before Memorial Day.”
A news
release earlier this week from Sen. Bob Casey (D.,
Penn.) indicated that, “With frost hitting farms throughout the state, [Sen.
Casey], today, pushed for passage of a 5 year Farm Bill before the
Senate’s Memorial Day recess. During a conference call, Senator Casey
discussed data showing the benefits that farm bill will have for all
Pennsylvanians and highlight the Farm Bill’s inclusion of a crop insurance
provision which could aid farmers hit by the recent frost.”
Beyond
procedure, when asked yesterday about the House Ag. Comm. passed Farm Bill,
which contains much larger cuts to nutrition programs than the Senate
version, Chairwoman Stabenow stated: “Well, first of all, I
absolutely reject the level of cuts and the way this is done in the House.
They eliminate something called categorical eligibility, which
we’ve now voted down either two or three times on the Senate floor on a
bipartisan basis. It came up in committee this week,
it was voted down on a bipartisan basis.So
that policy does not have support in the U.S. Senate. I won’t support it in
conference, and so we will look for ways that we can continue to provide
savings by tackling abuse, or misuse.”
AP
writer Mary
Clare Jalonick reported yesterday that, “The
two chambers are far apart on how much the $80 billion-a-year program [SNAP]
should be cut, however, reflecting a deep ideological and at times
emotional divide on the role of government in helping the poor… At both committee
meetings, debate over the food stamp cuts was heated, with
defenders of the program saying the bills would take food out of the mouths of
children and the elderly.”
With
respect to the House Ag Committee debate on nutrition, Jerry
Hagstrom reported this week at National
Journal Online that, “But since the 2010 election, the panel’s membership has
consisted of very different types of people, who seem to enjoy being
hostile to each other…[W]hen it came time to
talk about nutrition, Republicans and Democrats couldn’t wait to show how
differently they view the world.”
Rep. Joe
Crowley (D., N.Y.) spoke on the House floor recently about cuts to the
SNAP program (video
replay here), and on the floor Wednesday, Rep. Barbara Lee (D.,
Calif.) noted that, “Every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.70 in economic
activity. Yet the Republican farm bill cuts nearly $21 billion from our
Nation’s antihunger program while millions of
Americans continue to struggle from the impacts of the Great Recession.”
Speaking
yesterday with Mike Adams on the AgriTalk radio program, Rep. Steve
Fincher (R., Tenn.) indicated that, “And let me be clear about
this. The cuts [in nutrition programs] that we’re making are not cutting
people. They’re reforming programs, existing programs that have been
abused. There’s fraud. So what we’re doing is tightening these
up. The duplicate programs, we’re reforming those and putting them together,
and still making sure that our most vulnerable in our society are taken
care of.
“But at the
same time, this is a huge, huge program that’s really slipping away from us,
and we’ve got to do our part. I mean, our job in Congress is to make sure
that the taxpayer money that’s being sent to Washington is being spent in a
responsible way, and in a lot of these areas they’re not. We think
probably, in the end, we will be tickled if we can end up with that $20 billion
number. This is going to be a dog fight on the House floor.
So hopefully we end up with that number.”
On
potential procedural movement of the Farm Bill in the House, Mr. Hagstrom indicated in his National Journal article that, “[Chairman]
Lucas has said the House leadership has told him the bill will
come up on the floor in June. That would follow Senate consideration of the
legislation, which is expected to begin Monday. Senate and House
leaders want to finish a conference before Sept. 30, when the
current extension of the 2008 farm bill is scheduled to expire.”
In addition
to nutritional differences in the Committee passed legislation in each chamber,
a reporter on yesterday’s conference call noted to Chairwoman Stabenow:
“You were unable to get that egg bill into
your mark… Yet the House, as you know, last night, had a contentious debate
and included this amendment of Steve King’s to basically block states
from being able to impose rules on other states. What do you think
about that particular amendment, and how do you expect to address this
issue?”
(Note that
a FarmPolicy.com transcript of the debate on the King
Amendment is available
here, while a video replay can be found here).
Chairwoman
Stabenow stated that, “Well, our egg producers need some help.
Right now there’s a patchwork of regulations around the country. I
mean, what happened last night in the debate is exactly the reason why we need
a national standard. And the egg producers came together to develop
something that’s workable only for them. I know others in the
livestock community think somehow that creates a slippery slope and the
possibility of pressure on them to do the same thing.
“I
really personally disagree. I think this is something that an
industry has done to step up and form an agreement so that the egg producers in
Michigan are going to be able to stay in Michigan and sell around the
country. But unfortunately, we did not have the support in committee to
put this bill into the farm bill.
“And I’m
going to continue to look for ways to help the egg producers, because I think they’ve
stepped up in a responsible way.”
Dan
Charles noted yesterday at the salt blog (NPR) that,
“When the agriculture committees of both House and Senate finished their
versions of the farm bill this week, all mention of guaranteed living
space for egg-laying hens had vanished.
“In fact,
the House committee adopted a provision that could make it more difficult for
states to set such standards. This amendment, offered by Rep. Steve
King, R-Iowa, would prohibit any effort by state governments to
control the way that their food is produced by out-of-state farmers. The
measure is aimed specifically at California’s Proposition 2, which is set to ban
farmers in Iowa or Idaho from selling their eggs in California if those eggs
come from chickens housed in traditional cages.”
On the
issue of crop insurance, Chairwoman Stabenow noted
yesterday: “Well, this is the number one most supported program in the farm
bill, from a farmer perspective. Everywhere we’ve gone, as I’ve
traveled around the country, farmers have said we’re willing to give up direct
payment subsidies. We know, from a taxpayer standpoint, that doesn’t make
sense that we receive help in good times, but crop insurance is what works for
us.”
Meanwhile,
differing perspectives on Title I of the Farm Bill continue to percolate.
Speaking
with reporters yesterday, Sen. Mike Johanns (R.,
Neb.) noted that, “This year’s farm bill presents some different problems
though. This draft, in my judgment — judgment, represents a step
backward for Ag policy. Instead of moving forward with a free market type
system, what this farm bill does, is it doubles
down on something called, target prices, which is really a subsidy for
certain commodities.
“That
was eliminated in last year’s farm bill. With bipartisan support, it actually
got 64 votes in the Senate, got out of committee, but now it’s back in this
bill. The government should not be involved in setting prices for
commodities. The government should not be involved in raising target prices,
which is exactly what’s happening.”
And earlier
this week on the AgriTalk radio program with Mike
Adams, Sen. Pat Roberts (R., Kans.) expressed similar
concerns with respect to the target price concepts and noted that he did not
think the current committee bill was “a reform oriented Farm Bill like we
passed last year”- Sen.
Roberts audio here (MP3- 4:00).
Mikkel
Pates reported yesterday at AgWeek Online
that, “Will farmers who opted out of the farm program so they could drain
wetlands to grow valuable crops now be forced to restore those wetlands if they
want to keep vital premium subsidies on their crop insurance?
“Sen. John
Hoeven, R-N.D., hopes not. North Dakota’s senior
senator tried in vain to pass a half-dozen amendments to the Senate Agriculture
Nutrition and Forestry Committee version of the 2013 farm bill that would
have kept crop insurance disconnected from conservation compliance, or at
least reduce the regulatory burden of compliance.
“That didn’t
work in the Senate Ag Committee bill, passed May 14, but Hoeven says he’s still working to keep the insurance and
conservation ‘decoupled.’ He says an opportunity is in a conference
committee with the House Ag Committee farm bill, also passed this
week.”
Mr. Pates
added that, “The House version, passed hours later on May 15, does not tie
crop insurance to compliance with conservation programs. Additionally, the
House bill saves $6 billion by consolidating duplicative conservation programs
and streamlining the delivery of incentive funds to farmers, ranchers, and
landowners.
“‘The
voluntary, incentive-based method of encouraging conservation in the House bill
is the right approach,’ says U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.
‘Farmers in North Dakota do not need Washington instructing them on how to farm
and care for their land. Ensuring crop insurance is decoupled from conservation
programs is a top priority for our farmers and ranchers.’”
Additional
lawmaker perspective on the House Ag. Committee passed Farm Bill included:
Rep. K.
Michael Conaway (R., Tex)- “The bill strengthens Title I by putting in
place a new safety net, one that will offer ranchers and farmers choices in how
to manage risk while reforming outdated policy. This move creates
regional equity among agriculture producers, increasing their choices and
implementing a broad approach to production agriculture.”
Rep. Kristi
Noem (R., S.D.)- “I fought for policies that
are most important to South Dakota, such as livestock disaster
programs, forestry provisions to help fight the pine beetle, conservation and a
permanent office of tribal relations within the Department of Agriculture.
I am proud they were included in this bill and will keep fighting on behalf of
South Dakota as the Farm Bill moves forward.”
Rep. Bill
Owens (D., N.Y.)- “Owens also applauded the inclusion of a number of
local initiatives he either sponsored or co-sponsored earlier this year.
H.R. 1297, the Agricultural Credit Expansion Act, and H.R. 1298, legislation
to increase export opportunities for local apple growers, were both
originally introduced by Rep. Owens and included this week in the Agriculture
Committee’s markup of the Farm Bill. In addition, H.R. 1272, the Maple
Tapping Access Program Act, was also included in the bill. Rep. Owens
joined Rep. Peter Welch as a co-sponsor in introducing that legislation earlier
this year.”
Rep. Adrian
Smith (R., Neb.)- “Passage of a responsible, long-term Farm Bill is
among my highest priorities and yesterday’s markup in the
Agriculture Committee was a step in the right direction.”
Rep. Rick
Crawford (R., Ark.)- “The House Farm Bill reflects the regional
diversity in American agricultural production, including the heavily
irrigated Mid-South. The Senate farm bill takes a positive step in sharing this
goal, which brings us closer than ever to a final product.”
Rep. Randy
Neugebauer (R., Tex.)- “I think there’s
more room to target our nutrition funding better.”
Rep. Tim
Walz (D., Minn.)- “Speaker Boehner and
Majority Leader Cantor should bring this bipartisan bill forward for a vote
without delay… [I]’m especially concerned about the large cuts to SNAP,
which helps hardworking families and seniors who are struggling to put food on
the table. Americans don’t want a handout, just a hand-up in times of need. I’m
hopeful much of this funding will be restored in conference with the Senate.”
Rep. John
Garamendi (D., Calif.)- “While there’s room for improvement,
particularly in light of the shortsighted cuts to food assistance, I believe
passing a Farm Bill out of the House Agriculture Committee is a good first
step.”
Rep. Jim
Costa (D., Calif.)- “We still have more work to do to ensure the 2013
Farm Bill works for all Americans, including revisiting cuts to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), but we are moving this
process forward…There is too much good in this bill to let it die before it
is heard on the House floor. Rural America cannot afford inaction. We owe them
a vote.”
Rep. Suzan
DelBene (D., Wash.)- “Today’s bill will
benefit our local producers of specialty crops, such as fruits and
vegetables, with programs to help them expand and enter new international
markets. The funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Specialty
Crop Block Grant Program increased significantly and will help our farmers who
rely on partnerships with our local universities to improve crop quality and
yields.”
Rep. Kurt
Schrader (D., Ore.)- “Overall, I was very pleased with our ability
to secure increased funding for our specialty crop programs. The
funding will allow the specialty crop industry to continue to exceed innovative
expectations, generate greater economic output and make sure that our food
continues to be the safest in the world. This industry is a big piece of the
puzzle in making sure that Oregon and American agriculture remain as
competitive as possible in the global marketplace for years to come.”
Rep. Annie
Kuster (D., N.H.)- “I am gravely
disappointed that this legislation undermines assistance for hungry families,
and I fought hard to protect this essential program. At the same time, this
Farm Bill contains many important reforms: it eliminates wasteful direct
payment subsidies, streamlines more than 100 duplicative programs, and includes
both an amendment I sponsored to support rural colleges and an amendment I
cosponsored to expand access to local, healthy food.”
Rep. Bob
Gibbs (R., Ohio)- “As past President of the
Ohio Farm Bureau, I believe that agriculture policy should be based on market-driven
principles. Including language for dairy farmers that effectively
equates to supply management is the exact opposite of a free market
system. Ohio dairy farmers need to be able to grow with the
market, and artificially setting limits on the milk they can produce will
only keep them more dependent on government subsidies.
“Finally, I
believe the commodity title, Title One, is drastically unfair to Ohio
farmers. The commodity title now includes target prices that are
set so high for certain crops, that some farmers may have guaranteed profits.
I believe farmers should be making decisions on what to plant based on market
signals, not on which crop will give them the most government subsidy. I
fully support a Farm Bill that gives farmers and producers ways to mitigate
their risk to continue to provide a safe and affordable food supply.”
Agricultural
Economy
Gregory
Meyer reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “Farmland
prices in the US corn belt have risen at double-digit clip this year despite
weaker grain markets in a move that will intensify debate over whether
loose monetary policy and congressional largesse are inflating a bubble.
“Agricultural
land values increased 15 per cent on last year during the first
quarter in a district that includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and
Wisconsin, the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago said on Thursday. The region’s farmland
values have trebled in the past decade.
“Whether
the market is overheating has become a feverishly discussed question among land
shoppers from farmers to pension funds. Past booms have ended in prolonged
declines, with US prices plunging by 66 per cent from 1919-1940 and more than
40 per cent from 1981-1987, according to research
published by the Kansas City Fed.”
--
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,
May 16
|
Farm
Bill; and the Ag Economy- Thursday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 16, 2013
Farm
Bill: House Agriculture Committee Advances Legislation
DTN Ag
Policy Editor Chris
Clayton reported yesterday that, “The battle over dairy policy took
center stage in the House Agriculture Committee’s early debate
on the farm bill Wednesday as committee reforms to commodity and conservation
programs were approved relatively unscathed.”
Mr. Clayton
explained that, “Debate in the House put dairy policy front and center.
The farm bill includes language from the Dairy Security Act, crafted by
ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., following the collapse of
dairy prices in 2009. Peterson and others worked to successfully get the dairy
act into both the House and Senate versions of the bill. The Dairy Security Act
creates a margin protection between national milk prices and the
average cost of feed. Producers get basic coverage and can buy higher
coverage if they want. At the same time, the provision has more controversial
language that creates a market stabilization program meant to manage
the size of the national dairy herd.
“The market
stabilization program kicks in when dairy prices are low and profit margins
collapse. Producers whose herd size exceeds a base amount would lose
payments unless they culled down the size of their milking herd.”
The DTN
article added that, “The Dairy Security Act has the strong backing of the National
Milk Producers Federation while being equally opposed by the International
Dairy Foods Association. Caught in the middle are a broad array of producer
and processor cooperatives and businesses.
“Reps. Bob
Goodlatte, R-Va., and David Scott,
D-Ga., sought to replace the Dairy Security Act in the bill with their own
language that would avoid any attempts to limit supply. Their plan,
supported by IDFA, would create a comparable margin insurance policy for dairy
producers but eliminate any policy meant to manage dairy supplies.
The Goodlatte-Scott amendment sparked the first major
round of debate on the committee Wednesday.”
A FarmPolicy.com transcript of
a portion of the debate on this issue is available
here. This debate including the following remarks:
Rep.
Peterson-
“And I just want to talk about the economics of the dairy industry a little bit
more. A 2% oversupply in milk will collapse the system. We’ve seen
that. That’s all it takes, is 2%. It means we can’t sell it in the U.S. and we
can’t export it in the world market. If you get into that kind of a situation,
the bottom falls out…Now, back in ’09 that problem was caused,
to some extent, by the financial collapse and what happened within the economy
at the time, and demand for dairy, for a lot of different things, went down,
including dairy products. So we had an increase in production and we had a
decrease in demand; it collapsed the market. And as Mr. Costa said, we had I
don’t know how many bankruptcies. I don’t know how much equity was lost. It was
a disaster. And if we get into that situation again, we’re going to
lose 25% of the dairy farmers in this country.”
Rep. Goodlatte- “And yes, the prices fluctuate. Farmers
have to deal with that and consumers have to deal with that. They make the
decision whether they’re going to be consuming something or not consuming it
based on the price. If you consistently attempt to fix the price based
upon controlling the supply of the herd, it hurts farmers because they will not
be able to grow, they will not be able to plan, they will not be able to tell
new markets that they can consistently supply those markets, and it hurts
consumers.”
Rep. David
Scott- “I’ve listened to this, and I want to make a couple of points clear
on the pricing. The CBO clearly states that under the language of the
supply management program the price of milk will go up. And when you
calculate in inflation, it could go up, over the next period of time before we
get back to the next farm bill, just this cost for the supply management, up to
50 cents.”
Chairman
Lucas-
“In all respect, you have to vote your conscience, of course. But a
farm bill is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. You have many pieces that have to
fit together in order to create that final product. I am in good faith opposing
one friend’s amendment and sustaining another friend’s work. I have to
move that puzzle forward…I believe the base text is the best opportunity to
complete that. Vote your conscience, but remember, we
have to have a farm bill when all this is over with.”
The Goodlatte-Scott amendment failed by a
vote of 20 “yeas” to 26 “nays,” a joint statement released
yesterday by the two lawmakers indicated that, “The outcome of today’s
vote in the Agriculture Committee on this amendment was disappointing.
Supply management is antithetical to the future growth of the dairy industry.
Government bureaucracy should not control the size of your herd. A
supply control program that will directly intervene in markets and increase
milk prices will ultimately hurt dairy producers and consumers as well as dairy
food manufacturers by stifling industry growth. This program is
contrary to the reforms already in the Farm Bill.”
And a statement
yesterday from Jerry Slominski,
of the International Dairy Food Association, noted that, “We expect that the
Goodlatte-Scott amendment will be brought to a floor
vote and that the House will ultimately take a strong position against a supply
management policy that would restrict job growth, hurt middle-income
families and add additional costs to nutrition programs that
are losing funding in the Farm Bill. Also, the Goodlatte-Scott
amendment would cost taxpayers less than the Dairy Security Act, according to
the Congressional Budget Office.”
Meanwhile, Daniel
Looker reported yesterday at Agriculture.com that,
“The ranking Democrat, Representative Collin Peterson (R-MN),
said he’s more optimistic than a year ago that the committee’s bill will come
up for a vote on the floor the House.
“‘One of
the reasons I’m optimistic is that the Speaker of the House has started to
lobby people on the dairy program. That tells me, he is serious,’ said
Peterson, referring to Representative John Boehner (R-OH).
Last year, Boehner called a new dairy program championed by Peterson a
‘Soviet-style’ supply management system.”
