Farm groups push points on Ag appropriations bill
June 13, 2011 | 11:31 AM
By JERRY HAGSTROM
With the fiscal year 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill set to go before the House Rules Committee at 5:30 p.m. and to the House floor Tuesday, farm groups are lobbying furiously on a variety of provisions, but it is hard to tell if those efforts will have much impact.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., are expected to ask the House Rules Committee to allow them to create a point of order against amendments cutting mandatory spending that they regard as intruding on the responsibilities of their authorizing committee.
The National Association of Wheat Growers asked its state associations to call members about several items in the bill and also about proposed amendments, the group said in a newsletter on Friday.
NAWG said it would oppose an amendment approved by the House Appropriations Committee that would reduce the maximum adjusted gross income for those qualifying for farm program payments from $750,000 to $250,000 and any others to make changes to the farm bill.
It also said wheat farmers could potentially suffer from amendments to redirect funds for cotton direct payments to the settlement of a World Trade Organization case with Brazil, and then further redirect that settlement money to the special nutrition program for women, infants and children known as WIC. The WTO-authorized retaliation measures are worth $830 million, but Brazil had agreed to $147 million per year in U.S. government payments until program changes are made in the 2012 farm bill.
“Not funding the settlement would expose wheat growers to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in lost trade revenue," NAWG said. "Brazil is the world’s second largest wheat importer, and its original target list included a scheduled 30 percent tariff on U.S. milling wheat.
The wheat growers group also anticipates and opposes an amendment that could be offered during House floor debate to cut funding for foreign market development work done by organizations including U.S. Wheat Associates, the group said.
NAWG strongly supports full funding, as authorized in the 2008 farm bill, for the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development program, which the group says show a return of more than $30 for every $1 invested. NAWG is also concerned about levels of cuts to government-sponsored agricultural research, which amount to 13 percent from fiscal year 2011 and 20 percent from fiscal year 2010.
The National Farmers Union says “the most egregious part” of the bill would stop the writing and implementation of the proposed Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rule. The American Farm Bureau Federation has also opposed that language, but the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and other meat groups are in favor of it.
Farmers Union also questioned whether agriculture is being asked to take more than its fair share of cuts, and criticized the appropriators’ unwillingness to provide funds to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to implement the Dodd-Frank bill and to the Food and Drug Administration to implement to the Food Safety Modernization Act.
Several groups are concerned about cuts to conservation programs, and the Environmental Working Group said it was “heart breaking” that members did not mention those cuts during the markup on the bill.
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said it expects Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, to introduce an amendment to take out report language that gives USDA detailed instructions on a number of programs affecting local agriculture. One provision would require USDA to report all plans for trips related to the “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” program, and discourages research on local food production.
“Agriculture is a big and diverse tent and needs to remain a big tent to assert its weight as a small minority within the bigger political landscape,” the coalition said.
“In our view, attempts to throw entire segments of agriculture out of the tent, especially when they are growing and increasingly popular segments, are self-defeating and, to use the new favorite Washington term, job-killing,” the coalition said. “We do not suggest for a moment that everyone should become a local or regional food producer, far from it. But we do believe these farmers and food business entrepreneurs deserve a seat at the table and a fair share of the department’s research, rural development, and marketing resources.”
With the fiscal year 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill set to go before the House Rules Committee at 5:30 p.m. and to the House floor Tuesday, farm groups are lobbying furiously on a variety of provisions, but it is hard to tell if those efforts will have much impact.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., are expected to ask the House Rules Committee to allow them to create a point of order against amendments cutting mandatory spending that they regard as intruding on the responsibilities of their authorizing committee.
The National Association of Wheat Growers asked its state associations to call members about several items in the bill and also about proposed amendments, the group said in a newsletter on Friday.
NAWG said it would oppose an amendment approved by the House Appropriations Committee that would reduce the maximum adjusted gross income for those qualifying for farm program payments from $750,000 to $250,000 and any others to make changes to the farm bill.
It also said wheat farmers could potentially suffer from amendments to redirect funds for cotton direct payments to the settlement of a World Trade Organization case with Brazil, and then further redirect that settlement money to the special nutrition program for women, infants and children known as WIC. The WTO-authorized retaliation measures are worth $830 million, but Brazil had agreed to $147 million per year in U.S. government payments until program changes are made in the 2012 farm bill.
“Not funding the settlement would expose wheat growers to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in lost trade revenue," NAWG said. "Brazil is the world’s second largest wheat importer, and its original target list included a scheduled 30 percent tariff on U.S. milling wheat.
The wheat growers group also anticipates and opposes an amendment that could be offered during House floor debate to cut funding for foreign market development work done by organizations including U.S. Wheat Associates, the group said.
NAWG strongly supports full funding, as authorized in the 2008 farm bill, for the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development program, which the group says show a return of more than $30 for every $1 invested. NAWG is also concerned about levels of cuts to government-sponsored agricultural research, which amount to 13 percent from fiscal year 2011 and 20 percent from fiscal year 2010.
The National Farmers Union says “the most egregious part” of the bill would stop the writing and implementation of the proposed Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) rule. The American Farm Bureau Federation has also opposed that language, but the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and other meat groups are in favor of it.
Farmers Union also questioned whether agriculture is being asked to take more than its fair share of cuts, and criticized the appropriators’ unwillingness to provide funds to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to implement the Dodd-Frank bill and to the Food and Drug Administration to implement to the Food Safety Modernization Act.
Several groups are concerned about cuts to conservation programs, and the Environmental Working Group said it was “heart breaking” that members did not mention those cuts during the markup on the bill.
The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said it expects Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, to introduce an amendment to take out report language that gives USDA detailed instructions on a number of programs affecting local agriculture. One provision would require USDA to report all plans for trips related to the “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” program, and discourages research on local food production.
“Agriculture is a big and diverse tent and needs to remain a big tent to assert its weight as a small minority within the bigger political landscape,” the coalition said.
“In our view, attempts to throw entire segments of agriculture out of the tent, especially when they are growing and increasingly popular segments, are self-defeating and, to use the new favorite Washington term, job-killing,” the coalition said. “We do not suggest for a moment that everyone should become a local or regional food producer, far from it. But we do believe these farmers and food business entrepreneurs deserve a seat at the table and a fair share of the department’s research, rural development, and marketing resources.”
