Senate Farm Bill Outlook
From CQ.com: Broader Policy Overhaul May Be in Store as Senate Takes Up Farm Bill.
Summary:- Senate will take up bill after August recess; making the September 30 deadline unlikely
- Sen. Harkin, Ag Committee chair, plans much higher land-conservation program funding than in House bill (HR 2419)
- Harkin and Grassley (R-Iowa) plan to cap annual payments to $250,000 from current cap of $360,000; HR 2419 has no cap
- Sen. Lugar (R-Ind.) supports FARM21, Ron Kind’s proposal (H.AMDT 700)
- Sens. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Brown (D-Ohio) introduced the Farm Safety Net Improvement Act last week, which ties “counter-cyclical” payments (aka crop subsidy payments) to revenue (price times yield) instead of the target price (see the American Farmland Trust page)
- Nutrition advocates are looking for better than the $4 billion increase in the House bill
- Tax provisions to pay for the Senate bill will generate Republican resistance
Full text below the fold.
Broader Policy Overhaul May Be in Store as Senate Takes Up Farm Bill By Catharine Richert, CQ StaffThe Senate is prepared to write a dramatically different farm bill than the version the House passed last week.
The Senate debate will not happen until September or later. For now, Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has promised to increase funding for land-conservation programs far above House numbers.
The $286 billion, five-year House measure (HR 2419), which passed, 231-191, on July 27, would impose new limits on farm subsidies, increase support for fruit and vegetable growers, boost land conservation and increase funding for nutrition programs. Farmers making more than $1 million a year would not be eligible for federal assistance.
Given the tight budget for the farm bill, subsidies are likely to be Harkin’s first target. He has said he will support a proposal by Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, that would cap the amount of money a farmer can get at $250,000 a year. Currently, the cap is $360,000 a year. The House bill does not include an overall payment cap.
Harkin has other options. Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., supports FARM21, a version of a proposal by Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., that the House rejected. It would have phased out some subsidies and reinvested billions into conservation, nutrition and rural development programs.
Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., issued a plan to link countercyclical payments, which kick in when the price of a crop drops below a government-set target, to a crop’s revenue instead. They say their plan would be cheaper and more compliant with international trade law.
The flurry of proposals signals that the Senate is more open to a broad overhaul of the 2002 farm law (PL 107-171), says Scott Faber, farm policy director for Environmental Defense, an organization that will seek deeper cuts to subsidies and more money for conservation programs.
Also hoping for a bigger pot of money are nutrition advocates, who asked the House for an extra $20 billion over five years for a broad range of food programs.
Ellen Vollinger, who works for the Food Research and Action Center, said that money may be difficult to find in the Senate because of the tight budget. Her group may be looking for a much smaller amount, she said. The House bill proposes a $4 billion increase to various nutrition programs over five years.
Some of the extra cash for nutrition programs in the House bill came from cuts to crop insurance. Agriculture Chairman Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn., made those changes at the last minute to mollify food stamp advocates such as Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who vowed to vote against the bill unless it did more to boost nutrition.
The rest of it came from a provision that would tax foreign companies doing business here — which almost sunk the House bill. Most Republicans voted against the measure over the tax provision.
If a similar provision appears in the Senate farm bill — or becomes an issue in the expected conference on the legislation — big business is sure to launch an attack claiming that the package would discourage foreign companies from setting up shop in the United States.
House passes Farm Bill 2
- The bill funds the energy title, which funds biofuels research and development, energy efficiency programs and renewable-energy projects, by reversing $6.1 billion over ten years of the offshore drilling royalty payments mistakenly granted to oil and gas companies
- The bill found additional funding for food stamps by by ending a practice known as “earnings stripping,” which lets foreign-owned companies shift income to a country with lower tax rates, delivering $7.8 billion over 10 years
- The Senate is expected to start debating its version of the legislation after the August recess. Current programs expire Sept. 30 and it is unlikely Congress will be able to complete action on a new five-year bill by then. Instead, a short-term extension of the law is likely to be necessary.
- The $5 million per year Community Food Projects program to fight food insecurity by funding projects that promote the self-sufficiency of low-income communities was zeroed out.
- The Ron Kind (D-Wis.) amendment (H.AMDT. 700, text) to cut farm subsidies and invest the money in conservation, nutrition, rural development and deficit reduction failed 117-309
- The Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) amendment (text) to make it easier for Cuba to buy U.S. crops failed 182-245
- The John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) amendment to prevent farmers from locking in artificially high loan-deficiency payments failed 153-271
- The Adam H. Putnam (R-Fla.) amendment (text) to increase the subsidy ceiling above $1 million if 75% of the recipient’s income was farm-related failed 175-252
- The Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) amendment (text) to make cuts to the crop insurance programs to support grasslands conservation failed 175-250
- The Lee Terry (R-Neb.) amendment (text)to create $10 million worth of sweet sorghum ethnanol demonstration project passed by voice vote
- The Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) amendment (text)to return plant pest inspections to the Department of Agriculture from Homeland Security Department passed by voice vote
Farm Bill Markup
The House Agriculture Committee voted Wednesday to ban federal subsidies to farmers with incomes averaging more than $1 million a year and stop farmers from collecting payments for multiple farm businesses.CQ: Pelosi Eyes Pre-Recess Vote on Farm BillOnly farmers whose incomes exceed $2.5 million a year are now disqualified from such aid.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has been taking a hard look at moving the farm bill through the House in a make-or-break week just before August recess. But given the competing priorities, there are no guarantees.CQ: Labeling Fight Put Off As Farm Bill Markup Proceeds
Food labeling advocates and meat packers have been given a week to strike a deal on mandatory country-of-origin labeling, temporarily averting what was expected to be a heated debate over the hot-button issue.