Mr. Looker
added that, “Another more contentious issue will be food stamps.
“Representative Jim
McGovern (D-MA) offered an amendment to withdraw the committee’s cuts
to its nutrition title.
“‘If this
stands, two million people will be cut from the SNAP program,’ he said [related
audio from Rep. McGovern here (MP3- 2:38)].
Mr. Looker
noted that, “[Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa)] said it appears that
a goal of the Obama Administration has been to get more people on the food
stamp program or SNAP and to ‘expand the dependency class’ [Rep.
King audio here (MP3- 1:39)].
The Agriculture.com article
pointed out, “[Rep. Reid Ribble (R.,
Wis.)] said that during the recession and slow recovery, poverty has
increased by 16%, but SNAP spending is up by more than 100% [Rep. Ribble audio here (MP3- 0:59)].
And in an
update yesterday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog, Chris
Clayton pointed out that, “As debate around SNAP got heated Wednesday,
Rep. Juan Vargas, a freshman Democrat from southern
California, invoked Jesus in his arguments against cutting the program [Rep.
Vargas audio here (MP3- 1:54)].
The DTN
update noted that, “Rep. Doug LaMalfa, a
freshman Republican and a rice grower from northern California, also cited
a Bible quote in arguing that Christians should be helping the
poor. That’s not necessarily the role of the government.”
Rep. Mike
Conaway (R., Tex.) echoed a similar theme regarding the role of
individual charity versus government administration- audio
here (MP3- 0:47).
In the end,
this amendment by Rep. McGovern failed. Bloomberg writer Alan
Bjerga reported yesterday that, “Democrats
on the House Agriculture Committee failed in a bid to restore cuts in
federal food-stamp spending as the panel debates a $940 billion bill
reauthorizing U.S. Department of Agriculture programs.
“The
measure would cut $40 billion in the next decade by eliminating $20.5
billion for nutrition programs over that period including food stamps, or five
times as much as proposed in a Senate Agriculture Committee plan approved yesterday.”
AP
writer Mary
Clare Jalonick indicated yesterday that,
“The House bill would cut about $2.5 billion a year — or a little more than 3
percent — from the food stamp program, which is used by 1 in 7 Americans…The
committee rejected an amendment by Democrats to strike the cuts 27-17,
keeping them in the bill.”
Later at
yesterday’s hearing, Rep. Jim McGovern offered an amendment that
would prevent SNAP cuts from going into effect until the
waste, fraud and abuse rate in the federal crop insurance program was
equal to, or less than the fraud rate for the SNAP program.
As
additional background, during the 2008 Farm Bill debate, Rep.
McGovern also sought to attain a legislative link between crop
insurance and nutrition.
In late
July of 2007, Dan
Morgan reported on unfolding Farm Bill developments in The Washington
Post, and noted: “Recalling that a similar [Rep. Ron Kind] amendment garnered
200 votes in 2001, the Agriculture Committee loaded the bill with billions of
dollars for nutrition programs, conservation, black farmers, and the Florida
and California fruit and vegetable industries, in an effort to attract broad
support. As late as 1 a.m. yesterday, Democratic leaders were adding money for
nutrition programs.
“About
$840 million in mandatory spending was added for the McGovern-Dole food aid
program, after nearly $1 billion was shifted out of government payments to
private crop insurance companies to offset the cost.
“The new
funding was sought by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a key member of the House
Rules Committee. McGovern said it was ‘a good thing’ that the crop
insurance industry would be contributing to feeding hungry children abroad.”
Likewise, Philip
Brasher, who then worked for The Des Moines Register, added that, “And to
get the final votes for the bill, Democrats had to cut the crop
insurance program by another $1 billion to pay for a boost in international
food aid. That cut will come from insurers and agents, who have some
powerful friends in the Senate.”
And AP
writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis reported
at the time that, “They won over Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., with the
promise of more funding for an international food aid program.”
A FarmPolicy.com transcript of
a portion of the debate on Rep. McGovern’s crop insurance-
SNAP amendment from yesterday is available
here.
In
part, Rep. Peterson noted that, “Frankly, we should put more
money into data mining, both in SNAP and in crop insurance so we can…because it
kind of tells you where the problem is…[S]o I just… I just think your
amendment is unworkable. I’d be happy to try to work with you to see if we
can do a better job of getting at the bottom of this, but I don’t see
how you would ever be able to figure out what this level of fraud is to compare
the two.”
Rep.
Peterson added
that, “[Y]ou know, we keep talking about like somehow
or another we’re cutting SNAP. We’re not actually cutting any benefits. What
we’re doing is we’re…what they’re doing here is changing how you qualify for
SNAP… [H]alf of the people in my district who qualify
for [SNAP] benefits, more than half of the people that qualify don’t get the
benefits. And I can tell you a number of them, it’s because they don’t
want the benefits. That’s just not what they want to do.”
Rep.
McGovern indicated
that, “Part of the benefit of categorical eligibility is that
there are multiple programs out there for poor people, and when they go to one,
they can automatically get enrolled in the other. So without it, I
mean, I think there’s a fear that people who are eligible for benefits will not
get them, people who deserve them.”
Meanwhile,
in a separate aspect of the Ag. Comm. debate yesterday, a news
release late yesterday from Rep. Steve King (R.,
Iowa) stated that, “The first King amendment prohibits states from
enacting laws that place conditions on the means of production for agricultural
goods that are sold within its own borders, but are produced in other
states.
“‘The
Constitution of the United States reserves the regulation of interstate
commerce to the Congress, not the states,’ said King. ‘The Protect
Interstate Commerce Act (PICA) prohibits states from entering
into trade protectionism by forcing cost prohibitive production methods on
farmers in other states. PICA covers all agriculture products listed in
section 206 of the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1946. By 2015, California will
allow only eggs to be sold from hens housed in cages specified
by California. The impact of their large market would compel producers in other
states to invest billions to meet the California standard of ‘means of
production.’ PICA will also shut down the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS), PETA and other radical organizations from creating a network of
restrictive state laws that will slowly push agriculture production towards the
demise.’”
A video
replay of the debate on PICA, which lasted almost an hour, is
available here, at FarmPolicy.com Online.
After
defeating an alternative amendment on a roll call vote, the Committee passed
Rep. King’s PICA amendment on a voice vote.
Chad
Gregory,
the president of the United Egg Producers issued the following statement last
night regarding the King Amendment:
“The Egg
Products Inspection Act Amendments (H.R. 1731) introduced by Reps. Kurt
Schrader (D-Oregon) and Jeff Denham (R-California) is a preferable solution to
the interstate commerce calamity in eggs rather than Rep. Steve King’s (R-Iowa)
amendment which was included in the Farm Bill by the House Agriculture
Committee today.
“Historically,
when Congress preempts state laws it replaces them with a uniform national
standard, such as the Egg Bill that egg farmers
nationwide support. Rep. King’s amendment does not set a level playing field
for farmers.
“It could
affect interstate commerce in a wide variety of agricultural products, from
eggs, to the sale of raw milk, to the labeling of farm-raised fish or
artificial sweeteners, to restrictions of firewood transported into a state in
order to protect against invasive pests and potential damage to local forests. As
many as 150 different state laws from Alabama to Wisconsin could be preempted
or affected by the King amendment.
“We believe
that the Egg Bill is the best solution to insure orderly and efficient
interstate commerce in eggs, protecting egg farmers in every state with uniform
national standard that is fair for everyone.”
And Ron
Nixon reported this morning at The Caucus Blog (New York Times) that,
“After a late-night session Wednesday, the House Agriculture Committee voted
to approve a $940 billion farm bill, a day after the Senate passed its
version, setting the stage for Congress to finally begin work on a new
five-year bill.
“The vote
was 36 to 10, with mostly Democrats voting against the bill
after nine hours of debate.”
Chris
Clayton noted last night at the DTN Ag Policy Blog that, “Part of the
ability to pass the bill may come down to the rules for debating it on the
floor. Peterson said the bill needs a rule that would manage the
number of amendments that would be brought and debated on the floor.
‘Otherwise it would just be chaos and you would have 600 amendments to deal
with,’ Peterson said. He added, ‘There has to be some limitations.’”
Also, David
Rogers reported yesterday at Politico that, “Moving in tandem with the
Senate, the House Agriculture Committee approved its own new farm bill late
Wednesday, promising billions in savings but also embracing a greater
government role in farm policy than many free-market Republicans are likely to
accept.
“The
bipartisan 36-10 roll call shortly before midnight capped 48 hours of intense
activity in which first the Senate Agriculture Committee and next the House
panel have approved competing five-year farm bills to take effect this fall.
“Senate floor
debate is expected to begin next week, and if the House can act in June,
it would clear the way for the two sides to begin final negotiations and break
the often bitter impasse that has hung over agriculture policy since last
summer.”
Mr. Rogers
noted that, “The chairman’s affable style gives him a genuine reservoir of
personal support he can tap into going to the floor. And he has long argued
that it will only be in a cauldron of floor debate that he can really test
ideas and hone the coalition he needs to prevail.
“But the
splits on the left and right are real. And before the long night had ended, his
jigsaw puzzle only got more complicated.
“In a
coming of age, of sorts, the organic foods industry won— over
Lucas’ objections — the right to have its own promotional check-off
program such as those now enjoyed by pork and beef under the
Agriculture Department. At the same time, the chairman was on the losing end of
a fight over catfish inspections, and he had to sit through
a long tortured debate over interstate commerce and the
‘balkanization’ of American agriculture as individual states, especially
California, impose tougher standards on the treatment of livestock such as hens
and breeding sows.”
Farm
Bill- Senate
Chris
Clayton reported yesterday at DTN (link
requires subscription) that, “While members of the Senate Agriculture
Committee held an intense debate over the impact of target prices on Tuesday, an amendment that restructured the
target-price program was largely overlooked.
“Under
the original structure of the Senate bill, target prices for
all commodities with the exception of rice and peanuts stayed the same as the
current counter-cyclical program. But an amendment to the bill by Sen. Charles
Grassley, R-Iowa, completely restructures the proposed Senate target-price
plan, known as Adverse Market Payments. The amendment was included as part of a
broad group of ‘en bloc’ amendments added to the bill without committee debate.
“The
Grassley amendment would create a new formula for target prices for
every commodity with the exception of rice and peanuts. The proposal
creates a five-year rolling average for target prices that would exclude the
high and low years, which is typically called the “Olympic average.” That
Olympic average for commodities would then be multiplied by 55%. That would
create the target price for a particular crop.”
Also, Chad
Gregory, President of United Egg Producers, issued this statement on
Wednesday:
“The Farm
Bill passed yesterday by the Senate Agriculture Committee, is designed to
provide America’s agriculture sector with ‘five years of certainty.’ It
is a travesty that a few senators blocked efforts to provide that same
certainty for America’s egg farmers.”
Agricultural
Economy
Mark
Peters reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “The rise in
prices for agricultural land slowed somewhat to start the year in parts of the
U.S. Farm Belt, new reports showed, signaling a boom in land values might be
moderating as commodity prices cool and incomes for farmers are expected to
weaken.
“The Kansas
City Federal Reserve Bank said in
a report Wednesday that prices for nonirrigated
farmland in its region rose 3.4% in the first quarter from the
fourth quarter of 2012. That was much slower than the 7.7% quarter-to-quarter
increase recorded for the same region a year earlier.
“A separate
report from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank also
released Wednesday showed that land values in parts of the Midwest and
Southeast regions fell by an average of 2.3% in the first quarter compared with
the previous quarter.”
--
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.
May 15
|
Farm
Bill; and, the Ag Economy- Wednesday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 15, 2013
Farm
Bill: Senate Agriculture Committee Advances Legislation
DTN Ag
Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link
requires subscription) that, “The
markup of the Senate version of the farm bill translated into few
substantive changes in the legislation, but Tuesday’s three-and-a-half-hour
debate highlighted the philosophical and regional split among
Republicans over target prices.
“The bill,
formally named the
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013, passed out of committee
early Tuesday afternoon on a vote of 15-5. Four Republicans
[Roberts, Thune, Johanns, McConnell] and one Democrat
[Gillibrand] voted against it.
“Senate
Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told
reporters afterward that floor debate on the Senate farm bill could
begin as early as Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,
D-Nev., said the bill will come up immediately after the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) is finished. Final votes on that bill are expected
Wednesday.”
The DTN
article noted that, “Regional differences again flared Tuesday. Southern
Republicans backed the bill while Midwest Republicans fought against what they
saw as backsliding on commodity reforms…[T]he bill would eliminate $4.9 billion
a year in direct
payments as well the Average
Crop Revenue Election program, or ACRE. The bill also renames the
current counter-cyclical
program as Adverse Market Payments. Under the AMP,
target prices for most major commodities remain the same as under the
counter-cyclical program, with exceptions for rice and peanuts.
Rice producers would see a $13.30-per-cwt price, and peanuts would see a price
of $523.77 per ton.
“Last year,
southerners largely opposed the farm bill in committee because the legislation
would have completely eliminated target prices. On Tuesday, Republican
Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraska [related
news release], Pat Roberts of Kansas [related
news release] and John Thune of South Dakota [related
news release] opposed the bill after failing to eliminate target prices
from the legislation.”
Mr. Clayton
noted that, “Thune proposed an amendment to save $897 million over 10 years
by eliminating target prices for commodities other than rice and
peanuts. That also was voted down.”
A FarmPolicy.com transcript of
the debate regarding this Thune amendment is
available here. This debate included strong arguments on both sides
of the issue of target prices. Points and counter-points on this
amendment were made by:
Sen.
Thune-
“A target price countercyclical program, in my view, is a step
backwards to an old, outdated policy that we removed in last year’s
Senate passed farm bill.”
Sen.
Cochran-
“This [amendment] would be a disruptive influence in the
process of commodity programs that are presented to the committee for its
consideration today.”
Sen.
Roberts-
“At the levels the target prices for rice and peanuts have been set above the
cost of production on average world price, I’m afraid the WTO will
consider the high target prices as trade distorting, and thus put us
in the
red box. That’s a big red flag for me and my producers. Why should the two commodities
dictate that all others have to have target prices when we don’t want them?”
Sen.
Chambliss-
“But as we discussed last year, the crop insurance provision does not
work as a safety net for rice and peanuts, and my farmers are most likely
to accept the AMP program.”
Sen. Johanns- “We’re already
paying Brazil, every year, tens of millions of dollars because of the
defeat of the cotton litigation that they had. I think this is just
begging for additional litigation.”
Daniel
Looker reported yesterday at Agriculture.com that, “Thune
offered another amendment to require that the base acres for rice be updated,
which he said would save about $1 billion more over the next 10 years.
“Roberts said
that because AMP payments are made on a crop’s historical base, that estimate
of $1 billion in savings means that AMP payments will be going to farms that no
longer grow rice.
“Speaking
against Thune’s amendment, Senator John Boozman (R-AR)
said that if it passed, he would urge that other crops be required to have
updated bases as well.”
AP writer Mary
Clare Jalonick noted yesterday that, “Under
the House bill, authored by Rep. Frank Lucas,
R-Okla., those subsidies for rice and peanut farmers could kick in even
sooner. These ‘target price’ programs allow farmers to receive subsidies if
prices fall below a certain threshold. It hasn’t been used much in recent years
because of record crop prices, but is intended to be a safety net if prices
collapse.
“The bill
includes generous protections for other crops as well. Both bills would boost
federally subsidized crop insurance and create a new program that covers
smaller losses on planted crops before crop insurance kicks in, favoring
Midwestern corn and soybean farmers who use crop insurance most often.”
And David
Rogers noted yesterday at Politico that, “The House Agriculture Committee
is slated to markup its own bill Wednesday, and in making her concessions to
Southern growers, Stabenow is also trying to open the door toward a
final deal with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.),
whose roots lie in the South as well.
“Nonetheless,
some of the chairwoman’s staunchest Midwest allies in last year’s farm bill
debate have been lost along the way.”
In his DTN
article from yesterday, Chris Clayton also explained that,
“For cotton producers, the bill keeps the Stacked Income Protection
for Cotton, or STAX. Under STAX, USDA would pay 80% of the premiums. The bill
also would include a new crop insurance coverage for peanut producers.
“The one
major change to the bill Tuesday was that Stabenow included the compromise
language for tying conservation compliance to eligibility for crop-insurance
premium subsidies. That compromise also eliminates what would have been a
$750,000 cap on adjusted gross income to be eligible for the full premium
subsidy.
“Sen. John
Hoeven, R-N.D., offered an amendment to remove
the language on conservation compliance, arguing it would create a whole new
mandate on farmers.”
To listen
to a related discussion on the conservation compliance / crop insurance issue
from yesterday’s hearing, just
click here (MP3- 7:00).
A news
release yesterday posted at the National Association of Conservation Districts
Online (“Conservation
Compliance Coalition Praises Agreement in Senate Farm Bill”) stated in
part that, “A coalition of agriculture, conservation, environment and crop
insurance groups are applauding the passage of an historic
conservation compliance agreement as
part of the bipartisan Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013 passed by
the Senate Agriculture Committee today. The non-partisan conservation
compliance agreement represents a compromise position that supports the
linking of conservation compliance with crop insurance premium assistance, and
opposes means testing, payment limitations or premium subsidy reductions for
the crop insurance program.”
The release
included specific responses from members of the coalition on the measure.
Bloomberg
writer Alan
Bjerga reported yesterday that, “The Senate
bill would cut $24.4 billion in spending in the next decade by
trimming $4 billion from food stamps, the biggest USDA
program, $17 billion in farm subsidies and $3.6
billion in environmental programsthe Congressional Budget Office
reported. Crop insurance, which is making record payouts after last year’s
drought, would rise by $5 billion. The full Senate will take up the bill next
week, said Senator Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Democrat who heads the
committee.”
Meanwhile, Bill
Tomson reported yesterday at The Wall Street
Journal Online that, “Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D.,
N.Y.), who sits on the Agriculture panel, vowed Tuesday to fight any larger
cuts to food-assistance programs. Ms. Gillibrand said
the program serves ‘children, hard-working adults, struggling seniors,
veterans, active-duty troops and the families that stand by them. That’s who
suffers in this callous political fight.’”
Sen. Gillibrand tweeted
yesterday that, “I could not support the #farmbill
that passed out of Ag cmtee today because of the
steep cuts to the #SNAP food stamp program.”
Reuters writer Charles
Abbott reported yesterday that, “Analysts say food stamps are
the make-or-break issue for enactment of a new U.S. farm law because
Republicans want deep cuts in food stamps and Democrats oppose them.”
