Soy, corn, canola groups send letter on commodity title
July 26, 2013 | 02:00 PM
The American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association and the U.S. Canola Association today sent a letter to House and Senate Agriculture committee leaders that they continue to “oppose any bill containing a risk management program that would tie planted acres to fixed reference or target prices,” but it is questionable whether that message will find a receptive audience.
Reacting to the letter, House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., told The Hagstrom Report “While I always appreciate input from farm groups, I’m frankly concerned we won’t even make it to a point where we can have this debate. We have a House majority that doesn’t seem to want a farm bill. Our focus now needs to be on getting the farm bill to conference.”
The offices of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Senate Agriculture ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., did not respond to requests for comment.
“Can we just get to conference first?,” a House GOP aide said. “Honestly. This isn’t helpful to anyone — least of all farmers.”
Lucas told the Oklahoma Farm Report on Wednesday that when the farm bill failed on the House floor on June 20, there were “a variety of groups who were so consumed by particular niches of the commodity title they forgot to work with me on getting the food stamp reforms through.”
Lucas seemed to be referring to the groups lobbying for an amendment Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, introduced to the House farm bill that addressed many of these groups’ concerns. Gibbs but withdrew that amendment while the bill was on the House floor on June 20, but the bill was defeated on final passage.
The position puts the soybean, corn and canola groups in direct confrontation with rice and peanut growers that want target prices. Last year when Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., was ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Senate farm bill contained only the “shallow loss” program that these basically northern groups favored while the House bill contained target or reference prices.
This year, after Cochran became ranking member, the Senate bill‘s commodity title included a target price program beneficial to rice and peanuts. The House bill remained basically the same as last year and would raise the target prices for many crops.
ASA Chairman Steve Wellman, a Syracuse, Neb., farmer, told The Hagstrom Report today that the groups‘ “main message” is that they want to achieve a five-year farm bill but that they wanted to “reinforce” their position that they do not favor a policy that distorts planting decisions “particularly when prices fall.”
In a news release, leaders of all three groups were firm in their rhetoric:
Danny Murphy
American Soybean Association President Danny Murphy, a soybean farmer from Canton, Miss.:
“Soybean farmers simply cannot afford a farm bill containing a risk management program that, through its own design, could actually create more risk for growers by distorting market signals.”
“There is no question that this is a job that needs to get done, and there are many programs in each bill with which we agree, but we can’t let the need to pass a farm bill be an excuse for policies that place farmers at greater risk.”
Pam Johnson
National Corn Growers Association President Pam Johnson, a corn farmer from Floyd, Iowa:
“While we are pleased the process is moving forward, NCGA remains extremely concerned about a fixed-target-price program recoupled to planted acres that moves U.S. farm policy away from the market-oriented reforms that have made possible a robust rural economy.”
“Our goals have always been to ensure that the federal crop insurance program remains the cornerstone of the farm safety net and that there are market-oriented risk management tools that best complement the federal crop insurance program.”
U.S. Canola Association President Ryan Pederson, a canola farmer from Rolette, N.D.:
“Canola is one of many crops that producers in the Northern Plains can choose from, and we want to preserve that diversity. Conversely, after years of investment in research and infrastructure, canola has emerged as one of very few alternatives to winter wheat in the Southern Great Plains.”
“But this effort would be at risk if prices fall and support prices are tied to current year plantings, because farmers will likely revert to the crop they know rather than the crop they are learning to grow.”
Reacting to the letter, House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., told The Hagstrom Report “While I always appreciate input from farm groups, I’m frankly concerned we won’t even make it to a point where we can have this debate. We have a House majority that doesn’t seem to want a farm bill. Our focus now needs to be on getting the farm bill to conference.”
The offices of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Senate Agriculture ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., did not respond to requests for comment.
“Can we just get to conference first?,” a House GOP aide said. “Honestly. This isn’t helpful to anyone — least of all farmers.”
Lucas told the Oklahoma Farm Report on Wednesday that when the farm bill failed on the House floor on June 20, there were “a variety of groups who were so consumed by particular niches of the commodity title they forgot to work with me on getting the food stamp reforms through.”
Lucas seemed to be referring to the groups lobbying for an amendment Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, introduced to the House farm bill that addressed many of these groups’ concerns. Gibbs but withdrew that amendment while the bill was on the House floor on June 20, but the bill was defeated on final passage.
The position puts the soybean, corn and canola groups in direct confrontation with rice and peanut growers that want target prices. Last year when Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., was ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Senate farm bill contained only the “shallow loss” program that these basically northern groups favored while the House bill contained target or reference prices.
This year, after Cochran became ranking member, the Senate bill‘s commodity title included a target price program beneficial to rice and peanuts. The House bill remained basically the same as last year and would raise the target prices for many crops.
ASA Chairman Steve Wellman, a Syracuse, Neb., farmer, told The Hagstrom Report today that the groups‘ “main message” is that they want to achieve a five-year farm bill but that they wanted to “reinforce” their position that they do not favor a policy that distorts planting decisions “particularly when prices fall.”
In a news release, leaders of all three groups were firm in their rhetoric:
Danny Murphy
American Soybean Association President Danny Murphy, a soybean farmer from Canton, Miss.:
“Soybean farmers simply cannot afford a farm bill containing a risk management program that, through its own design, could actually create more risk for growers by distorting market signals.”
“There is no question that this is a job that needs to get done, and there are many programs in each bill with which we agree, but we can’t let the need to pass a farm bill be an excuse for policies that place farmers at greater risk.”
Pam Johnson
National Corn Growers Association President Pam Johnson, a corn farmer from Floyd, Iowa:
“While we are pleased the process is moving forward, NCGA remains extremely concerned about a fixed-target-price program recoupled to planted acres that moves U.S. farm policy away from the market-oriented reforms that have made possible a robust rural economy.”
“Our goals have always been to ensure that the federal crop insurance program remains the cornerstone of the farm safety net and that there are market-oriented risk management tools that best complement the federal crop insurance program.”
U.S. Canola Association President Ryan Pederson, a canola farmer from Rolette, N.D.:
“Canola is one of many crops that producers in the Northern Plains can choose from, and we want to preserve that diversity. Conversely, after years of investment in research and infrastructure, canola has emerged as one of very few alternatives to winter wheat in the Southern Great Plains.”
“But this effort would be at risk if prices fall and support prices are tied to current year plantings, because farmers will likely revert to the crop they know rather than the crop they are learning to grow.”
