Jun 20, 2007
3:54 PM, By Forrest Laws
Farm Press Editorial Staff
The House Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities
caught most of the agriculture community by surprise when it approved a
five-year extension of the 2002 law during a mark-up session for the commodity
title of the new farm bill.
Subcommittee leaders approved some amendments and promised more
changes to the legislation, but its members’ refusal to make more than
simple alterations drew howls of protests from conservation and environmental
groups that had been demanding a major overhaul of the farm bill.
Later, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson issued
a statement defending the subcommittee’s action and promising to continue
to work on new proposals when the full committee takes up the farm bill after
the July 4 recess.
“The proposals approved today by the Subcommittee on General
Farm Commodities and Risk Management reflect the message we heard loud and
clear from farmers and ranchers nationwide — the structure of the 2002
farm bill works for them,” said Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat.
“We will continue to develop proposals on rebalancing and
reform in farm programs that will build on this good foundation as we move
forward. The Agriculture Committee has a tough job ahead, but I am committed to
continuing a process that is open and allows for a complete debate of all the
important issues involved in writing a farm bill.”
Both Peterson and General Farm Commodities Subcommittee Chairman
Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., had offered a lengthy list of changes for the commodity
title that would have reduced the marketing loan rates for cotton, corn and
grain sorghum by 2 cents per pound and per bushel, increased target prices for
soybeans and wheat and required direct attribution for farm program payments.
But Etheridge announced during a mark-up session for the farm
bill’s commodity title June 19 he was bringing up an amendment that was a
“pure extension of the 2002 farm bill.”
Other committee members who had planned to make additional changes
in the current law, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, lined
up in support of Etheridge’s amendment.
“As I indicated in my opening statement, I have had a desire
for some time to do something in addition to extending the current farm
bill,” said Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., ranking member on the subcommittee.
“I have thought from the beginning it was not a matter of turning this
over to the WTO to determine what farm policy should be in the United States.
“But I think that because of the budget circumstance we find
ourselves in, an extension of the current farm bill is the best outcome for the
farmers, ranchers and consumers in this country. I clearly believe the current
farm bill is good farm policy. I voted for it, and I supported it.”
Etheridge said the extension will help the subcommittee meet its
goal of preserving the safety net for farmers that was restored when Congress
passed the 2002 farm bill. He and other members said the safety net was lost
with the passage of the 1996 freedom to farm bill.
“Every member on the subcommittee is sincerely interested in
improving the safety net for our nation’s hard-working farmers,”
said Etheridge. “Our challenge is to accomplish that goal with a smaller
baseline and without any new resources. As we move to the full committee we
will continue to strengthen the safety net to ensure that farmers can provide a
plentiful food supply for the American family’s table.”
Moran said he wished the subcommittee could do more to make
improvements in the 2002 farm bill. But the budget provided the committee
— which includes a 58 percent reduction in the baseline for the commodity
title — makes an extension of the current law the better option.
“When we passed the 2002 farm bill, we were successful in
increasing the baseline over the previous farm bill by $40 billion to $50
billion,” he said. “This year we’re presented with a
reduction in the baseline of $60 billion.”
Farm organizations were divided in their reaction to the vote with
the National Cotton Council and USA Rice Federation supportive of the move. The
National Corn Growers Association and conservation groups such as American
Farmland Trust were generally negative.
Some of the strongest criticism of the vote came from Ken Cook,
president of the Environmental Working Group, which recently unveiled the names
of 350,000 previously unidentified farm program payment recipients on its Web
site.
“Today, the House subcommittee with responsibility for
federal crop subsidy policy voted to extend for another five years the very
same unfair, dysfunctional subsidy policies that were put in place by the
widely discredited 2002 farm bill,” said Cook.
“The vote is Exhibit A in the case for not letting farm
subsidy policies be decided by the subsidized. The subcommittee asked itself:
Is the current inequitable crop subsidy system the best that we can do with
billions of dollars of taxpayer’ money? And the subcommittee answered
unanimously: ‘Yup!’”
The Environmental Defense’s Scott Faber also blasted the
subcommittee both in a statement and in a new blog he said he plans to issue
periodically to share his opinions on the 2007 farm bill.
Faber, director of the Environmental Defense Farm and Food Policy
Campaign, is a supporter of legislation introduced by Reps. Ron Kind, D-Wis.,
and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., which would replace the current three-pronged, direct
and counter-cyclical payment and marketing assistance program with a managed
savings account approach.
The subcommittee voted to reject the Kind-Flake amendment along
with a farm program buyout proposal offered by CitiGroup Corp., and the Bush
administration’s USDA farm bill language.
“I have talked to numerous farmers in my district in Kansas,
and there is no support for any of these proposals,” said Rep. Nancy
Boyda, a Democrat. “Questions have also been raised about the impact of a
farm program buyout on tenant farmers, young farmers, farmers who elect not to
participate and on the health of the rural economy.”