Ron
Nixon reported yesterday at The Caucus Blog (New York Times) that, “The
most contentious fight during the hearing was over cuts to food stamps. The
Senate bill would reduce the food stamp program by about $4.1 billion. Ms.
Stabenow said most of the cuts would come from a program overhaul. But Senator
Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, said the
reduction in financing for the program would cause millions to go hungry.”
And Erik
Wasson reported yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that, “Johanns offered an amendment to eliminate
categorical eligibility for food stamps to save $11 billion. The provision —
included in the House draft farm bill — was defeated.”
To listen
to the debate regarding this issue from yesterday’s markup, just
click here (MP3- 7:41).
Additional
news item yesterday regarding the Senate Ag. Comm. action can be
found here:
Sen.
Cochran-
“Cochran
ready for Senate Consideration of 2013 Farm Bill.” (“A key provision
would create Adverse Market Protection, a price protection program
that would aid rice and peanut growers and work in tandem with an Agriculture
Risk Coverage program that is suited to crops like corn, wheat and
soybeans. The Senate measure also authorizes a new cotton
insurance program that will contribute $2.8 billion toward deficit
reduction and lead to a resolution of the Brazil Cotton Dispute in the World
Trade Organization.”)
Sen.
Grassley-
“Farm
and Nutrition Bill Clears Committee, Grassley Provisions Included.”
(“In addition, an amendment sponsored by Grassley along with Senators
Mike Johanns, John Thune and Pat Roberts was approved
during today’s Agriculture Committee action on a new farm bill…Grassley said
the measure is intended to make the farm bill more market-oriented in the way
target prices are set. Grassley would have preferred that a
target price program not be included in the bill, but since the target price
program was included he wanted to push for ways to make it more market-oriented.
For commodities except rice and peanuts, the measure set the target
price by averaging the prices from the five previous years, while dropping the
low and high price for that average, and multiplying it by a factor of 55
percent.”)
Sen. Boozman- “Farm
Bill Framework ‘a step in the right direction.’” (“This framework is
a fair approach to providing a safety net for all crops and regions of
the country.”)
Sen.
Heitkamp- “Committee-Passed
Bipartisan Farm Bill Gives North Dakota Producers Certainty They Deserve.” (“It is my
hope that the House and Senate continue moving the bill forward so we can get
this signed into law and give North Dakota farmers and ranchers the certainty they
need to run their businesses.”)
Sen.
Harkin-
“Harkin
Supports Senate Agriculture Committee’s Passage of Bipartisan Farm Bill.” (“The
legislation also builds upon reforms in recent farm bills to strengthen
and tighten payment limitations, while strengthening the crop insurance program
and making it more beneficial to farmers.”)
Sen.
Leahy-
“Statement
Of Senator Leahy (D-Vt.) Farm Bill Business Meeting
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.” (“Specifically,
this mark includes a significant dairy reform proposal that I hope will help
producers and consumers get off this dangerous rollercoaster of price swings.
I believe this is key to our consideration of a Farm Bill, and
I know it is what farmers in Vermont are watching closely; I have been hearing
from them regularly in strong support of stabilization and margin insurance
working in tandem.”)
Organizations
and groups also commented on the Sen. Ag. Comm. Farm Bill yesterday, including,
the National
Milk Producers Federation, National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the American
Soybean Association, National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Farmers Union, The
Nature Conservancy, the National Cotton
Council, the American
Farm Bureau Federation, American
Farmland Trust , International
Dairy Foods Association, and the United
States Cattlemen’s Association.
Farm
Bill: Dairy Issue
A news
release yesterday from the National Milk Producers Federation stated
that, “A new
analysis of the key Farm Bill dairy proposals under consideration in
the House Agriculture Committee finds that the Dairy Security Act (DSA) is
better for farmers – as well as taxpayers – compared to the Goodlatte-Scott
alternative proposal that will be offered in the committee deliberations
tomorrow.”
A news
release yesterday from the National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives (NCFC) indicated that, “The [NCFC] today expressed
its strong opposition to a proposed amendment to the House
Agriculture Committee farm bill that would change key components of the dairy
reform package contained in the bill.
“The
amendment, offered by Representatives Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
and David Scott (D-Ga.), would effectively separate
participation in the market stabilization program from other parts of the dairy
program contained in the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM)
Act.”
Executive
Branch Perspective- Other Policy Issues
In a report
yesterday on the Agriculture Today radio program (Red River Farm Network), Mike Hergert provided perspective on Farm Bill
developments from Ag. Sec. Tom Vilsack.
In his
remarks on Agriculture Today, Sec. Vilsack specifically addressed
the issue of linking conservation compliance to crop insurance, and spoke
broadly about the Farm Bill- Red
River Farm Network audio clip here (MP3- 2:49).
Julian
Hattem reported yesterday at The Hill’s RegWatch Blog that, “Legislators and regulators pledged
to increase their support for the organic food industry on Tuesday, as
representatives from the sector pushed for friendly policies.
“As members
of the House and Senate mark up the farm bill, organic farmers, handlers and
manufacturers came to Washington to make their case for the burgeoning industry
at the annual Washington policy conference of the Organic Trade Association,
which represents the sector.
“On
Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that a
crop insurance program will increase options for organic producers, and it
said that it would ask other agencies to keep the organic sector in mind for
future programs and services.”
And a Farm
Service Agency (USDA) release
from yesterday noted that, “Secretary of Agriculture Tom
Vilsack today reminded farmers and ranchers that the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) will conduct a four-week Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) general sign-up beginning May 20 and ending on June 14.”
Farm
Bill: House Ag Committee
Vicki
Needham reported yesterday at The Hill’s Floor Action Blog that, “The House
Agriculture Committee will take up its version of the farm bill on
Wednesday with the hopes of not only moving it through the panel but
finally getting it to the floor for a vote…[H]ouse
Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
have expressed an eagerness to get their bills passed by their respective
chambers so they can negotiate a final piece of legislation over the
summer before this current extension of the 2008 law expires Sept. 30.
“The
House bill has bigger cuts in spending — $39.7 billion over 10 years compared
to $23 billion in the Senate bill — and it would slash food
stamps by $20.5 billion, more than five times the amount of the Senate’s $4
billion in cuts from the program.”
Agricultural
Economy
Reuters writer Sam
Nelson reported yesterday that, “Drier weather early this week in the
U.S. Midwest will boost corn plantings that have fallen to a
record slow pace due to wet and chilly weather, an agricultural meteorologist
said on Tuesday.
“‘It will
remain dry today,’ said Don Keeney, meteorologist for MDA Weather Services. ‘Then
showers develop late on Wednesday and continue into the weekend with the
heaviest rain in the northern Midwest.’”
Agricultural
related tweets from
yesterday, which included photos, showed planting in Illinois- here and here, and
in Missouri.
--
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
May 14
|
Farm
Bill; Ag Economy; and, Biotech- Tuesday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 14, 2013
Farm
Bill Issues
In an
interview yesterday with FarmPolicy.com that focused on rural
development issues and the Farm Bill, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp,
who chairs the Senate
Agriculture Subcommittee on Jobs, Rural Economic Growth and Energy Innovation,
spoke about issues important to her Subcommittee in this Congress –(full transcript available here,
audio replay here (MP3-
7:42)).
In part,
the North Dakota Democrat stated that, “I think first off we want to make
sure that we have adequate resources to address the needs of rural
infrastructure, and so the farm bill is a critical component, as it sets forth
what, in fact, should be in that line item. And I think the first, most critical
thing is making sure that we maintain a level of economic support for rural
development.
“Beyond
that I think it’s taking a look at housing, taking a look at critical
infrastructure within rural communities, and how we can continue to make those
vibrant, thriving communities so that we can maintain our family farm
agriculture and make sure that these are communities that can attract
some of the best and brightest Americans and kids from North Dakota farms who
want to come back home. So to me it’s about retention and about
expansion of economic opportunities in rural areas.”
In
discussing the link of a profitable agricultural sector to rural development,
Sen. Heitkamp pointed out, “And so to me it’s not
just about production agriculture. That’s the beginning. That’s
what we do. Ninety percent of the land in North Dakota is used in production
agriculture, and that’s huge. And it is a huge driver of our economy.
“But if
you’re going to look at how we stabilize our economy, it’s that next step in
rural development. It’s the next step in taking our commodity goods
and transforming them right here in our state. It is taking a look at
what we can do for export enhancement. It’s taking a look at what
we can do in research, which are also two
critical issues for me in this farm bill.”
After
talking briefly about the energy production, where Sen. Heitkamp
explained that, “we need to apply the same principles that we’ve done in
value-added agriculture to value-added energy, and make sure that we’re
getting the maximum amount of profitability out of the products that we
produce,” she addressed a key issue in the Farm Bill debate: crop
insurance.
“[The]
crop insurance program is essential to food security in our country,” she
said, “it does, in fact, guarantee a steady supply of
food in this country.”
Sen. Heitkamp also stated yesterday that, “I think that
the Senate will definitely pass a farm bill out of the
Senate before this extension expires.”
A news release yesterday
from Sen. Heitkamp indicated that, “[Sen. Heitkamp] today brought together North Dakota ag leaders to discuss her work
shaping a Farm Bill that works for North Dakota producers. Heitkamp, who has repeatedly reached out to North Dakotans
for input on the Farm Bill, and her colleagues on the Agriculture Committee
will mark-up the Senate version of the legislation Tuesday.
“‘I have
been busy crafting a new long-term Farm Bill, and I could not have done it
without the insight I have received from North Dakota producers,’ said Heitkamp. ‘My first priority is to ensure that growers
have a safety net that allows them to survive in tough years and thrive in good
years. We have put together a solid Farm Bill, and I think the North
Dakotans will be pleased with the package we pass out of committee tomorrow.
The bill aims to reduce our federal deficit by $23 billion by ending direct
payments and strengthening crop insurance.’
“‘Inclusion
of enhanced crop insurance, which farmers and ranchers in North Dakota and
across the country have said they need for effective risk management, will
continue to be a priority in the Farm Bill,’ said U.S. Senator John
Hoeven, who also attended the discussion.”
More
specifically on crop insurance, a recent
photo of a corn field destroyed by hail, which was posted at the Texas Farm
Bureau Facebook page, illustrates the uncertainties of crop production.
The Texas crop progress report from
USDA yesterday noted that, “Additionally some areas experienced heavy
thunderstorms with hail, high winds, and localized flooding..Some damage
was reported to corn crops across Central Texas from a hail storm and
high winds.”
Also, this
graphic illustration, from National Crop Insurance Services, which goes
back to 1999, shows that as U.S. crop values have increased, farm
safety net expenditures have been curtailed.
Bloomberg
writer Alan
Bjerga reported yesterday that, “Expanding
crop insurance is the main goal of nearly every grower group, [Mary Kay Thatcher,
chief lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation] said. ‘Crop
insurance is the most important part of the farm bill,’ she said.”
Meanwhile, Erik
Wasson reported yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that, “The
non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Monday released its score
of the Senate farm bill, a day before the Senate Agriculture Committee
marks up the bill…CBO says the bill, authored by Chairwoman Debbie
Stabenow (D-Mich.), cuts $18 billion over 10 years,
compared to current law.
“The bill
cuts more, if one assumes that the automatic sequestration cuts
that went into effect would be repealed. The farm bill keeps those cuts in
place and can claim another $6.4 billion in savings by doing
so.
“Added together,
the cuts compared to repealing the sequester yield $24.4 billion in savings —
about $1.4 billion more than Stabenow estimated when the bill was released last
week.”
CBO also
released its score of the House Farm Bill yesterday, which is available
here.
Also
yesterday, the National Farmers Union outlined priorities for
both the Senate and House Farm Bill legislation.
And Chris
Clayton highlighted some key differences between the
Senate and House Farm Bills yesterday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog, “Farm
Bills Diverge on Some Key Proposals.”
Mary Kay
Thatcher,
of the American Farm Bureau Federation, discussed a variety of Farm Bill
variables yesterday on
the AgriTalk radio program with Mike
Adams (FarmPolicy.com transcript here,
audio replay here (MP3-
10:39)).
“Well, nutrition
continues to be the biggest difference. You’re looking at a $4
billion cut in the Senate and about $20 billion in
the House. I suspect those numbers will change greatly once you get to
the Senate and the House floor. May change some in committees, although I don’t
think that’s going to be the biggest issue out there,” Ms. Thatcher said. (Note
that The New York Times editorial
board indicated today that, “Allowing cuts in food stamps is the wrong
position fiscally and morally, and a terrible strategy for beginning
negotiations with the House.”)
She added,
“And then you have a little difference in the commodity title. The
Senate did come around to putting a target price option in their bill which is
different than last year, more similar to what the House has done. But I think
there’s probably still more benefits towards some type of an ARC [Agricultural
Risk Coverage] shallow loss program in the Senate than there is for target
prices. You go to the House side and I think the incentive is there
more on the target price issue. So very likely those issues will be conference
committee, last minute decisions.”
When asked
by Mike Adams, “What do you expect when the bill goes to the House floor?,”
Ms. Thatcher replied: “A mess. I think that’s where the rubber is
really going to meet the road. We’re going to have some difficult
amendments in the House and Senate Ag Committee, we’ll
have some difficult ones on the Senate floor, but the House, with all those
urban members, with the fact that you have 40% of the House that’s been
around less than three years, we just have a tremendous educational need to
get to those people.”
On
the dairy issue, Ms. Thatcher noted that, “Well, the Dairy
Security Act is both in the Senate version and the House version now.
I don’t think you will see an amendment on the Senate Ag Committee. None were
filed. But on the House Ag Committee, I’m sure that Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Scott will
offer an amendment to, in essence, take the Dairy
Security Act except strip out the supply management provisions. And
I’ll be very surprised if we don’t have about a 50-50 vote on that in the House
Ag Committee. I think that’s one to really watch with interest.”
Peter
Kleiman, a dairy farmer and president of the FarmFirst Dairy Cooperative, noted yesterday that, “Why
farmers in the Upper Midwest are asking Congress to replace the ineffective
dairy program we have now with a reform plan known as the Dairy
Security Act. The DSA ends the direct payments from the government to
farmers; it also ends the role of the government as a purchaser of surplus
products. Most importantly, it represents a shift in philosophy: it
will help farmers use risk management tools to maintain adequate margins,
the crucial gap between what farmers receive for their milk, and what it costs
them to produce it.”
A news release yesterday
from the International Dairy Foods Association stated that,
“As the House and Senate Agriculture Committees prepare to write a new Farm
Bill this week, the list of organizations opposed to a
proposed dairy program continues to grow. Nearly 150 organizations and
businesses across the food chain, from farmers and food manufacturers to food
retailers and consumers, have signed letters to members of Congress urging
them to oppose the ‘Dairy Market Stabilization Program’ (DMSP)… [T]he
DMSP is a controversial proposal that is part of the Dairy Security Act, a
bill sponsored by Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN) that
is included in drafts of the next Farm Bill. Both the Senate and House
Agriculture Committees will consider the draft bills this week.”
More
specifically on the Senate version of the Farm Bill, Daniel
Looker reported yesterday at Agriculture.com that,
“Last year’s Senate version of a farm bill dropped the counter-cyclical
program. This year, with Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi
as the ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, something
similar, called the adverse market payments (AMP) program, is back
in as part of a bill the committee meets to consider tomorrow. The bill has a
slightly less expensive version of agriculture risk coverage (ARC),
a revenue protection favored in the Midwest. It also has a stand-alone
revenue protection program for cotton in the crop insurance title of
the bill.
“The
Senate’s bill doesn’t give farmers a choice between AMP and ARC. If those
programs wind up in the final version of a farm law, you would be in both. But
the new AMP program uses the target prices from the 2008 farm bill for a
‘reference price’ for all covered commodities except rice and peanuts.
They get a higher ‘alternative price.’ The new reference price keeps the target
prices of $2.63 a bushel for corn and $5.80 a bushel for soybeans. For rice,
the Senate’s bill puts the alternative price at $13.30 per hundredweight, a27%
increase from the 2008 farm law’s $10.50 target price. For peanuts,
the new alternative price of $523.77 per ton is almost 6% higher than
the 2008 loan rate of $495 a ton.”
Meanwhile,
the “Washington Insider” section of DTN noted yesterday (link
requires subscription) that, “Critics suggest that while Ag leaders’
efforts to push for much strengthened safety nets may be popular with commodity
groups, they also create the potential for new WTO price suppression
complaints from dozens of countries on over 20 agricultural commodities,
ranging from major commodities such as corn and cotton to canola, sunflowers,
chickpeas and lentils, a potential global pushback that can be ignored only at
our peril.
“Increasingly, critics
are suggesting that the Ag committees’ focus on complicated
maneuverings leaves the overall effort increasingly vulnerable in many
dimensions. For example, its
very high cost, its efforts to claim savings by cutting nutrition and
conservation programs and its end-around on the high exposure cotton programs
and its strengthened, highly subsidized insurance programs, among others.”
In a
related item, an update yesterday at the Economic Research Service (ERS-USDA)
Chart Detail page (“U.S.
trade-distorting agricultural support declines with higher world commodity
prices”) stated that, “In recent years, however, high commodity prices
have reduced program spending, and an AMS [aggregate measurement of
support- commonly called the ‘amber box’) has
been notified to the WTO for only a few commodities.”
On the
issue of sugar, Erik
Wasson reported yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that, “Sugar
growers are heading into this month’s congressional farm bill debate confident
that they will be able to maintain the United States' sugar program despite
efforts to eliminate it.
“Jack Roney of the American Sugar Alliance (ASA) said
the group is not sure what amendments on sugar will be offered to the House and
Senate farm bills, but predicted the group would be able to defeat them.”
The Hill
update added that, “Leading conservative groups are urging
lawmakers to end the program, calling it an ‘outdated
relic’ that creates ‘hidden taxes’ for consumers. The candy industry is
fighting the program as well, on the grounds that it distorts the market and
drives up prices.
“The
American Sugar Alliance countered on Monday with
a study from a University of Maryland professor that argues
sugar-buying industries are doing well under the current program.”
Agricultural
Economy
Cheri Zagurski and Anthony Greder reported
yesterday at DTN (link
requires subscription) that, “Twenty-eight
percent of the nation's corn is in the ground, compared to 12% last week
and a 65% five-year average. Emergence is at 5%, compared to 3%
last week and a 28% five-year average.”
Perry
Beeman reported yesterday at The Des Moines
Register Online that, “Iowa farmers had planted 15
percent of the corn crop through Sunday, far below normal.
“In an
average year, 79 percent of the crop would be planted, but wet and chilly
conditions have delayed planting across the state, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture reported Monday.”