More coverage at the individual hearing pages (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday).
To continue consideration of H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill
From CQ.com, coverage of Thursday’s markup:
Passed by voice vote:- An amendment by Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio, that would give broadband companies that bring services to rural areas 35 years to repay Agriculture Department loans. Currently, loans are typically paid off in 10 to 15 years.
- An amendment by Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that would create a preference within USDA loan programs for projects that process and distribute locally.
- An amendment by Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, D-S.D., that would set aside federal dollars to help public television stations in rural areas upgrade equipment.
- An amendment by Adrian Smith, R-Neb., that would include ethanol by-product utilization as an objective of USDA alternative energy research.
- An amendment by Conaway that would add goat meat to the list of products that should be included under the country-of-origin labeling law.
- an amendment by Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., that would have allowed states to hire outside contractors to administer food stamp programs.
To continue consideration of H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill
From CQ.com, summaries of the amendment votes at the markup session:
On the conservation front:
Farmers who earn too much to qualify for payments under the bil would be barred from receiving payments under farmland conservation programs, which worries environmentalists.Amendments passed:“Prohibiting and limiting large commercial farmers, in particular, from participating in conservation programs makes no sense,” said Scott Faber, who directs Environmental Defense’s farm policy campaign. “Large commercial farmers are more likely to participate in conservation programs and manage a disproportionately large share of the landscape.”
- The “language barring farmers who make more than $1 million in annual adjusted gross income from collecting government subsidies, and also eliminating payments to those who earn $500,000 to $1 million a year if less than 67 percent of that income comes from farming” was amended by voice vote to “lift limits on marketing loans, which provide short-term loans so farmers can pay their bills until they sell their harvested crops. Aides said this concession by Peterson won support from Southern lawmakers, who worried that the bill would otherwise hurt cotton and rice growers.”
- An amendment by Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., that would make federal dollars available to expand foreign markets for tobacco. The panel adopted the amendment 14-10, with Peterson’s support. North Carolina Republican Robin Hayes warned that without the support for U.S. growers, Chinese growers would dominate the tobacco industry. North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy predicted the amendment would fail on the House floor. He said it “would endure withering criticism for using U.S. dollars to encourage other areas of the world to smoke.”
- An amendment by Tim Walz, D-Minn., that would make it easier for farmers growing organic crops to enroll in the Conservation Security Program.
- An amendment by Nick Lampson, D-Texas, that would create a one-time incentive program to encourage the market growth of oilseeds, which are lower in trans-fats.
- An amendment by Sam Graves, R-Mo., that would bar farmers or companies defrauding the Agriculture Department from participating in the agency’s programs.
- An amendment by K. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, that would prevent the Agriculture Department from writing subsidy checks smaller than $25. It costs the department too much to write checks for smaller amounts, Conaway said.
- An amendment by Jim Costa, D-Calif., that would require 50 percent of funding in the Regional Water Enhancement Program to be spent on new water preservation projects. Waterways in California and elsewhere could benefit from those federal dollars, Costa said.
Provisions of H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill
From Pacific Views live coverage:
The first House Agriculture Committee markup session on the 2007 Farm Bill began with Rep. Collin Peterson’s opening statement, followed by everyone else’s. Peterson said that Americans were fortunate to enjoy low, stable food prices, and food that meets the highest standards of quality and safety.No markup, or voting on specific amendments, actually took place during today’s session. The last changes to the legislation weren’t made until late last night, and today was the first chance most members got to see the final versions, though Rep. Peterson said that the changes were minor in comparison to the version released a little over a week ago.
Peterson said that listening sessions all over the country indicated that the 2002 Farm Bill was popular and regarded as successful. Building from that as a platform, changes Peterson described as departing from 2002 policies included increased spending on research, investment in nutrition, and help for new farmers. He said it was also the first time there was dedicated baseline funding support for fruits and vegetables, as well as a hard cap on payments under the commodity and conservation programs, such that no one with an adjusted gross income of a million dollars or more is eligible.
Peterson further said that there would be a main version of the bill that strictly adhered to paygo, pay-as-you-go, budget guidelines. Other items not covered by this baseline funding would be included in a separate bill that would need to have budget offsets found for it.
Go to Pacific Views for full coverage.
Older posts: 1 2