Etheridge told Deputy Agriculture Secretary Charles Conner, who
attended the subcommittee business meeting, that USDA “hasn’t
convinced the American farmer that you have the right idea for
agriculture” in its farm bill proposal.
National Cotton Council leaders were pleased the subcommittee
voted to reject the preliminary discussion draft its staff circulated before
the June 19 meeting. The draft included provisions that would have reduced the
base loan to 50 cents, the target price to 70 cents and imposed direct
attribution on direct and counter-cyclical payments.
After it approved Etheridge’s amendment to extend the
current law, the subcommittee then adopted an amendment by Rep. Jim Marshall,
D-Ga., that contained a majority of the recommendations adopted by the National
Cotton Council’s board of directors to make U.S. cotton more competitive
in world markets.
The provisions require USDA to establish loan premiums and discounts
for the 2008 and subsequent crops using spot market data weighted by
production; to modify the calculation of the weekly AWP to more accurately
reflect the competitive environment; and, provide a competitiveness payment to
domestic mills for all upland cotton consumed.
Under the provisions of the subcommittee bill, the upland cotton
program for 2008 and subsequent crops would include a 52-cent base loan; a
6.67-cent direct payment; and 68.61-cent target price. The payment base and
yield used for direct and counter-cyclical payments are unchanged. Payment
limitations are unchanged and the extra long staple program is extended in its
entirety.
“The original draft wrongly isolated cotton by attacking
loan rates and target prices,” said Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, a
subcommittee member. “I have previously stated that any attempt to
isolate one commodity is unacceptable. Cotton should not be unfairly singled
out and made a poster child for reform.”
Instead, he said, the committee and Congress need to construct farm
policy that provides both stability and predictability while accurately
reflecting the needs for all farmers in Texas and across the nation.
“The 2002 farm bill has provided an effective and efficient
safety net for agriculture over the last several years,” he said.
“We must allow our farmers to continue to provide American consumers with
the most abundant and affordable food and fiber supply in the world.”
Besides Etheridge’s substitute amendment, the subcommittee
approved following amendments:
• Marshall’s amendment to adjust premiums and
discounts associated with cotton under loan, to recalculate the adjusted world
price of cotton based on Far East markets as opposed to Northern European
markets, and to provide economic assistance cotton users.
• Rep. Charles Boustany’s second-degree amendment to
the Marshall amendment to separate the marketing loans, loan rates, and target
prices for long grain and medium/short grain rice.
• An amendment offered by Boustany, R-La., to make technical
corrections to the target price and loan rate for rice.
• Boyda’s amendment to establish a single corn and
sorghum loan rate in each county.
• Indiana Congressman Brad Ellsworth’s amendment to
create a pilot program in Indiana to allow for the planting of tomatoes grown
and contracted for processing on up to 10,000 base acres, reducing base acres
on an acre-by-acre basis for each acre of tomatoes planted.
• Moran’s amendment expressing the sense of Congress
that money used to fund programs under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction
should not be transferred to fund programs authorized or reauthorized under any
other title of the farm bill.
3. Guidelines for Fruit
& Vegetable Processors
A guide to help fruit and vegetable
processors comply with state environmental regulations is now available on the
Department of Environmental Quality's website. http://www.michigan.gov/deq The
guide also provides
resources for compliances and links to other
publications.http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3307_36106-170580--,00.html
4. COOL
comment period extended
The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service is reopening the comment
period for 60 days for the proposed rule for mandatory country-of-origin
labeling for beef, lamb, pork, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts.
USDA published the proposed rule in the Oct. 30, 2003, Federal Register.
The proposed rule (at www.ams.usda.gov/cool/ls0304.pdf)
requires designated retailers and their suppliers to notify customers of the
country of origin of covered commodities.
It also requires retailers and their suppliers to maintain specific records to
verify claims.
Comments are due Aug. 20 and should be submitted online at www.regulations.gov.
Additional means of comment submission:
• E-mail to [log in to unmask].
• Mail to Country of Origin Labeling Program, Room 2607-S, Agricultural
Marketing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0254, Washington, DC
20250-0254.
• Fax to 202-720-1112.
Additional information on this and the COOL program is at www.ams.usda.gov/cool.
===============
This message originated from or was
forwarded by:
Chrys Ostrander
Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy
Organic Micro-permaculture
33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
Davenport, WA 99122
509-725-0610
[log in to unmask]
http://www.thefutureisorganic.net
Vicki Morrone
Organic Vegetable and Crop Outreach Specialist
Michigan State University
C.S. Mott Sustainable Food Systems
303 Natural Resources Bldg.
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-353-3542
517-282-3557 (cell)
517-353-3834 (fax)
http://www.MichiganOrganic.msu.edu/
http://www.mottgroup.msu.edu/
[log in to unmask]" align=left hspace=12 v:shapes="_x0000_s1026">