Bloomberg
writers Jeff
Wilson & Luzi Ann Javier reported
yesterday that, “Corn rose the most in two weeks on speculation that
persistent wet weather in parts of the Midwest will delay planting and curb
yield potential of the biggest U.S. crop. Soybeans and wheat also gained.
“About 36
percent of the Midwest was dry enough for corn planting during the
weekend after rain last week, T-Storm
Weather LLC said in a report today. More rain starting May 16
will add to delays, the forecaster said.”
Agricultural
related tweets from
yesterday, which included photos, highlighted planting in Illinois- here, here, here and here; Indiana and Iowa.
University
of Illinois Agricultural Economist Darrel Good indicated
yesterday at the farmdoc daily blog
(“Market
Size for US Corn and Soybeans”) that, “The USDA's May 10 WASDE report
contained supply and consumption projections for the 2013-14 marketing year for
U.S. corn and soybeans. For the most part, the market focused on the
projections of crop size, but the most important information is in
the projections of marketing year consumption.”
Yesterday’s
update added that, “The consumption projections for both crops
[corn, soybeans] reflect judgment about the size of the market under
conditions of ample supplies and much lower prices. These projections are
valuable as they provide context for evaluating the price
implications of production potential as it unfolds over the next few months.
For corn, use for ethanol and by-product
production is forecast at 4.85 billion bushels, 250 million bushels above the
revised projection for the current year, but below the record consumption of
just over five billion bushels in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 marketing years. The
modest projection reflects the plateauing of domestic ethanol consumption as
the E10 blend wall has been reached and consumption of E15 and E85 increase
slowly. The magnitude of ethanol trade will be an important determinant
of domestic production and corn consumption. Corn exports are
projected at 1.3 billion bushels, well above the revised projection of 750
million bushels for the current year, but well below the 1.8 to 2.0 billion
bushels that was common before the 2011-12 marketing year. Lower prices may
help to stimulate exports, but competition from South American corn is expected
to limit demand growth.
“Feed
and residual use of corn is projected at 5.325 billion bushels, well
above the 4.4 billion bushels projected for the current year. The projection
represents the highest level of consumption in six years, but is well below the
peak consumption of 6.15 billion bushels in 2004-05 and 2005-06 when
distillers’ grains supplies were still small. Consumption for all uses,
including non-ethanol domestic processing, is projected at 12.92 billion
bushels, 1.785 billion more than projected for the current year, but about 140
million bushels below the record consumption in 2009-10 and 2010-11. For
the most part, the projection reflects a very mature market for U.S. corn.”
The farmdoc item noted that, “Stocks of U.S.
corn at the end of the 2013-14 marketing year are projected at a
9-year high of 2.004 billion bushels, implying that the 2013 U.S. crop
would need to be about 1.25 billion bushels (9 percent) below the current
projection to require consumption to be less than currently projected.
Similarly, the U.S. soybean crop would need to be 140 million bushels
(4 percent) below the current projection to require consumption to be less than
currently projected.
“The
2013-14 marketing year average farm price of corn is projected in a range of
$4.30 to $5.10. Even though current bids for harvest delivery in much of the
Corn Belt are near the upper end of that range, the market has not had
a substantial response to planting delays. Slow progress through mid-May, along
with prospects of widespread rain later this week, may well escalate production
concerns and a stronger price response. The 2013-14 marketing year average price for soybeans is projected in a range of $9.50 to
$11.50, with harvest bids in much of the Corn Belt currently above the upper
end of the range. It is still too early for significant production
concerns for soybeans.”
Biotech
Issue
Adam
Liptak reported in today’s New York Times
that, “The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that farmers could not
use Monsanto’s patented genetically altered soybeans to create new seeds
without paying the company a fee.
“The ruling
has implications for many aspects of modern agriculture and for businesses
based on vaccines, cell lines and software. But Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, emphasized
that the decision was narrow.”
The
editorial boards at both The
New York Times and The
Wall Street Journal today supported the Supreme Court’s conclusions in
this case.
The American
Soybean Association and CropLife America
also issued updates
yesterday regarding the court’s decision.
--
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.
May 13
|
Farm
Bill; Ag Economy; EPA; and, Biotech- Monday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 13, 2013
Farm
Bill
Sen. Heidi
Heitkamp (D., N.D.), who chairs the Senate
Agriculture Subcommittee on Jobs, Rural Economic Growth and Energy Innovation,
indicated in a column yesterday at The Dickinson Press (N.D.) Online that, “This
week, I am working with other members of the Senate Agriculture Committee
to draft a five-year farm bill…[T]he farm bill I am working to draft will
provide growers with the support they need to survive the tough years and
thrive in the good ones. Specifically, the Senate draft of the farm bill
authorizes a new commodity program called Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC).”
Sen. Heitkamp explained that, “This program will kick in when
farmers lose money — from either yield losses or price collapse — to provide
modest payments to help cover some of the losses they experience. It
utilizes a market-oriented approach to adjust support when prices are high to
keep pace with increased costs in inputs. It will also track with the market
and pay growers on historical production to prevent the policy from influencing
planting decisions. ARC will work in concert with the Federal Crop
Insurance Program to allow growers to mitigate the variety of risks
they face each year.
“As the
risks pile up for American growers, it is critical our nation strengthens its
commitment to a strong domestic agricultural economy. American farmers are some
of the most efficient and productive farmers in the world, which is why the
American agricultural system is the envy of the world. But in order for that to
remain the case, we need to continue to make modest investments to the farm
safety net to support farmers in North Dakota and throughout the country.”
House Ag.
Comm. Member Doug
LaMalfa (R., Calif.) noted yesterday at The
Record Searchlight (Redding, Calif.) Online that, “A hot topic when I
campaigned for this office was the federal Farm Bill and the need for major
reform of this program. I’ve lived it as a family farmer, which makes
me uniquely suited to undertake this difficult task. Few members of
Congress have a first-hand understanding of how Farm Bill policies impact
on-the-ground agriculture, how we can save billions through meaningful reform
and how important modern agriculture policy is to our economy. In order
to support a federal Farm Bill, I believe that it must contain three key
components: the elimination of direct subsidy
payments, major reform of food stamp programs and an overall
reduction in spending.”
Rep. LaMalfa indicated that, “Over 80 percent of Farm Bill
spending is actually on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
generally known as food stamps. While we must help those in need,
the success of the food stamp program should be measured by how many are able
to transition from this government assistance, not how many are added to the
rolls. A first step toward this goal is to eliminate the bizarre
spending on advertising and recruitment of more recipients and instead
ensure that they comply with work and work-training requirements, essentially
helping them become self-sufficient.”
(Note: For
more on USDA outreach funding and the SNAP program, see this FarmPolicy.com update from March 16 that
included a video replay of a brief floor discussion on this issue with
Rep. Diane Black (R., Tenn.) and House Ag. Comm.
Chairman Frank Lucas(R.,
Okla.)).
Bartholomew
Sullivan reported
on Saturday at The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, Tenn.) Online that, “The farm
bill proposals go before committees in which the Mid-South is well-represented.
The House Agriculture Committee, for example has members Stephen
Fincher and Scott DesJarlais,
both R-Tenn., and Rick Crawford, R-Ark., whose district includes
the state’s entire Mississippi riverfront. Sen. Thad
Cochran is the lead Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee
which also includes John Boozman, R-Ark.
“‘The farm
bill is still a work in progress,’ Cochran said last week. ‘I am hopeful it
will benefit agriculture specifically and help improve our economy generally.’
Along the same line, Fincher said he’d been button-holed by
Speaker John Boehner about some milk provisions in the
bill, adding, ‘a lot of people are moving a lot of pieces around.’”
Mr.
Sullivan pointed out that, “The Cordova-based National Cotton Council of
America is again backing a shallow loss crop insurance measure for cotton alone
that it says would provide the necessary safety net for its farmers while not
violating its obligations under international trade agreements.
The Stacked Income Protection Plan (known as Stax) would, as the name implies, supplement revenue insurance
with an 80 percent premium subsidy paid by taxpayers but would replace cotton’s
direct and counter-cyclical program to which Brazil, among others,
has objected over the years.
“America’s
cotton industry lost a trade dispute with Brazil over allegations U.S.
agriculture subsidies created an incentive to overproduce and thus lower world
prices for Third World countries, including subsistence farmers in West Africa.
The new head of the World Trade Organization, selected last week with support
from those developing countries, was Brazil’s ambassador to the WTO, Roberto
Azevedo. He was the Brazilian trade
official in Geneva who helped win the first major concessions by a developing
country against American crop subsidies.”
The
Commercial Appeal article noted that, “‘The
only thing that was WTO-compliant was direct payments, which are going away,
and so we’re ending up with crop insurance,’ [Rep. Fincher]. ‘From what
I’m gathering (with crop insurance and Stax), we may
be able to go forward and put this to bed.’”
(Note: In a
related item regarding the WTO, The Wall Street Journal editorial
board indicated today that, “Yet [Roberto Azevedo]
won that support in large part by helping to scuttle the Doha round of
free-trade talks. Mr. Azevedo was
Brazil’s chief Doha negotiator, and opposition to freer trade in manufacturing
by Brazil, India, South Africa and other emerging economic powers made
a worthwhile Doha deal impossible. It’s now moribund….The result has been
that the WTO is increasingly a bystander as the world’s economic powers ignore
the global talks and pursue their own bilateral and regional trade pacts. The
most important trade diplomacy today is taking place within the trans-Pacific
and Europe-U.S. negotiations.”)
Meanwhile, Ron
Smith reported on Saturday at the Southwest Farm Press Online that,
“As the Agriculture Committees in both the U.S. House of Representatives and
the U.S. Senate prepare to mark up farm bill proposals next week, farmers and
the commodity organizations that support them will watch closely to see where
cuts are proposed, how deep those cuts are and what kind of safety net
will be left after all the slicing and dicing is accomplished.
“Crop
insurance will be top of mind as the industry assesses the importance of what
has become the key element of the farm safety net.”
Also, The
Washington Post editorial
board noted today that, “Among the more laudable ideas in President
Obama’s budget for fiscal 2014 is a plan to modernize and reform the $1.5 billion U.S. food aid
program. Mr. Obama would end ‘monetization,’ the inefficient practice
whereby the federal government buys commodities from U.S. farmers and ships them
abroad (on U.S.-flagged vessels) to governments and nongovernmental
organizations — which sell them and use the proceeds for development
projects. Monetization raises
costs for U.S. taxpayers while displacing goods produced by farmers overseas.”
The Post
added that, “Among
the many points [USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah] makes are that food
aid shipments have declined by 64 percent in the last decade anyway, so it’s a
bit late for farmers and merchant mariners to be claiming that they can’t
survive without them. In fact, farmers are prospering as never before, thanks
in part to commercial exports.
“As for the
merchant marine, the number of U.S.-flagged ships has been in steady decline
for decades, yet the U.S. military managed to prosecute several wars overseas.
If we need sealift for national security, it would be more transparent to
subsidize that directly.”
And with
respect to legislative action by the Senate and House on the Farm Bill, Jerry
Hagstrom reported yesterday at National
Journal Online that, “The reason the bills are moving seems to be that each
chamber has gotten tired of the farm bill hanging on and has something more
interesting to move on to. Reid has told the Senate that he wants the farm
bill passed in May because he wants to devote June to immigration
reform. Since exit polls showed that President Obama’s election percentage
in rural America went from 50 percent in 2008 to 41 percent in 2012, while
Hispanic voters have become the new hope of the Democratic Party, it seems that
[Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid] has a logical reason to get the farm
bill done quickly and move on to something that interests more Democratic
voters. Agricultural employers will encourage this movement, too, since
they are promoting provisions for immigrant farm workers and meat-company
employees that are included in the immigration-reform bill.
“House
Republicans want to move on to the periodic reauthorization of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, and the House Agriculture Committee has to do it.
Most of the futures industry today is financial, but the commission, which
regulates the industry, falls under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture
committees because the exchanges that engage in financial futures started out
trading in agricultural commodities and minerals.”
Mr. Hagstrom noted that, “It did not seem to be a
coincidence that last Thursday, when [House Ag. Com. Chairman Frank Lucas]
scheduled the House panel’s farm-bill markup for Wednesday,
he also announced that the committee will hold the first of a series of CFTC
reauthorization hearings on
May 21.”
Agricultural
Economy- WASDE Update, Farmland Values
Gregory
Meyer reported on Friday at The Financial Times Online that, “US
farmers will overcome soggy
planting conditions to grow their largest corn crop on record,
the government said in a report that knocked buoyant grain markets.
“The US Department of
Agriculture forecast the nation’s corn haul at 14.1bn bushels,
31 per cent higher than last year’s drought-stressed harvest.
“The price
of yellow corn used in animal feed, ethanol fuel and processed food has hovered
near historic highs this spring as steady rain kept farmers indoors. This
delayed planting and raised worries that stalks would enter their fragile
pollination stage when summer heat is at its most damaging. As a result,
the USDA tempered its estimate of how much average corn fields would yield
to 158 bushels per acre, 5.6 bushels less than its previous
projection.”
The FT
article noted that, “CBOT December corn futures, which will contain supplies
from this year’s harvest, fell 2.3 per cent to $5.29 a bushel Friday.
The USDA predicted farmers will be paid an average $4.70 per bushel for
their crop, down more than $2 from this year.”
Reuters
writer Charles Abbott reported
on Friday that, “Record-large U.S. corn and soybean crops will end three
years of punishingly tight domestic supplies, the government said on Friday in
a report that offered the brightest outlook in years for world food supplies.
“One year
after a brutal Midwest drought revived fears of grain shortages and higher
prices, the U.S. Agriculture Department projected the largest-ever global
wheat, corn, rice and oilseed crops in its first projections for the 2013/14
crop year. Global grain stocks would rise more than analysts expected, with
corn zooming 23 percent to a 13-year high, it said.”
Mr. Abbott
noted that, “The forecasts tipped Chicago grain prices lower, but losses were
limited by concerns that conditions may change dramatically in the five months
before the crops are in the bin. July weather conditions are critical
for U.S. crops. A cold, rainy and snowy spring has farmers
weeks behind in sowing corn.”
For a
broad-based look at historic corn production variables, click on this graph,
while a similar soybean graph is available
here.
Owen
Fletcher reported on Friday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “The
USDA said the expected large corn harvest likely would result in significant
declines in the prices farmers would receive for their crops. The
government projected a season-average farm price for this coming harvest
of $4.30 to $5.10 a bushel, down sharply from the record of
$6.70 to $7.10 a bushel for corn harvested last fall.”
“As of
Sunday, only
12% of the nation’s corn crop had been planted, the lowest level for
that point in the year since 1984. But forecasts this week showing
drier weather in much of the Midwest have eased fears about planting delays.
Farmers in many states are expected to have a window this weekend and next week
in which to sow crops,” the Journal item said.
Christopher
Doering reported on Friday at The Des Moines
Register Online that, “The monster crops bode well for consumers, as well as
livestock and ethanol producers who suffered through the 2012 drought, the
worst since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
“Ethanol
plants last year were forced to scale back production of the corn-based fuel or
shutter facilities altogether. Rather than pay higher feed costs, livestock
producers reduced their herds — resulting in a short-term meat glut but lower
stockpiles today. The public is still feeling the pinch at the supermarket,
with higher prices for everything from beef and pork to eggs and milk.”
Also
Friday, AP writer Roxana
Hegeman reported that, “The winter wheat
crop is expected to be far smaller this season compared to last,
particularly for hard red varieties used in bread, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture reported Friday.
“In the
first government projection on the harvest’s anticipated size, the National
Agricultural Statistics Service estimated winter wheat production will
be down 10 percent to 1.49 billion bushels, due to fewer acres – 32.7 million
acres, some 6 percent fewer acres than a year ago – and a 1.8-bushel decrease
in average yields, to 45.4 bushels per acre.”
Agricultural
related tweets,
which included photos, showed planting in Illinois- here (May
11) and here (May
12), Ohio (May
11), South
Dakota (May 11), and Missouri (May
12).
More broadly,
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations indicated late last
week that, “Strong growth is expected for global wheat, coarse
grains and rice production in 2013, according to early forecasts published
in the May issue of FAO’s monthly Cereals Supply
and Demand Brief.”
Meanwhile, Nin-Hai Tseng reported on Friday at CNNMoney Online that, “Then there’s apparently a new bubble
that few have ever heard about: America’s farmlands.”
The article
stated that, “True there’s some bubbly behavior going on, but that doesn’t mean
the market for farmlands has entered bubble territory, at least according to
Yale University economist Robert Shiller, who first warned of a housing bubble back in
2003.
“The most
obvious sign: Nobody has ever really heard about it, Shiller wrote in 2011
in Project Syndicate, an
online opinion forum featuring leading economists.
“Even if
prices went belly up, it likely won’t cause nearly the kind of financial havoc
that subprime loans did onto the housing market and the nation’s financial
system. As Shiller points out, the market for
farmlands isn’t nearly as big as the housing market or stock market, for that
matter. Whereas farmland had a total value of $1.8 trillion in 2010,
the U.S. stock market’s value was $16.5 trillion, and the housing market was
$16.6 trillion.”
Betsy Simon reported late last week
at the Grand Forks Herald (N.D.) Online that, “North
Dakota is almost 90 percent farm and ranch land, which rose in price, on
average, a little more than 57 percent from 2007 to 2012, according
to the results of a land valuation model for an ag
real estate assessment conducted last year by North Dakota State University’s
Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics in Fargo.
“The report
indicates that between 2011 and 2012, farmland values in southwest North Dakota
counties increased by an average of
20 to 30 percent.”
Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
Zack Colman reported on Friday at The
Hill’s Energy Blog that, “Democrats will try to advance Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) nominee Gina McCarthy to the full
Senate again next week after a GOP boycott thwarted attempts to do so
Thursday.”
Biotech
Andrew Pollack reported in Saturday’s
New York Times that, “Genetically engineered crops that could
sharply increase the use of two powerful herbicides are now unlikely to reach
the market until at least 2015 because the Department of Agriculture has
decided tosubject the crops to more stringent environmental reviews
than it had originally intended.
“The
department said on Friday that it had made the decision after determining that
approval of the crops ‘may significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.’”
The American
Soybean Association issued a news release on Friday regarding this
development.
Also on
Friday, an update at the Center for Food
Safety Online stated that, “[T]he Vermont
House has voted 107-37 in support of legislation that would require foods that
are genetically engineered (GE) to be labeled. This is the first-ever State House
to pass a bill that would require that all GE foods to be labeled.”
--
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.
May 10
|
Farm
Bill; Appropriations Hearing; Ag Economy; and, EPA- Friday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 10, 2013
Farm
Bill Developments
David
Rogers reported yesterday at Politico that, “A new drafted Farm Bill,
released by the Senate Agriculture Committee late Thursday [full draft, summary],
reflects concessions to powerful pork and beef lobbies as well as an
effort to secure Southern Republican votes with target prices for rice and
peanut producers.
“The
Midwest Corn Belt would retain its costly new Agricultural Risk
Coverage program—which was the mainstay of the commodity title approved
last summer by the Senate in the last Congress. But the ARC payments have been
trimmed back modestly and more importantly, the standard index changed from a
five-month average market price to the 12-month average.
“This
should reduce the costs to the government based on a typical marketing year.
But even more importantly, it will also push ARC payments into the next fiscal
year since the average 12-month marketing price for corn, for example, won’t be
known until past Sept 30.”
Mr. Rogers
explained that, “In the case of the commodity title, the big new
Southern element is an ‘adverse market payment’ program giving rice
and peanuts the target price protection they have wanted. For rice it will
be $13.30 per hundred weight and for peanuts $523.77 per ton. Both would have
the option to update their yields but any future countercyclical payments will
be calculated on 85 percent of base or historical acres for a farm.
“Southern
producers would have preferred to be free to operate based on their planted
acres, but this was a compromise insisted upon by Midwest critics who argue
that the target prices will drive planting decisions unless some cap is set.”
The Politico
article noted that, “At the same time, [Sen. Ag. Comm. Chairwoman Debbie
Stabenow (D., Mich.)] admitted her own frustration with
the outcome of a behind-the-scenes fight over proposed new egg-production standards,
important to producers in her state.
“The
legislation has the strong backing from the Georgia-based United Egg
Producers, the leading industry trade group which last year reached a
compromise with the Humane Society after a rancorous set of
battles at the state level. And in Michigan’s case, it promises some for egg
producers, faced with stricter cage-size and production rules enacted at the
state level.
“But when
Stabenow’s staff told pork and beef cattle lobbies of her intent, it provoked
such a firestorm that it threatened the entire farm bill. It’s been known for
days that the draft bill would not include the egg language, but
Thursday, Stabenow told POLITICO that she won’t even attempt to offer an
amendment in the markup.”
Mr. Rogers
added that, “And Chad Gregory, president of UEP, said he had been
stunned by the fierce reaction from the meat lobbies as well as their power
[see a related
statement from Mr. Gregory in yesterday’s FarmPolicy.com update].
“Both [Mr.
Gregory] and the Humane Society said they now look for other legislative paths
to pursue. ‘We are committed to getting this done, it is a common sense
solution,’ said Michael Markarian, a
chief program officer at the society.”
DTN Ag
Policy Editor Chris
Clayton reported yesterday on the Senate Farm Bill draft and pointed
out that, “Senators also not only ensure crop insurance is protected from
cuts, but they propose several new policies to broaden crop insurance with a
variety of new programs for different agriculture sectors. The bill
encourages USDA to study and create whole-farm coverage for farmers that would
have a $1.5 million liability cap. Another provision would ensure organic
producers are paid the market price for organic crops in policies. Catfish
producers could become eligible for margin coverage to protect against losses.
Another policy would be for poultry producers in cases of catastrophic
diseases.
“Yet
another pilot program would create a federally subsidized ‘index-based
weather insurance’ program. Farmers and ranchers would receive 60% premium
assistance for buying such coverage.”
The DTN
article noted that, “For cotton producers, the bill keeps the Stacked Income
Protection for Cotton, or STAX. Under STAX, USDA would pay 80% of the
premiums. The bill also would include a new crop-insurance coverage for
peanut producers.
“In
commodity programs, the Senate bill would still stick with the Agricultural
Risk Coverage proposal as the basis for its commodity title. Those
provisions are much the same as last year’s Senate proposal. Farmers would make
a one-time election to choose to be enrolled in ARC, as well as whether to
enroll in individual coverage or county coverage. For individual coverage, 65%
of planted acres could be covered. For county coverage, 80%
of planted acres could be covered. Also, farmers enrolled in
the program could receive payments for 45% of eligible acres.”
In
addition, Mr. Clayton stated that, “The bill also maintains the Supplemental
Coverage Option in the crop-insurance title of the farm bill. The program
allows farmers to buy a county-based average yield insurance that would
supplement their individual insurance policy. To squeeze more savings out of
the bill, the Senate bill trims back the premium level that would be paid by
taxpayers to 65% of the coverage cost. Last year’s bill set the taxpayer
subsidy at 70%.
“For
producers who enroll in ARC, the deductible for the SCO plan would be 22% of
the value of the crop. For all other producers, the deductible would be 10% of
the crop value.”
Yesterday’s
article also pointed out that, “While farm and conservation groups came
together to announce a deal on conservation compliance and eliminating means
testing for crop insurance, the chairman’s mark doesn’t include that language.The
bill would extend conservation compliance to crop insurance and require anyone
who buys crop insurance to have a conservation plan by the end of the farm bill.
The mark also keeps the amendment added on the Senate floor last year
capping premium subsidies for producers with adjusted gross incomes higher than
$750,000. The bill does require a study to determine the effects of that
provision.
“On sod busting, the
Senate bill wouldn’t eliminate crop insurance for farmers putting virgin land
into production, but the proposal would limit assistance to 65% of the
transitional yield and reduce the premium subsidy by 50% as well.”
Also with
respect to Farm Bill commodity title issues, Agricultural Economists Carl
Zulauf (Ohio State) and Gary Schnitkey (University of Illinois) penned an
update yesterday at the farmdoc daily blog
titled, “Payments
by U.S. Farm Safety Net Program: Differences by Crop.”
Erik
Wasson reported yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that, “The
Stabenow draft saves $16 billion from commodity programs by repealing direct
payments, counter-cyclical payments and Average Crop Revenue Election Program
and replacing them with expanded crop insurance.
“Stabenow
has included also some changes to farm subsidies to enhance payments to rice
and peanut growers in ways that resemble the House approach last year.
These growers—important constituents of new committee Ranking Member Sen. Thad
Cochran (R-Miss.)–will receive more generous target-price based
supports.”
In a statement
yesterday, Iowa GOP Senator Chuck Grassley indicated in
part that, “I appreciate Chairwoman Stabenow’s continued commitment to farm
program payments reform…I was also pleased to see Congressman Fortenberry introduce companion legislation to
my payment limits reform bill in the House today. As the
House Agriculture Committee considers a farm bill it would send a strong
message if the House included the common sense and meaningful payment
limit reforms in Congressman Fortenberry’s bill and
that Senator Stabenow has included in her mark.”
Matt
Kelley, in an update yesterday at Iowa Radio Online, quoted Sen. Tom
Harkin (D., Iowa) with respect to the Senate draft: “‘I’m very
happy about the conservation provisions in it, the conservation compliance
provisions, the fresh fruit and vegetable program that we have in there, so I
think our bill looks pretty good,’ Harkin says. ‘I hope we can get it
through.’”
Also on the
conservation issue, an update
yesterday at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)
Blog stated that, “Today, Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR),
along with eleven additional cosponsors, introduced a bill to improve current
farm conservation programs. The Balancing
Food, Farm, and the Environment Act (H.R. 1890) aims
to help farmers and ranchers improve their environmental performance and reward
them for the conservation benefits they produce.”
“Senator Tom
Udall (D-NM) is expected to introduce companion legislation in the
Senate later today,” the NSAC update said.
And in a
teleconference with reporters yesterday, Sen. Mike Johanns (R.,
Neb.) stated that, “Parts of the new [Senate Farm Bill draft] are just being
released, and I’m carefully reviewing the information we can get. I will
say, some of the changes from last year do raise flags…[W]e have a window
of opportunity now in the Senate to get this bill done, but I believe that’s
only going to last for a few weeks. I expect most of June will be devoted to
debate on immigration reform, so it is my hope that we move the farm
bill forward in a very timely manner…”
Meanwhile,
Reuters writer Charles
Abbott reported yesterday that, “The Senate Agriculture Committee is
scheduled to start drafting its bill on
Tuesday, with its House panel likely to follow on Wednesday.
‘On food stamps, they’re going to be 10 miles apart,’ said a farm lobbyist.”
“In the
House, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern has sponsored a
resolution opposing against food stamp cuts. As of Wednesday, it had 115
sponsors, all Democrats,” the Reuters article said.
The National Farmers Union, National
Association of Wheat Growers, American
Soybean Association,and National
Milk Producers Federation released updates relating to the Senate
draft bill yesterday.
Also, House
Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R., Okla.) and
Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D., Minn.) were guests
on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike
Adams, where the discussion focused on Farm Bill issues.
A FarmPolicy.com transcript of
yesterday’s AgriTalk discussion
is available
here.
In part,
Rep. Peterson noted that, “I think we’re in pretty good shape here, really.
I think we’ve hit a middle ground here. By increasing the food stamp cuts,
I think it’s going to help with the members on the Republican side. We
still are going to have a fair number of Democrats supporting it, even with the
higher food stamp cuts. And so I’m feeling pretty good that we’re going to
be able to, by Frank and I sticking together, and by coming together with a
kind of middle ground, that we’re going to oppose the people on the right and
the people on the left that come at us, and I’m pretty optimistic we’re
going to be able to hold this together pretty much the way it comes out of
committee.”
On the
potential differences between the Senate and House Farm Bills, Rep. Peterson
indicated that, “Well, I think where the differences are we knew about and have
known about. There’s going to be a significant difference in the nutrition area, but
that’s been there the whole time, and that will get worked out somehow or
another. There are some differences, potentially, on the commodity
title, but I think we have an ally with Mr. Cochran on what we’re doing
here in the House on the commodity title, and so at the end of the day
I think it’s going to look very much like what we’ve put together. And I don’t
know how you can be against this if you’re for giving people
the option between the price loss contract and the revenue coverage.
I don’t know why anybody should get hung up about that.”
Chairman
Lucas noted yesterday on AgriTalk that,
“But I would tell you, just from a hot button issue, so far—and this is an
issue very close to Collin’s heart—dairy has been a really lively subject,
and I suspect both in committee and on the floor it will be a lively subject.
We’re going to use Collin’s language as the base text language on dairy. That’s
where we’ll begin on Wednesday morning. We’ll see how many amendments fly,
so to speak.”
On the
dairy issue, Rep. Peterson stated that, “Well, the proposal that…first of
all, I don’t think there’s even a finalized version of what the alternative is
going to be, but what they have put together is not workable, and it basically
puts the taxpayers on the hook if things don’t work out the way they plan.
This is…you know, we gave IDFA 80% of what they were looking for—forward
contracting, other things they’ve been asking for for
ten years. But really what they want, at the end of the day, is cheap
milk, and they don’t really care how they get it. And if the taxpayers have to
subsidize it in order for them to get cheap milk, they’re fine with that, but
that’s bad policy.
“So what
they have put together as an alternative, first of all, we don’t even know what
it is, but I know enough about it to know that it’s not something that’s going
to work. And frankly, from what I can tell, these people don’t care if
it works or not. We’ve spent three and a half years putting something
together that we know will work, and if we get an oversupply situation, the
farmers end up paying for it. The ones that are using the Dairy
Security Act are going to end up paying for it and not the taxpayers,
and we think that’s the right way to go about it.”
In a tweet
yesterday, that contained a link to a video, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) indicated that, “#Dairy supply
management is contrary to the goals of limited govt,
economic growth & free markets.”
And a news
release earlier this week from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R.,
Wis.) stated that, “[Rep. Sensenbrenner] and Congressman Sean Duffy (WI-7),
along with several other members of the Wisconsin delegation, sent
a letter today to the House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Frank
Lucas and Ranking Member Collin Peterson. The
letter expresses opposition to the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP),
which is included in the Dairy Security Act – part of the farm bill scheduled
to be marked-up by the Committee later this month.”
Also yesterday,
Bloomberg writer Isis
Almeida reported that, “The U.S. doubled the amount of refined
sugar exports allowed by processors to 100,000 metric tons because of expanding
supplies in the domestic market.
“The
increase took effect May 1 and will revert back to 50,000 tons on Jan. 1, 2015,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in an April 30 notice on
its website. U.S. sugar production will climb 5.8 percent to 8.98 million short
tons (8.1 million metric tons) in the year ending Sept. 30, the USDA said April
10. Stockpiles are forecast at 2.1 million short tons, 55 percent higher than
two years earlier.”
Senate
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing with Sec. Vilsack
Chris
Clayton reported yesterday at DTN (link
requires subscription) that, “An Obama administration proposal to
shift at least some U.S. foreign food aid from buying domestic commodities to
direct cash purchases overseas continues to hit a wall with members of Congress.
“The
chairman and ranking member of the Senate
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee on Thursday both
expressed their displeasure with the administration proposal and said they
were flat-out unwilling to go along with it.
“Under the
plan, the administration would shift $1.5 billion in international food aid
under the Food for Peace program from buying U.S. commodities and instead use
that money to make cash purchases of food closer to regions or countries in
distress. The administration argues the program shift would feed up to 4
million more people over 10 years while cutting costs by about $50 million
annually, largely by eliminating shipping costs. The administration highlighted
that 55% of all international food aid would still rely on U.S. commodities.”
To listen
to an exchange on this issue with Subcommittee Chairman Mark Pryor (D.,
Ark.) and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack from
yesterday’s hearing, just click
here (MP3- 3:53).
Also on
this issue, see this
recent column from the Chicago Tribune by Sec. Vilsack,
Sec. of State John Kerry, and Rajiv Shah, the
administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Crop
insurance was
also a topic at yesterday’s Ag Appropriations hearing as both Jerry
Moran (R., Kans.)- audio replay (MP3- 2:43), and John Hoeven (R., N.D.)- audio replay (MP3- 2:22) raised the issue with Sec.
Vilsack.
And a news
release yesterday from Sen. Thad Cochran (R., Miss.)
stated that, [Sen. Cochran] today once again pressed the Secretary of
Agriculture to explain why a catfish inspection program authorized five
years ago has not been implemented.”
Agricultural
Economy
Owen
Fletcher reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “Heavy rains in
the nation’s Corn Belt are tapering off just in time for many farmers to sow
their crops, a shift that is putting a damper on corn prices…[N]ow, though, farmers are able to play catch-up. Many
investors and analysts think the U.S.—the world’s biggest corn grower and
exporter—will
produce one of its largest harvests ever, replenishing supplies after last year’s
severe drought and sending prices lower in the $46-billion corn-futures
market.”
The Journal
article also included this interesting
graphical depiction.
Patti Domm reported
earlier this week at CNBC Online that, “Just a quarter of the U.S. corn crop
normally planted by this time of year is in the ground, but this could still be
a bumper crop if muddy fields dry up and the weather cooperates.”
Recent agricultural
related tweets, with video and photos, showed planting in Illinois- here and here, Indiana,
and South
Dakota; as well as significant rain in Illinois- here and here.
A National
Climatic Data Center update
yesterday stated that, “According to the May 7, 2013 U.S. Drought Monitor,
moderate to exceptional drought covers 48.1% of the contiguous United
States, increasing from last week’s 46.9% and interrupting the recent
decreasing trend.”
And Lizette Alvarez
reported in today’s
New York Times that, “Florida’s citrus industry is grappling with the most
serious threat in its history: a bacterial disease with no cure that has
infected all 32 of the state’s citrus-growing counties.”
EPA Issues
John M. Broder reported
in today’s New York Times that, “Senate Republicans continued a campaign to
delay confirmation of President Obama’s second-term cabinet nominees on Thursday, blocking
a committee vote on Gina McCarthy, the president’s pick to lead the
Environmental Protection Agency.”
And Ben Goad reported yesterday at The
Hill’s RegWatch Blog that, “Small farmers who keep oil tanks would get a reprieve
from forthcoming federal regulations intended to protect waterways against
disastrous spills under a bipartisan amendment approved Thursday in the Senate.”
--
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.
May 9
|
Farm
Bill; Egg Bill; Budget; Ag Economy; and, Immigration- Thursday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 9, 2013
Farm
Bill- Policy Issues
AP
writer Steve
Karnowski reported yesterday that, “An
influential Minnesota voice on agricultural policy said Wednesday that
he’s hopeful Congress will pass a new farm bill this summer after
efforts last year failed amid election year politics.
“U.S.
Rep. Collin Peterson, the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture
Committee, threatened earlier
this year to sit out the process of writing a new farm
bill unless he got a guarantee from House Republican leaders that they’d
let the legislation come up for a floor vote this time. Peterson told The
Associated Press on Wednesday that he’s now ‘fairly comfortable’ with
the assurances he’s received from Speaker John Boehner and
others, so his name will be on the bill when it’s unveiled later this week.”
The article
noted that, “Peterson said Boehner made it clear to him in their recent
discussions that ‘he wanted to get this over with.’ And he noted that
Majority Leader Eric Cantor said late last week that the House
will vote on it this summer. Peterson said he’s optimistic that he and
Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., will be able
to keep the bill close to what the committee passes and get it into a
conference committee where they’ll resolve the differences with the
Democratic-controlled Senate’s version.
“The
Senate’s version won’t cut SNAP as much as the House version,
and Peterson said they’ll need to work out that difference. But he said
he expects the most difficult problem to reconcile will be the different
approaches between the House and Senate bills toward restructuring crop subsidy
programs.”
Mr. Karnowski explained that, “Coming back this year will be
Peterson’s proposal for a dairy policy overhaul aimed at protecting
profit margins rather than just propping up milk prices. He said he expects
renewed attempts to remove voluntary production controls from the plan, but he
said he believes he has the votes to block that.
“‘It’s
the one area that really needs the bill more than any other part of agriculture,’
Peterson said of dairy policy. ‘Because what’s currently in place is just
completely out of date and doesn’t work at all.’”
Also
yesterday with respect to dairy, a news
release from the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF)
indicated that, “More than 50 state and national dairy organizations, including
the [NMPF], sent a joint letter today to members of the House Agriculture Committee,
urging that panel to include the Dairy
Security Act (DSA) in upcoming Farm Bill. The House Ag panel is
expected to begin drafting a Farm Bill next Wednesday.
“The
letter, which can be found
online, said that dairy producers need ‘a financially-sound risk management
program to help farmers better manage margin volatility,’ noting that the
economic conditions that led to the development of the DSA after the dairy
depression in 2009 – low milk prices and high feed costs generating terrible
margins – were experienced again by America’s dairy farmers last year, when
feed costs soared to record levels as milk prices dropped.”
Meanwhile, Ron
Nixon reported yesterday at The Caucus Blog (New York Times) that, “A
new farm bill being crafted by the House Agriculture Committee includes deeper
cuts to the food stamp program than those included in last year’s version of
the bill, setting up a potential fight with House and Senate Democrats who
oppose additional cuts to the program.
“The
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Frank D. Lucas,
Republican of Oklahoma, is proposing to cut $20 billion from
the food stamp program in the version of the farm bill that lawmakers will
begin working on next Tuesday, up from the $16 billion in cuts
that were in the House bill last year.”
AP
writer Mary Clare Jalonick reported yesterday that, “It won’t be
easy, but finding the right amount of food stamp cuts will be the only way
farm-state lawmakers can get the five-year farm bill passed. The bill,
which also sets policy for farm subsidies and other rural development programs,
has historically included food stamps and domestic food aid to gain support of
urban lawmakers who may not otherwise vote for the bill.
“This year,
food stamps are making passage harder.”
Ms. Jalonick explained that, “[Sen. Ag Comm. Chairwoman Debbie
Stabenow's (D., Mich.)] bill is expected to find the $400 million in
annual cuts by targeting states that give people who don’t have heating
bills very small amounts of heating assistance so they can
automatically qualify for higher food stamp benefits. That approach passed
the Senate last year in a farm bill that died at the end of the congressional
session when the House failed to move on the legislation.
“[House Ag
Comm. Chairman Lucas] says the House bill will make those same changes but
also end what is called ‘broad-based categorical eligibility,’ or
granting automatic food stamp benefits when people are signed up for certain
other programs.”
“The debate
over food stamps doesn’t always fall along party lines — the top Republican on
the Senate Agriculture Committee, Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran,
has said he won’t support major cuts to food stamps because it
is a popular program in his state,” the AP article said.
As an
interesting side note, Ian
Berry reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “Wisconsin
food-stamp recipients would face sharp limits on how much junk food they could
buy under a bill moving through the state legislature.
“The
measure, approved Tuesday by the Wisconsin State Assembly, would require
food-stamp users spend at least two-thirds of that money on healthy foods, such
as fruits, vegetables and juices.”
Mr. Berry
noted that, “If the bill became law, Wisconsin would have to apply for a
waiver to existing USDA rules to enact its restrictions. The USDA rejected
similar requests from Minnesota in 2004 and New York in 2010. A third request,
from Mississippi, was withdrawn in 2012. All three requests targeted sugary
snacks and drinks.
“A USDA
spokeswoman declined to comment on the Wisconsin bill Wednesday.”
Gannett
writer Brian
Tumulty reported earlier this week that,
“[Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D.,
N.Y.)] plans to fight any level of proposed SNAP cuts in the
latest farm bill. The Senate version is expected to call for cutting $4.1
billion. Gillibrand said she will
offer an alternative proposal to offset the SNAP spending through savings in
the federal crop insurance program.”
With
respect to crop insurance, an update
this week from Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R.,
Tex.) stated that, “I think a strong crop insurance program is the best way
of ensuring a strong safety net for our producers. With crop
insurance, farmers and ranchers pay a premium each year to
insure their harvest. In bad years, they get a pay out that helps them
stay above water when they don’t have much revenue coming in. It’s a
shared-risk program, and it’s the preferred risk management tool for farmers
and ranchers across the country. I’ve introduced a bill to strengthen
crop insurance by allowing farmers the option to protect against
shallow losses. I believe it will be included in this year’s Farm Bill.”
A report
yesterday on the Agriculture Today radio program (Red River Farm Network) by Randy Koenen included remarks on the crop insurance
program by Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.)- audio here (MP3- 0:43).
In part,
Sen. Thune noted that, “[Crop insurance] has become, really, the foundation
of the Farm Bill and the basic safety net for our producers.”
In
conservation news, Joseph Morton reported
earlier this week at The Omaha World-Herald Online that, “Congress should
require farmers to comply with conservation requirements if they want federally
subsidized crop insurance, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom
Vilsack said Monday.
“‘We think it’s
only fair that we restore that link between conservation compliance and crop
insurance subsidies,’ Vilsack told The World-Herald.”
An update
yesterday at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)
Blog stated that, “On Tuesday, May 7, six former Chiefs of USDA’s Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) delivered
a letter to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees,urging
them to reattach conservation accountability measures to federal crop insurance
premium subsidies.”
The NSAC
update added that, “The letter from the former NRCS Chiefs is an important show
of support for relinking conservation accountability measures to crop insurance
subsidies, and NSAC will continue to support that accountability
provision as we proceed to House and Senate farm bill markups next week.”
Chris
Clayton reported yesterday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog that, “House
Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas is opposed
to the agreement announced earlier
this week by farm, environmental and wildlife groups to link
eligibility for crop-insurance premium subsidies to conservation compliance.
“Lucas, a
Republican from Oklahoma, told DTN off the House floor Wednesday that he has
a philosophical problem with various lobby groups ‘tying
strings to how farmers farm’ and dictating terms to producers when the farm
bill is supposed to be about raising food and fiber.
“‘My
perspective has always been, very sincerely, if a farm bill is about raising
food — and I know 80% of it now is about making sure people have enough to eat,
helping them buy their food — but if it is about raising food, farmers should
have the tools to raise the food and fiber,’ Lucas said. ‘And if you engage in
whole series of things, such as you can’t get crop insurance unless you plant
in a certain way, on a certain day, in a certain direction, or you can’t access
a variety of other programs, then we aren’t having a farm bill that
helps farmers raise food and fiber, but we have a social tool here that’s used
to direct how farmers use their lives and conduct their business.’”
Mr. Clayton
added that, “On other conservation issues, Lucas said the House Agriculture
Committee will lower cap on the Conservation
Reserve Program down to 24 million acres, instead of the
25-million cap set by the committee last year. That is partly because CRP
acreage has already declined, thus the cap must be lowered for the House
Agriculture Committee to get credit for savings in the cost of the program. ‘We
need to reflect the reality out there.’”
Also
yesterday, Alexandra
Wexler reported at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “The U.S.
Department of Agriculture is expanding a sugar-export program, a first step in
the agency’s effort to prevent a wave of defaults on loans made to sugar mills
and processors.
“U.S. sugar
prices have dropped 12.6% this year, with futures on ICE settling Wednesday at
19.58 cents a pound, near a four-year low. If prices don’t rebound,
sugar processors could default on as much as $809 million in federal loans
later this year, forfeiting sugar that was put up as collateral for the
loans to the USDA.”
Meanwhile,
a news
release yesterday from Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)
stated that, “Montana U.S. Senators [Tester] and Max Baucus have
introduced a bill to help boost veteran employment through farming.
The Senators plan to attach the provisions to the upcoming Farm Bill, which is
scheduled to be considered by the Senate Agriculture Committee next week.”
And, on a
separate issue, Tom
Lutey reported yesterday at The Billings
Gazette Online that, “A new bill requiring labels
on foods with genetically modified ingredients is dividing Montana farmers and
consumers.
“The
federal bill, dubbed the ‘Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act,’
mandates that all food containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, be
clearly labeled. It has bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate, including from
that body’s lone farmer, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.”
With
respect to animal production issues, a news
release yesterday from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D.,
N.Y.) stated that, “Senators [Gillibrand,] Dianne
Feinstein, and Susan Collins today introduced bipartisan
legislation aimed at combating antimicrobial drug resistance. The
Antimicrobial Data Collection Act calls for increased data collection
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), enhanced transparency and public
awareness of antimicrobial drug use in agriculture and strengthened FDA
accountability regarding unsafe antimicrobial drug use.”
The release
added that, “Specifically, the legislation requires a pilot program to
look into new data sources on antibiotics used on food producing animals.”
Egg Bill
Recent news
reports have indicated that Sen. Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie
Stabenow (D., Mich.) will not include a
bill that she has cosponsored to establish a national standard for the
humane treatment of egg-laying hens and the labeling of eggs in the Committee’s
Farm Bill draft.
Chad
Gregory,
president of United Egg Producers, made the following comments yesterday in an
emailed statement to FarmPolicy.com:
“Egg
farmers appreciate the efforts of Chairwoman Stabenow to try to help not only
the egg farmers in her state, but in all 50 states. We are appreciative also of
Senator Feinstein and her Senate co-sponsors for her leadership in getting our
Egg Bill introduced in the Senate, as it also has been introduced in the
House,” said Chad Gregory, president of United Egg Producers, which represents
farmers who produce nearly 90 percent of all eggs in the U.S.
“We can’t
begin to express our utter disappointment in our fellow livestock and farm
groups –who we’ve always supported in the past — who blocked this legislation
that is critical to the egg industry’s survival as we know it … simply because
these groups were paranoid that somehow an amendment to the Egg Products
Inspection Act would affect them, despite explicit language in the bill which
exempts them.
“Without
this legislation, egg farmers will go out of business; states will lose jobs;
consumers will see disruption and price affects in their local grocery stores;
and grocers and restaurant companies will find interstate commerce in eggs
grinding to a halt. All because of pork and beef farmers,
and the American Farm Bureau Federation.”
“We are
hopeful that Congress, in its wisdom, will still find a way to support American
egg farmers, and the consumers who count on the 76 billion eggs produced
safely, efficiently and economically every year in this country.”
Budget
An update
yesterday at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Online stated
that, “CBO plans to release its updated 10-year baseline projections of
federal spending, revenues, and budget deficits on Tuesday, May 14.
The projections reflect new information obtained since The Budget and Economic Outlook:
Fiscal Years 2013-2023 was issued in February and will be available on
CBO’s website Tuesday afternoon.”
Agricultural
Economy
Reuters
writer Sam
Nelson reported yesterday that, “Better corn planting weather is
expected in the U.S. Midwest over the next week to 10 days following
wet weather that has hampered the seeding pace to the slowest in nearly three
decades, an agricultural meteorologist said on Wednesday.”
Agricultural
related tweets from
yesterday, which included photos, showed corn planting in Indiana and Ohio, as
well as some corn that had emerged in Illinois.
A news
release yesterday from Sen. Chuck Grassley stated
that, “[Sen. Grassley] is pressing the Secretary of Agriculture and
the U.S. Trade Representative to engage U.S. trading partners in
high-level discussions on breaking down barriers to biotechnology.
Grassley is the former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance
Committee, which has jurisdiction over international trade policy.
“‘The U.S. Department
of Agriculture estimates that as much as 90 percent of commodity crop acres
utilize seeds improved through modern biotechnology. Trade
disruptions caused by barriers to biotechnology derived crops hurt both
American farmers and the international customers they serve,’ the senators
wrote to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and
Acting U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios
Marantis.”
Immigration
Lisa
Mascaro and Brian Bennett reported yesterday
at the Los Angeles Times Online that, “The immigration reform bill crafted by a
bipartisan group of senators has deeply split the Republican minority even
as lawmakers prepare to take the first votes on the proposal Thursday.
“Alabama’s
Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, a conservative former prosecutor
with a courtly drawl, has emerged as the leading opponent of the bill. He is
aiming at his GOP colleagues with unusual zeal, and calls out the architects of
the bill as, essentially, dishonest.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee webpage indicated
today that, “The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its next executive
business meeting at 9:30 am on Thursday,
May 9, 2013, to consider S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity,
and Immigration Modernization Act. The bipartisan legislation was introduced on
April 17, and the original text can be found here.
The first amendment circulated to the bill is the Sponsors’ Amendment, which is
expected to be offered at the next executive business meeting. A copy of the
Sponsors’ Amendment can be viewed here.
This document shows
changes to the bill as introduced.
“The deadline to file amendments
was 5 p.m. on May 7, 2013. All filed amendments can be viewed here,
and additional information on the history of immigration reform can be
viewed here.”
--
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.
May 6
|
Farm
Bill; Egg Bill; Ag Economy; Biofuels; Budget; and, Immigration- Monday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 6, 2013
Farm
Bill- Policy Issues
Chris
Clayton reported on Friday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog that, “House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor apparently won’t press another pause button on the
farm bill.
“Cantor, a
Republican from Virginia, sent
a memo out Friday to other House Republicans. In it, Cantor outlined
several key agenda items for the spring and summer, including another repeal
vote on Obamacare, legislation to avoid rising
interest rates for student loans and a bill to require the Securities and
Exchange Commission to conduct more cost-benefit analysis for rule-making.
“In his
memo, Cantor also stated on the summer agenda ‘and we will consider a farm
bill produced by the Agriculture Committee and Frank Lucas.’”
Mr. Clayton
added that, “The House Ag Committee is set for a May 15 markup
for the farm bill and shooting to reduce the projected 10-year spending
by $38 billion compared to current budget estimates.”
Erik
Wasson reported on Saturday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that,
“Last year, the
Senate passed a five-year farm bill 64 to 35 only to see it die in
the House because conservatives opposed the funding levels for food
stamps.
“Democrats
believe the failure of the farm bill helped them retain the majority in the
2012 election, and are hoping for a repeat as they enter the 2014 election
cycle.
“‘There is
no question that the House refusal to take up farm bill helped
Democrats retain the Senate,’ said one senior Senate
Democratic aide. ‘Democrats see an opportunity to make headway in red states
and rural America.’”
The update
added that, “GOP leaders refused to bring up a five-year farm bill last year,
but are sending strong signals that they won’t let Democrats use the issue
against them again…[B]ut
passage of a sweeping farm bill is no sure thing in the House.Conservative groups
decry the farm subsidies as corporate welfare and have pushed for deep cuts to
food stamps that Democrats are unlikely to accept.
“In the
meantime, Senate Democrats are moving full-steam ahead with legislation that
won wide, bipartisan approval last year.”
Mitch
Lies reported on Thursday at the Capital Press Online that, “U.S.
Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., said he is optimistic over
prospects Congress will send a farm bill to the desk of President Barack Obama
this year.
“‘There
seems to be a new energy that was lacking last time from the
leadership and the chair of the (agriculture) committee,’ Schrader said in the
May 1 interview with Capital Press.”
The article
added that, “‘My biggest job has been to push back and make sure they don’t go
after the specialty crop title for additional savings,’ he
said.
“Another
amendment he plans would cap the bill’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
cuts in the $4 billion range, similar to cuts proposed in the farm
bill the Senate passed last year.
“‘The
(proposed) idea of taking $28 or $30 billion out of SNAP isn’t going to fly,’
he said.”
Mr. Lies
also noted that, “Schrader said he also is working on an amendment with
Rep. Reid Ribble, R-Wis., to
establish a national checkoff program for
organic producers.”
More
specifically on nutrition issues, Chris
Clayton reported on Friday at DTN that, “As both [House and Senate Ag]
committees again wade into the farm bill this month, committee-driven proposals
on SNAP suggest cuts could range from $4.5 billion to $20 billion over
10 years. At least one other proposal in the House and Senate would
cut $30 billion over 10 years.”
“In the
Senate, Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.,
is still shooting for $4.5 billion in savings and holding the line on cuts to
SNAP. Stabenow has said the majority of the Senate won’t go along with
proposals to change eligibility or the structure of SNAP benefits.
“In the
House, Lucas wants to achieve $20 billion in cuts to nutrition
programs. Eliminating broad-based categorical
eligibility could save $10-$12 billion over 10 years by eliminating
future enrollment of 2-3 million people. In general, those people would still
qualify under the enrollment guidelines, but might not do so.”
A news
release Friday from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D.,
N.Y.) stated that, “[Sen. Gillibrand] is
leading a coalition of one-third of her Senate colleagues pushing the
Agriculture Committee to fully fund the nation’s food stamp program and restore
the already proposed cuts. Senator Gillibrand
also announced her plans to introduce an amendment to the Farm Bill to restore
the proposed Senate cuts, as she did last year when the bill was on the Senate
floor.” (See a related letter
sent on Friday to Senate Ag Committee leaders on SNAP issues, which
was signed by 33 Senators).
Meanwhile, Brian
Gehring reported on Thursday at The Bismarck
Tribune Online that, “With Congress set to begin work on the 2013 farm bill as
early as next Thursday, Sen. John Hoeven,
R-N.D., said his message will be clear — crop insurance will be more
important to farmers than the farm bill as a whole.
“Hoeven hosted
a pair of meetings with dozens of state agriculture leaders in Fargo
and Bismarck Thursday to discuss, in particular, prevented planting provisions
within the crop insurance program.”
Thomas
P. Zacharias, Ph.D., the president of National Crop Insurance Services and
former associate professor at Iowa State University, indicated in a column
posted on Friday at Roll Call Online that, “Indemnities to farmers cost
about $17 billion. Thanks to crop insurance’s design, these indemnities
were not completely borne by taxpayers because farmers and insurers picked up a
major portion of the costs and sustained significant economic losses.
“Farmers
had insurance deductibles so they shouldered at least $12.7 billion in losses
before they collected a single check from their insurance companies. Not exactly ‘laughing all the way to the bank.’”
“When combined
with the $4.1 billion farmers paid out of their own pockets to purchase crop
insurance last year, total farmer investment neared $17 billion.
To any reasonable person, that constitutes ‘paying their fair share.’”
Dr.
Zacharias explained that, “It is also important to note that when crop
insurance premiums exceed losses, the government sees underwriting gains that
help offset payments in bad years. In fact, the government experienced nearly
$4 billion in gains from 2001 to 2010.
“Perhaps
most important of all, Congress was not asked to fund an ad hoc
disaster bill despite the historic devastation endured by our
agricultural producers.
“That is in
stark contrast to the days before the current crop insurance system. In
fact, 42 ad hoc disaster bills totaling $70 billion have been passed since 1989,
according to the Congressional Research Service.”
And with
respect to executive branch perspective on the Farm Bill, Secretary of
Agriculture Tom
Vilsack indicated in a column on Friday at the USDA Blog that, “As
Congress returns to Washington in the coming days, leaders from both parties
have signaled a willingness to come together and get a Food, Farm and Jobs Bill
passed. That is promising news. USDA intends to provide whatever
technical assistance we can to help Congress pass a long-term, comprehensive
bill.”
And a news
release Friday from USDA indicated that, “Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack today announced new rules to better
target Community Connect broadband grants to areas where they are needed the
most. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) remains focused on
carrying out its mission, despite a time of significant budget uncertainty.
Today’s announcement is one part of the Department’s efforts to strengthen the
rural economy.”
Egg Bill
David
Rogers reported on Friday at Politico that, “If hens are given enough
room to stretch their wings and scratch, what will the sows be demanding next?
“That’s the
barnyard buzz these days with farm bill markups starting soon in Congress and
the prospect that new national standards for egg production will be added to
the mix.
“Under
pressure from producers at home, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie
Stabenow (D-Mich.) is leaning strongly in that direction, judging from
talks between her top staff and agriculture lobbyists Tuesday. And
there’s been a flurry of activity since in anticipation of a fight when the
Senate panel begins voting, possibly as early as next Thursday.”
The article
noted that, “‘Egg producers are struggling with a patchwork of regulations
that vary from state to state, and having one uniform national standard is
critically important to them,’ said Cullen Schwarz, a Stabenow
spokesman. ‘We’re working with stakeholders and Agriculture Committee members to
find a solution to help keep American egg producers in business and
avoid losing jobs in the industry.’”
Mr. Rogers
pointed out that, “Nonetheless, powerful pork and beef cattle lobbies are up
in arms, fearing the precedent, they say, of Congress dictating housing for
livestock. Just as important perhaps is their antipathy to giving the
Humane Society a foot in the door on farm policy.”
Friday’s
article noted that, “‘The lesson is you can pick up the phone and find common
ground,’ said Chad Gregory, president of the UEP [United Egg
Producers]. Proponents also point out that the language amends the 1970 Egg
Products Inspection Act, which is unique in that the Food and Drug
Administration is charged with the inspections of the hens –making it less
of a precedent for other livestock.
“‘It’s
insane, ludicrous for a staff person of NCBA [National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association] or NPPC [National Pork Producers Council] to be deciding the fate
of a family egg business that has been in business for several generations,’
said Gregory. ‘What right do they have as a staff person to decide someone
else’s future? This egg bill has nothing to do with them!’”
The egg
bill was also a topic of discussion on Friday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike
Adams. Nebraska GOP Senator Mike Johanns stated
on Friday’s show that, “The other thing I’ll tell you—and this is pretty
strong, but I feel very strongly about this—if this language goes into the mark
on the farm bill, it will bring the farm bill down.”
Ellyn
Ferguson reported on Friday at Roll Call Online that, “Egg
producers in Michigan, a top 10 egg-producing state, support putting the
national agreement in federal law which, if approved, would pre-empt more
stringent requirements voters approved in a ballot initiative. The
agreement also would supersede similar state laws on laying hens in Ohio, Oregon and Washington.”
The Roll
Call article noted that, “[Rep. Kurt Schrader (D., Ore.)], a
former veterinarian who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, introduced
similar legislation last year. He found few allies on the committee when the
panel wrote its farm bill. Instead, the committee adopted an amendment by
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would have prevented states
such as California from requiring out-of-state agricultural goods to meet their
agricultural production and manufacturing laws in order to be sold in their
jurisdictions. Iowa is the nation’s top egg and pork producing state.”
(Note: To
listen to the full discussion leading up to the vote on the King
Amendment that took place during last year’s House Ag Committee
markup, just click
here (MP3- 23:00). The clip includes remarks from Reps. Steve
King (R., Iowa), Kurt Schrader (D., Ore.),Dennis Cardoza (D.,
Calif.- since retired), Bob Goodlatte (R.,
Va.), Chairman Frank Lucas (R., Okla.), Ranking
Member Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), Mike Conaway (R.,
Tex.), and Marlin Stutzman (R.,
Ind.)).
And, a
recent statement from UEP on the egg bill noted in part that, “‘The Egg Bill
only affects egg farmers and the egg industry. The bill says so explicitly,’
[Chad Gregory, president of UEP] said. “This bill is needed to save
family egg farms and protect interstate commerce in eggs, at no cost to
taxpayers. It’s legislation that the overwhelming majority of egg farmers
support and need. It has the support of many animal welfare groups as well as
consumer groups such as the National Consumers League and the Consumer
Federation of America. The bill is based on sound science. A nearly
identical bill introduced last year received support from the American
Veterinary Medical Association, the Association of Avian Veterinarians and the
American Association of Avian Pathologists. ”
UEP also released a brief
video on Friday explaining some aspects of the “egg bill.”
Agricultural
Economy
The front
page of Saturday’s Des Moines Register included
a photo/graphic with the heading, “A Late Start;” and, a corresponding
article by Perry
Beeman indicated that, “In fact, the
planting season is off to its slowest start since flood-wracked 1993, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture reports. Nationally, we haven’t seen such a
paltry amount of seed in the ground this time of year since 1984.
“This
spring’s fickle weather has analysts wondering if the near-record corn planting
that seems to be in store will result in a lesser yield than expected. That
could affect more than just the corn market, with everything from ethanol
production to beef prices hanging in the balance.”
Mr. Beeman noted that, “Planting next week still gives
farmers time to get much of the seed in the ground before Friday, the
informal deadline set by Iowa State University for farmers who want a full
yield. But they are likely to plant into the week after.”
The
Register article added that, “[Chad Hart, Extension economist at Iowa
State University] said he’s guessing the late planting will mean a drop
of 1 percent to 2 percent in yield in Iowa. Still, last year’s Iowa average
yield of 137 bushels per acre should balloon to 170 this year, still a bit shy
of what many farmers want.
“Nationally,
Hart expects an average of 140, up from 123 last year.”
Recent agricultural
related tweets, which included photos, depicted corn being planted in Ohio (May
3), Illinois (May
2), and Nebraska- here (May
4) and here (May
4). However, snow was shown in Wisconsin (May
3) and Iowa (May
3).
A news
release Friday from University of Arkansas Extension stated that,
“Friday’s snowfall in northwest Arkansas was a record setter. Never before had snow been recorded in May in Arkansas,
according to the National Weather Service.”
Meanwhile, AP
writer Sharon
Cohen reported on Saturday that, “The merciless drought that
ravaged large sections of the Midwest and Plains is over, disappearing this
spring in a dramatic weather reversal: heavy rains and floods swamping fields
with mud in many areas. But some farmers and ranchers in parts of the West
and the Plains, including southwest Oklahoma, are pondering the
prospect of another year of a desert-like landscape and a disappointing
harvest.
“It’s
far too soon for predictions. Rain this winter and spring blanketed central
and eastern Oklahoma, bringing relief to a state that marked its hottest year ever
in 2012 and its driest May-through-December on record, according to Gary
McManus, associate state climatologist. But the western third of
Oklahoma, including the Panhandle, remains gripped by drought, along with
stretches of the central Plains from South Dakota down
to west Texas and parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Nevada.”
In other
news, Reuters writer Christine
Stebbins reported on Friday that, “U.S. grain farmers have enjoyed a
rare combination of soaring prices and land values since 2009 but if
incomes dip as expected they should be careful not to fall into the trap of
borrowing against inflated land values, the Kansas City
Federal Reserve said in a report on Friday.”
With
respect to trade issues, Dow
Jones news reported on Friday that, “Brazil hopes to reach an
agreement to export corn to China when Brazil’s agriculture minister
visits the Asian state next week, state-controlled Xinhua News Agency reported
Friday.”
Biofuels
Ellyn
Ferguson reported on Friday at Roll Call Online that, “A House
panel’s decision to look back at mandates set in the 2007 renewable-energy law
could be a pivotal moment for industries hoping to slow down growth in the
ethanol industry.
“The Energy
and Commerce Committee, which helped write the Renewable Fuel Standard,
is taking comments on the effect of mandates for commercial use of
conventional ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, advanced biofuels and biodiesel.
So far, the panel has
issued two white papers on the policy and plans three more in a
bipartisan attempt to depict RFS successes and failures. Committee leaders
also may use the process to provide guidance to the EPA, which
reviews and sets the renewable-fuel mandates.”
Budget
Pete
Kasperowicz reported on Friday at The Hill’s
Floor Action Blog that, “Congress returns from a week off to consider an
issue that could dominate the agenda for much of the summer — the debt ceiling.
“The House will
start the process by considering a Republican bill that would let the
government borrow money in excess of the debt limit, in the event the
government bumps up against that limit. But it would only
allow this borrowing to help pay for interest on the national debt or to make interest
payments related to the Social Security trust fund.
“The
measure is a backup plan in case the two parties fail to reach an agreement on
the debt ceiling. While a deal is still expected, the road ahead runs
through what has become rough but familiar terrain.”
Immigration
Russell
Berman reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “The push for
immigration reform enters a crucial period when Congress returns this week, as
Senate legislation faces the
gauntlet of a committee mark-up and House negotiators try to complete
their own long-awaited bill.”
--
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
May 3
|
Farm
Bill; Egg Bill; Ag Economy; Biofuels; Bees; and, Regs-
Friday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 3, 2013
Farm
Bill- Policy Issues
In a radio
interview earlier this week with Mick Kjar (Ag
News 890, Terry Loomis, Farm Director (Fargo, ND)), Senate
Agriculture Committee member John Hoeven (R.,
N.D.) discussed the potential timing of the Farm Bill.
Sen. Hoeven noted that, “We had a meeting last Thursday, and
we’re going to try to be, in our Ag Committee, marking up the [Farm] bill by
the end of next week.”
If not by
the end of next week, Sen. Hoeven added, “then we are
going to start essentially the 13th –that week of the 13th…[W]e want to be to the Senate floor, in front of the full
Senate in May.” (Ag
News 890 audio clip here (MP3- 1:08)).
And
speaking yesterday on the Agriculture Today radio program (The Red River Farm Network), Sen. Hoeven indicated that, “The Farm Bill is still going to
emphasize crop insurance first.” (Agriculture Today audio
clip here (MP3-
0:15)).
A news
release Wednesday from Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.)
stated that, “Six members of the Colorado congressional delegation are
urging leaders of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture
committees to pass a five-year Farm Bill. In a bipartisan
and bicameral letter today, Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet [D] and Representatives Scott
Tipton [R], Mike Coffman [R], Cory Gardner [R]
and Ed Perlmutter [D] called the
bill crucial for farmers, ranchers and rural economies across the state.”
Dan
Mayfield reported yesterday at Albuquerque Business First Online that,
“About 125 ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, dairy farmers, state employees and
others joined [Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D., N.M.)] to talk
about the upcoming votes she will make on the House Committee on Agriculture on
the 2013 Farm Bill at the New Mexico State University branch in Albuquerque.”
The update
stated that, “‘We’re going to be looking at how to
manage cuts. That’s going to be largely what we’ll be talking about,’ Lujan
Grisham said. ‘If there ever is a state that needs more support, it’s New
Mexico.’”
“After
several mentioned that federal cuts due to sequestration had forced the state
to cancel several SNAP education programs, Lujan Grisham said she would support
an amendment that would fund those programs,” the article said.
Daniel
Flatley reported yesterday at The Watertown
Daily Times (N.Y.) Online that, “[Rep. Bill Owens (D., N.Y.),
speaking at spring lunch of the Watertown Noon Rotary at the Rutland
Congregational Church] said he expected the farm bill to come before the
Agricultural Committee by May 15, in accordance with the wishes of committee
Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and to make it through the committee
process with few changes.
“He
predicted the bill likely will meet significant challenges on the House floor,
however.”
Meanwhile, Daniel
Looker reported earlier this week at Agriculture.com that,
“This year, the farm bill debate has been behind the scenes, as members of
congressional agriculture committees wrestle with food stamp spending
and regional differences over commodity programs. Farm groups expect the
Senate Agriculture Committee to meet next week to finalize a
new bill that will be similar to last year’s except for the commodity title.
Leaders of the House Agriculture Committee expect to mark up their bill
on May 15.
“One holdup
is that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which projects the estimated
costs of farm bill programs over 10 years, hasn’t quite finished its latest
score, Mary Kay Thatcher of the American Farm Bureau
Federation told Agriculture.com Wednesday.”
In his
detailed article, Mr. Looker explained that, “Senate Agriculture Committee
Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow met with farm groups this week to
share some of her plans for the farm bill, Farm Bureau’s Thatcher said.
Stabenow plans to keep changes to crop insurance made with
amendments during final passage of the Senate’s bill, including one advanced by
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) that reduces insurance
premium subsidies for farmers with adjusted gross income above $750,000.
“‘Stabenow
has already said that and crop insurance (conservation) compliance will be in
the bill,’ Thatcher said.”
In a letter this
week to Senate Agriculture Committee leaders, the Independent
Community Bankers of America, along with over 40 other
organizations, noted that, “For many years, members of the Senate
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee have contributed to a strong and
vibrant federal crop insurance program. As your Committee and the full Senate
prepare to consider a comprehensive farm bill, we write to express our
support for crop insurance and opposition to provisions that will limit its
effectiveness.”
“Limiting
crop insurance support to producers of a certain size creates barriers to
participation for producers trying to obtain this risk management protection
and impacts the financial health of the agricultural community. Insurance
products offered through federal crop insurance are key
to food security, allowing farmers and ranchers to secure operating capital
from lenders each year and produce food for consumers around the world.
Agricultural producers keep the rural economy on track, purchasing needed
inputs and equipment and supporting jobs throughout rural America. Without
the risk protection provided by federal crop insurance, agricultural lenders
would be forced to increase underwriting standards, increase costs to offset
risk and reduce credit availability in some areas of the country to some
producers,” the letter said.
Also on the
crop insurance issue, a news release this
week from USDA’s Risk Management Agency indicated that, “USDA
has released a new pilot federal crop insurance plan that utilizes a rainfall
index to provide coverage for annual forage crops. The Rainfall Index –
Annual Forage Insurance Plan is being tested in six states and covers crops
planted annually and are used for livestock feed or fodder. It is available in
all counties in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North
Dakota. Catastrophic Risk Protection and buyup levels
are available under the plan.”
In other
developments, Ron
Nixon reported in today’s New York Times that, “A proposal by the
Obama administration to overhaul the international food aid program has set off
a jurisdictional fight among members of several House and Senate committees,
threatening to derail the most significant change to the program since it was
created nearly 60 years ago…[T]he food aid money is currently part of the Agriculture
Department’s budget, but President Obama’s proposal would transfer it to
the foreign affairs budget, where it would be overseen by the Agency for International Development. The
reorganization would also mean that Congressional oversight of the program
would shift from the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees
on agriculture to theappropriations
subcommittees on foreign operations.”
Today’s
article noted that, “But members of the House and Senate agriculture
subcommittees are skeptical.
“During
hearings last week, Representative Robert B. Aderholt, Republican
of Alabama, the chairman of the House agriculture subcommittee, said he was
concerned that removing food aid from the agriculture budget would hurt
American farmers.
“Representative Sam
Farr of California, the committee’s ranking Democrat, also questioned
the transfer, raising concerns about the subcommittee losing oversight of the
program.”
Mr. Nixon
added that, “There has been a similar response from members of the Senate
agriculture subcommittee. Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas,
the chairman of the subcommittee, along with Senator Roy Blunt of
Missouri, the ranking Republican, both said that they were opposed to
transferring food aid dollars out of the agriculture budget.”
Also, Ben
Goad reported yesterday at The Hill’s RegWatch
Blog that, “Agricultural groups and consumer advocates implored the Obama
administration on Thursday to press forward with contentious meat
labeling regulations despite the threat of damaging international trade
sanctions.
“A
coalition of farmers and consumer rights groups called on the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to finalize a strengthened set of rules requiring meat
producers to attach country-of-origin labels (COOL) to their products.”
And,
a news
release yesterday from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D.,
N.Y.) stated that, “Today, [Sen. Gillibrand], a
member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and U.S. Representative Richard
Hanna applauded the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) finalization
this week of a first-ever Commercial Item Description (CID) for Greek yogurt…[P]reviously, USDA Commercial Item Descriptions for yogurt did
not differentiate between Greek and other types of yogurt. The new description
specifically outlines specific Greek yogurt qualities such as being
‘high-protein’ and ‘strained.’”
With
respect to nutrition, Kimberly
Gasuras reported this week at the Bucyrus
Telegraph-Forum (Ohio) Online that, “Bucyrus City Schools has added dinner
to its menu of meals served to students.
“The
after-school dinner program has been launched as a pilot program until May 9
and is being served to students in the BEST (Building Excellent Students
Together) after-school program.”
Referencing last
week’s New York Times article on minority farmers’ claims of
discrimination by USDA, Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa), the
Chairman of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Operations, Oversight, and
Nutrition, noted in a tweet
yesterday that, “Congress must act.”
The
jurisdiction of the subcommittee Rep. King chairs includes: “Agency
oversight, review and analysis, special investigations, food stamps, nutrition
and consumer programs.”
In trade
developments, Jennifer
Epstein reported yesterday at Politico that, “President Barack
Obama rounded out his second-term Cabinet on Thursday by
nominating Penny Pritzker as his new
Commerce secretary and Michael Froman to
be the next U.S. trade representative.”
A separate
report yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog indicated that the
nominations garnered support from both business groups and lawmakers.
Egg Bill
Ken
Anderson reported yesterday at Brownfield that, “The president of Nebraska
Farm Bureau says federal legislation dictating the size of cages for egg-laying
hens ‘has no place in the Farm Bill.’
“Steve
Nelson was reacting to reports that Senate Ag Committee chair Debbie
Stabenow plans to include the so-called Egg Bill in her markup of the Senate
Farm Bill, which is expected to take place next week.”
Yesterday’s
update added that, “‘The fact that Debbie Stabenow would even consider
starting the discussion on a new farm bill by including legislation initiated
and advocated for by extremist organizations is a slap in the face to American
farm families,’ Nelson says. ‘Including legislation to set a ‘one
size fits all’ standard for the housing and treatment of egg-laying hens would
set a dangerous precedent and only encourage further bullying of farm families
by activists through baseless legal actions and public smear campaigns.’
“Nelson
says such action by Stabenow ‘threatens the prospects of passing a much needed
farm bill.’”
Agricultural
Economy
Emiko
Terazono and Gregory Meyer reported
yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “Corn prices hit a one-month high
as fears of tighter supplies heightened because planting was delayed by
rain and snow in the US Midwest…[A]lthough
farmers have until the middle of May to plant new crop corn, agricultural
trading houses and analysts are increasingly concerned about the impact
of the weather on the next US harvest.”
Agricultural
related tweets yesterday, which included photos, depicted the snow on farms
in Minnesota and Iowa,
while a separate tweet captured corn being planted yesterday near
Evansville, Ind.
An update
yesterday from University of Missouri Extension stated that, “Plummeting
temperatures in Missouri could mean poor stands of corn and seed damage.
“The
unseasonable weather might cause chilling injury to corn seeds prior to
emergence, said University of Missouri Extension agronomy specialist Bill
Wiebold.”
Also, an
update at the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) yesterday pointed
out that, “According to the April 30, 2013 U.S. Drought Monitor, moderate
to exceptional drought covers 46.9% of the contiguous United States, a decrease
from last week’s 47.3%.”
And Perry
Beeman reported yesterday at The Des Moines
Register Online that, “After weeks of steady improvement, drought conditions in
Iowa remained unchanged in the week that ended Tuesday, the U.S. Drought
Monitor reported.
“Nearly
54 percent of the state, generally in western counties, remained either
abnormally dry or in drought. Three months ago, the whole state was.”
Biofuels
A news
release yesterday from the National Chicken Council (NCC)
stated that, “The [NCC] this
week provided detailed comments to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce in response to a white paper the committee issued that asked nine
questions for agricultural sector stakeholders specifically addressing
the impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).”
University
of Illinois Agricultural Economists Scott Irwin and Darrel Good posted
an update yesterday at the farmdoc
daily blog (“Brazilian
Ethanol Imports – Implications for U.S. Ethanol and Corn Demand”), which
noted that, “The current domestic ethanol market is dominated by the ongoing
collision between the RFS for renewable biofuels and the E10 blend wall.
Given the slow pace of market penetration of E15 and E85, the RFS
likely exceeds the blend wall for ethanol in all blends in 2013. The
difference between the magnitude of the RFS for renewable biofuels in 2013 (13.8
billion gallons) and the effective blend wall (estimated at 12.9 billion
gallons) will be addressed with the use of blending credits accumulated
from previous discretionary ethanol blending, some increase in higher
blends, or possibly by discretionary blending of biomass-based biodiesel if
those blending margins become positive.
“Ethanol
blended in the fuel supply can be produced domestically or imported from Brazil (or
indirectly from Brazil through Caribbean countries). Under a blend wall
constraint, imported ethanol from Brazil replaces domestically produced ethanol
in the fuel supply. The magnitude of those imports, then, has important
implications for the domestic ethanol industry and the demand for corn. The
magnitude of U.S. ethanol imports are determined by both supply and demand
considerations. The supply of Brazilian ethanol available to export to the U.S.
equals Brazilian production minus domestic Brazilian consumption minus exports
to other countries. Brazilian ethanol production in 2013 is expected to be
larger than the 5.6 billion gallons of the past two years due to an abundant
sugar cane crop and lower sugar prices. Production may be nearer the seven
billion gallons of 2010. On the other hand, the ethanol blend in the Brazilian
fuel supply is scheduled to increase starting next month. The U.S.
imported about 490 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol in 2012. Peak imports
were at 730 million gallons in 2006. On balance, the supply of Brazilian
ethanol available for export to the U.S. this year is not expected to constrain
imports.”
After a
more detailed analysis, yesterday’s farmdoc update
concluded by pointed out that, “Brazilian ethanol imports in 2013 of 600
million gallons are 400 million gallons larger than our earlier forecast and
imply:
1. 400 million fewer
gallons of domestic ethanol production,
2. 145 million fewer
bushels of corn consumption, and
3. A faster drawdown
in ethanol blending credits.
“This
analysis also underscores the importance of the rate of growth in consumption
of E85. A more rapid growth rate would expand the ethanol blend wall allowing
larger domestic ethanol production and larger corn consumption. We will examine
the conditions necessary for E85 expansion in a future post.”
Bee
Study
John
M. Broder reported in today’s New York Times
that, “The devastation of American honeybee colonies is the result of a
complex stew of factors, including pesticides, parasites, poor nutrition
and a lack of genetic diversity, according to a comprehensive federal study published on
Thursday. The problems affect pollination of American agricultural products
worth tens of billions of dollars a year.
“The
report does not place more weight on one factor over another, and recommends a
range of actions and further research.”
Regulations
A news
release yesterday from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
(NCBA) stated that, “The [NCBA] is appalled to learn that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) continues to illegally release information on cattle
operations to the activist groups Earth Justice, the Pew Charitable
Trust and the Natural Resources Defense Council. In this latest action,
the agency again admitted it had released too much information on livestock
producers, specifically producers from Montana and Nebraska. This action
happened less a month after the agency found it had released too much
information on livestock producers in 10 states.”
--
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.
May 2
|
Ag
Economy; Egg Bill; Farm Bill; Biofuels; Budget; Regs;
and, Immigration- Thursday
Posted
By Keith Good On May 2, 2013
Agricultural
Economy
A Purdue
University news
release indicated yesterday that, “Last year, farmers didn’t have
nearly enough rain for their wilted, drought-ravaged crops. So far this year,
they have too much of it – so much that they can’t get into their
fields to work them for planting.”
The update
explained that, “[Purdue Extension agronomist Tony Vyn]
advises farmers anxious to get into their fields not to succumb to three common
tillage temptations: tilling too early or too often and when it’s too wet. He
says farmers need to be patient and wait for a break in the weather.
“That break
will come, but slowly. The outlook for the first half of May is
continued frequent rainfall with below-normal temperatures for Indiana,
said the State Climate Office, based at Purdue University. Both temperature and
rainfall should moderate to more typical May conditions later in the month…
[W]hen farmers do get into their fields, [Purdue Extension corn
specialist Bob Nielsen] says 25 percent to 30 percent of
the corn crop could be planted in a week and the rest of it a week later – still
in time for maximum yield potential.”
The
National Weather Service noted
yesterday that, “A slow moving storm system is expected to stall
over Illinois Thursday through Sunday bringing a prolonged
period of rainfall to central and southeast Illinois.”
And
an Investor’s Soapbox update from Credit Suisse, which was
posted yesterday at
Barron’s Online, stated that, “Time is running out before late planting
affects potential yields. Despite some favorable weather over the past
weekend enabling farmers to do some preliminary fieldwork, the latest crop
progress report clearly shows we are already in for a ‘late’ planting season.
It is still entirely possible that farmers will be able to populate fields
expeditiously over the next two weeks, but that probability is clearly
declining.”
Yesterday’s
update noted that, “We believe the most material trends to monitor are in the
heart of the ‘I-States,’ including Illinois, Indiana and Iowa,
which have on average planted just about 1% of projected corn acreage. In our
view, these states are among the most integral to the yield recovery
(especially Illinois and Indiana) as they were among the states
most affected by the 2012 drought and typically generate above-trend yields.”
Agricultural
related tweets from Illinois,
which included photos, indicate that corn planting was underway yesterday,
see here, here,
and here.
Meanwhile,
Bloomberg writer Tony
C. Dreibus reported yesterday that, “Wheat
output in Oklahoma, the second- biggest U.S. grower of winter
varieties, may tumble 45 percent this year because of drought
and freeze damage, said Debbie Wedel, a spokeswoman for the
Oklahoma Wheat Commission.”
In trade
news, Reuters writer Doug
Palmer reported earlier this week that, “The United States said on
Tuesday it was prepared to examine how agricultural policy reform could
boost global food security as part of a package of commitments at the World
Trade Organization’s upcoming meeting in December.
“‘The
United States agrees with India and other proponents that enhancing food
security in developing countries is indeed an important issue for this body to
address,’ U.S. Ambassador to the WTO Michael Punke said
in Geneva, according to a text of his remarks released in Washington.”
Egg Bill
An industry
spokesman has confirmed to FarmPolicy.com that Agriculture
Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) could push to
include a
bill that she has cosponsored to establish a national standard for the
humane treatment of egg-laying hens and the labeling of eggs in the markup of
the Farm Bill.
Known as
the “Egg Bill,” the legislation is
cosponsored by Chairwoman Stabenow, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.,
Cailf.), Sen. Susan Collins (R.,
Maine) and Rep. Kurt Schrader (D., Ore).
Chad Gregory, president, United
Egg Producers (UEP) noted yesterday in a conversation with FarmPolicy.com that,
“Egg farmers and the egg industry are an integral part of American
agriculture…and we are major customers of corn, soybean and wheat farmers who
have a stake in a thriving egg industry to sell their crops to. Without
this egg bill, interstate commerce in eggs will collapse, driving many egg
farmers out of business and leaving our industry in chaos with a patchwork of
conflicting and contradictory state laws on egg production and sales. That
is bad for egg farmers, as well as our fellow farmers who want
to continue to do business with us.
“This is
legislation that only applies to eggs. It is supported by an overwhelming
majority of egg farmers nationwide, and UEP which represents over 90 percent of
egg production in the U.S. For other sectors of American
agriculture to oppose our egg bill– when it has no direct affect
on them — is unconscionable. Egg farmers would never try to
intercede against legislation that pork, beef or other farm groups needed to
survive. We only ask that they give our egg farmers the same consideration.”
And Tom
Steever reported yesterday at Brownfield
that, “A United Egg Producers (UEP) member says the so-called egg bill proposed
to be part of the next farm bill will provide an important standard across the
U.S.
“Joe
Miller, the general counsel for egg producer Rose Acre Farms, says statutes
in several states left questions that resulted in virtually halting the
construction of new chicken houses because producers don’t know what to build.
Those statutes stipulated cage sizes, but they differed from state to state.
Miller told Brownfield Ag News that the proposed measure fixes that.
The Brownfield
update also included an audio replay of a brief interview with Mr.
Miller.
Farm
Bill
Sanford
J. Schmidt reported this week at The Telegraph (Alton, Il.) Online that, “Sen. Mark Kirk [R.,
Il.] met Tuesday with his Agriculture Advisory
Board at the National Corn-to-Ethanol Center at University Park on the campus
of Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.”
The article
noted that, “Kirk also said a Republican farm bill likely would cost less than
the Democratic version.
“‘The Democratic version
will pass the Senate and fail in the House. The Republican version
would pass the House but fail in the Senate,’ he said.
“Therefore, he
is hoping a reasonable compromise can be worked out before any bill goes before
either chamber.”
The Telegraph
article added that, “Among cost reductions Kirk would like to see are
reductions in farm subsidies by testing the financial means of those who
receive subsidies.”
Angenene Gibbs reported this week at the Sapulpa
Daily Herald (Okla.) Online that at a town hall meeting on Monday, in reference
to the Farm Bill, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R.,
Okla.) noted that, “‘When we get to the
floor, it will get exciting,’ he said. ‘Some of my more
liberal colleagues don’t want to spend money on rural America. Conservative
colleagues don’t want to spend money because there is no money to
spend.’”
Stephen
Koranda reported yesterday at KMUW- 89.1
(Wichita, Kans.- public radio) that, “Kansas
Senator Jerry Moran says the next federal farm bill is likely
to cut back or eliminate some farm subsidies. The Republican from Manhattan
says that while many lawmakers are focused on cutting spending, he’s
hoping to protect money allocated to support the federal crop insurance program.
“Moran says
that Kansas farmers’ need for crop insurance has been shown in recent years,
with drought and late spring freezes among the challenges they’ve been facing.
“‘Crop
insurance is a tool, a public-private partnership that farmers pay premiums,
but the product is subsidized so that it’s affordable, allowing farmers
to put seed back in the ground and start another crop when one fails,’
Moran says.”
And, Tony
Brown reported this week at the Maryville Daily Forum (Mo.) Online
that, “U.S. Rep. Sam Graves [R], whose 6th District now
embraces virtually all of northern Missouri, was in Maryville Monday as part of
a swing through the northwest part of the state focusing on small business.”
The article
added that, “Longstanding attempts to strip most or all farm subsidies out of
the bill are likely to succeed this year, [Rep. Graves] said, adding that he
hopes subsidies will be replaced by a comprehensive crop insurance
program.”
“Graves, a
professional farmer, said he favors eliminating subsidies and believes a properly
administered insurance system will provide adequate stabilization of
commodities prices,” the article said.
With
respect to nutrition issues, a news
release yesterday from USDA indicated that, “Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack today highlighted improvements to school
meals, a cornerstone of USDA’s efforts to create a generational change to
improve childhood nutrition. The Secretary also discussed efforts to create new
partnerships with chefs around the country to positively impact the eating
habits of children.”
Urban
C. Lehner noted yesterday in an update at
DTN’s An Urban’s Rural View Blog
that, “Farm bill politics, they say, are regional, not partisan. But are
they right?”
Mr. Lehner pointed out that, “The conventional wisdom, alas,
ignores food stamps’ role in the farm bill. It’s a leading role — 70% of the
bucks — and the Congressional debate over food stamps is always partisan. This year it will, if anything, be more partisan than usual.
“To pass a
farm bill on the floor of the Republican-controlled House, big cuts
in food stamps will be essential. Even the $20 billion over 10
years that ag-committee chair Frank Lucas is
planning may not suffice. Programs like food stamps are red meat for the GOP
government shrinkers.
“To get a
farm bill out of the Democratic-controlled Senate, on the other
hand, any cuts must be held to a minimum. Even the $4 billion in
last year’s Senate bill was a stretch for many Democratic senators, who like
big government and see food stamps as both economic stimulus and the least we
can do for the poor.”
Yesterday’s
update added that, “Chances are, then, a House-Senate conference committee
would be looking at a gap of at least $16 billion. Let’s say the
conferees split the difference. Could a final bill with only $12
billion in food-stamp cuts carry the day in the House? Could one with as much
as $12 billion in cuts pass the Senate?”
Meanwhile,
AP writer Kevin
Wang reported yesterday that, “A Wisconsin Assembly
committee approved a bill on Tuesday that would limit the amount of
food stamp benefits that could be spent on junk food.
“Republican
Rep. Dean Kaufert, of Neenah, amended his
original bill to require people enrolled in the state nutrition assistance
program, known as FoodShare or food stamps, to
spend at least two-thirds of their monthly benefits on items
such as milk, bread and vegetables. They could spend their remaining benefits
on any authorized food.”
In news
regarding conservation, an update posted
yesterday at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Blog
stated that, “Today, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced
that applications for the fiscal year (FY) 2013 sign up of the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) will be due by May 31. USDA’s Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will accept slightly more than 12
million acres into the program.”
And in
other news, Reuters writer Charles
Abbott reported yesterday that, “A White House plan to modernize
the major U.S. food aid program, by donating cash rather than American-grown
food, is in trouble after fierce lobbying by farm groups, food
processors, shippers and others who set out to sink the idea months before it
was unveiled in President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2014 budget.
“The
administration, which needs congressional approval to make the changes, is
discovering that only a few lawmakers are prepared to publicly
support the effort to send cash abroad to make the distribution of aid faster
and more efficient.
“They are
outnumbered by lawmakers from both parties who want to kill
the initiative or water it down substantially, based on letters sent to
the White House and comments made at recent congressional hearings. In one
letter 21 senators, including two key committee chairwomen, opposed
the changes.”
Biofuels
DTN
writer Todd
Neeley reported yesterday that, “The Renewable
Fuels Standard has arguably been one of the most effective economic
development tools for rural America, leading to more demand and higher prices for
corn and economic growth in some of the poorest counties in the country in the
past decade.
“A new
white paper from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, however, raises a
series of questions about whether the current RFS is in need of reform.
The committee’s series of white papers and industry input to the issues raised
could be the precursor to RFS reform, although the Obama administration has
shown little appetite for changing the law that mandates the use of 36 billion
gallons of renewable fuels by 2022.”
Mr. Neeley pointed out that, “A number of agriculture and
ethanol groups have responded to the committee’s request for input on a number
of questions raised in the latest white paper.
“In a letter sent
to the committee Monday a number of livestock and poultry interest
groups make a case that the RFS has interfered with the free market when it
comes to ethanol and corn production.”
Also
yesterday, Darren
Goode reported at Politico that, “An effort by ethanol backers to
get the Environmental Protection Agency to scale back the amount of advanced
biofuels required in the U.S. gasoline supply this year has opened a rift in a
decades-old friendship within the biofuels industry.
“The Renewable
Fuels Association made the request to EPA in an attempt to limit
imports of Brazilian-based sugar cane ethanol.
“But Michael
McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association, sees RFA’s
move as both encroaching on his turf and violating a pledge to protect the
EPA-administered renewable fuels mandate at all costs.”
Budget
Peter
Schroeder reported yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that,
“The Treasury Department is not ready to provide a detailed timeline for when
the debt limit needs to be raised.
“Matthew
Rutherford, the Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial markets, said
Wednesday that there are still too many variables at play to determine how long
the Treasury could avoid a default on obligations once it reaches its borrowing
limit. Rather, he simply said the government would have ‘a period of
time’ to avoid default once the debt limit is re-established on May 19.”
Regulations
Nebraska
GOP Senator Mike Johanns was a guest
on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike
Adams where the conversation focused on the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) use of aerial surveillance over U.S. livestock operations.
In part,
Sen. Johanns stated that, “I mean, as remarkable as
that is, the EPA continues to want to keep the extent of this aerial flyover
program very, very close to the vest. I brought it up in a hearing recently
with the acting director.
“The one
thing I can tell people that I could not tell them a few weeks ago is that
there definitely is a program that definitely extends beyond Nebraska.
Now, how much of the aerial surveillance is going on, I don’t know. We’ll
continue pressing to get that information. But very clearly they
have a program, and I also get the impression they’re going to continue to do
it.”
Sen. Johanns added that, “Well, they have to be
targeting livestock operations. They’re not flying because it’s a
beautiful day, that’s for sure. They fly at a very low
altitude. They are flying over livestock operations, and whether they’re
counting cows or not, they’re looking down from on
high to see if they can spot something. They say, well, we don’t do
enforcement. Well, they do.
“I mean,
that information is then put into the hands of somebody who goes on site and
then they start an enforcement process that can lead to fines and penalties.
So what they’re telling us, in my personal opinion, is basically about let’s
hide the ball here. We don’t want to talk about how big this program is, we don’t want to talk about the fact that it does lead to
enforcement. They stick very, very close to their talking points.”
Immigration
Yesterday’s AgriTalk discussion
with Mike
Adams and Sen. Johanns also touched on
immigration issues.
Sen. Johanns
noted in part that, “The Senate, I do believe, will get the Gang of Eight bill
sometime in the fairly immediate future. I think late spring, early
summer this bill is going to be on the floor of the Senate. I hate to
count votes today. This is such a dynamic process. A lot of things
can change. A lot of things could change by next week, really.
“So I do think we’ll spend many weeks
debating this thing. I don’t think this is going to be one of those bills
that comes to the floor and gets a quick vote. I also think it will be a
fairly open amendment process. That tells me, again, that there will be a
lot of amendments, a lot of debate, a lot of
votes. I hope it’s that way. It needs to be that way. The House side, if they decide to do this, kind of a
step here and a piece over there. And then the chances of getting a
comprehensive bill almost become nonexistent because you’d have such vastly
different approaches.”
--
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.
May 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|