Farm bill conference reveals details of debates
October 31, 2013 | 04:53 PM
Most of the statements that farm bill conferees delivered in a public session on Wednesday repeated their positions established over the last two years of farm bill debate, but there were some signs of new thinking and clarifications of positions.
Here are highlights from the conference meeting, which lasted more than two hours in the Ways and Means Committee hearing room.
“We face daunting challenges, we are working in a complicated environment, we have to draft a very technical bill,” said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., chairman of the conference.
But he added that the committee has the responsibility “to give people back home the tools to withstand the forces of nature and the markets” and to assist in “the struggle” that many Americans to be food consumers.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., noted that the conference gives the Agriculture committees “an unprecedented opportunity to show how to govern.”
Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said, “The time to complete our work has come. The farm bill expired on September 30, so it is important that we reach a consensus and craft a conference report that will pass both the House and the Senate as soon as possible.”
“We’re going to lose our credibility if we don’t get this bill done,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., a former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. “We have to get this bill done.”
House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., told reporters that he will insist that the farm bill be considered as a stand-alone measure.
“I might as well retire and go home if they're going to put the farm bill in another bill,” he said. “It’s the wrong thing to do.”
“If the farm bill is combined with other legislation now, the next time it comes up the House leadership will want to start with a combination,” Peterson said.
The problem in Congress, he said, is that “the committees are not allowed to operate.”
He said the problems started with the 1974 reforms that allowed the caucus to elect the chairs of committees.
The only new piece of information that emerged from the more than two-hour session came from Stabenow, who noted that on Friday the expiration of special Recovery Act food stamp benefits will result in a cut that will total $11 billion over the next three years.
Jerry Hagstrom writes more about the nutrition in a National Journal article published today. See link below.
Roberts and Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, laid out the basic arguments facing conferees on the new farm program.
Roberts said the 2012 Senate bill, when he was ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, “contained real reform.”
“We ended federal subsidies that encourage producers to plant for the government, i.e. target price programs,” Roberts said. “This year’s version created a new Adverse Markets Payments (AMP) program tied to de-coupled historic base acres.”
“The House Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Program went further backwards and recoupled production to planted acres and sets high fixed target prices,” he said. “A modern farm bill should not create planting, marketing, or international trade distortions. Let me be clear … target prices should be decoupled … and the government should not set prices at a level that practically guarantee profit, instead of acting as a risk management tool.”
“Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation about planting distortions,” said Conaway, who chairs the House subcommittee in charge of commodities.
“I don’t know if people are misinformed or if they just have trouble shooting straight,” Conaway said. “We have gotten this far in the farm bill process with zero, thanks to the groups who are recklessly obsessed over this issue.”
“They ought to know that nobody at this table is talking about going back to pre-1996 when farmers had to plant for the farm bill,” he said. “They also ought to know that the House and Senate farm bills both use planted acres while capping them at different levels. By now, they should also be aware that the approach used by the House is the same approach used under the current ACRE program.”
“Why are both chambers taking this approach? Because we are tired of defending charges that we are paying farmers on crops they do not grow or paying people who are not even farming,” Conaway said.
“Both bills address this problem by letting farmers grow whatever they want. We simply make sure that any farm bill benefit follows that decision. We know from the official economic analysis that Congress relies on that this approach results in an infinitesimal effect on planting decisions: about 1/10th of 1 percent.”
“We also know that every single option on the table is treated the same under WTO rules, despite rhetoric to the contrary,” Conaway said. “None has the advantage over the other. In fact, if shallow loss programs pay out over the next five years and price loss coverage does not — which is a strong possibility — shallow loss programs are more likely to be targeted.
“With all due respect, American lawmakers and farm groups who are building the case for a WTO challenge against our country’s farm policies are not exactly exercising the wisdom of Solomon,” Conaway said.
Peterson said he now has the votes to prevail on the dairy policy that he and dairy farmers prefer.
“I might have to bulldoze that one. I have the votes,” Peterson said, referring to the opposition from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Asked why he believed he has the votes now, when the House added an amendment offered by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., to take out what dairy farmers call market stabilization and processors call supply management, Peterson said, “I've been working on it.”
Peterson said the Goodlatte dairy program “won’t work.”
The choice, he said, will be the Dairy Security Act he has written and that is in the Senate bill or current law.
Lobbying on dairy continues, however. The National Milk Producers Federation, which represents the dairy farmers, sent conferees a letter Wednesday urging them to support Peterson while the International Dairy Foods Association and a consumer coalition including the Consumer Federation of America sent a letter urging them to oppose his program.
Country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for red meat was brought up several times during the conference.
“Another issue important to the livestock community is the pending [World Trade Organization] WTO case associated with mandatory country of origin and the potential retaliation from our trading partners,” Lucas said in his opening statement. “I am hopeful that working together we can prevent the imposition of tariffs on a wide array of products important to many states.”
Asked by a reporter if he would like to repeal COOL, Lucas said only that the current law needs some work.
Other members also brought up the issue. Rep. Jim Costa, C-Calif., noted that the House bill includes a study to determine the impact of COOL, but he added, “I don’t think we need a study.”
“It is not working, runs counter to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and our important trade partners both in Canada and Mexico who have protested that program,” Costa said. “I need not remind everyone that we have an agreement with Canada and Mexico in NAFTA.”
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said he hopes the conference addresses COOL “to avoid a potential trade war with our neighbors.”
The COOL issue is the subject of heated lobbying at the moment. The American Meat Institute and other industry groups are challenging the law while the National Farmers Union, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, the Consumer Federation of America and other groups say the current law should be left in the hands of the Obama administration to implement.
King said he would defend his provision in the House bill that would make it unlawful for any state to forbid the sale of foods produced in another state.
King acknowledged he wrote the amendment because California passed a law to forbid the sale of eggs produced in cages for hens smaller than those used in that state.
But Costa said that the King amendment is “vague and overly broad” and its removal is “of great importance for many of us in California.”
The King amendment, he said, is “not only anti-California, but if you think about it, sets up a one-size-fits-all policy to be determined in Washington.”
Royce also said he opposes it.
Royce and House Foreign Affairs ranking member Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., both said they favor the Senate version of the food aid section, which would reduce the practice of “monetization” of food aid for development purposes and also give the government the flexibility to use 20 percent of food aid money to purchase food in other countries for food aid.
But Engel said the 20 percent provision matters the most to him.
Here are highlights from the conference meeting, which lasted more than two hours in the Ways and Means Committee hearing room.
Pressure for action
“We face daunting challenges, we are working in a complicated environment, we have to draft a very technical bill,” said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., chairman of the conference.
But he added that the committee has the responsibility “to give people back home the tools to withstand the forces of nature and the markets” and to assist in “the struggle” that many Americans to be food consumers.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., noted that the conference gives the Agriculture committees “an unprecedented opportunity to show how to govern.”
Senate Agriculture Committee ranking member Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said, “The time to complete our work has come. The farm bill expired on September 30, so it is important that we reach a consensus and craft a conference report that will pass both the House and the Senate as soon as possible.”
“We’re going to lose our credibility if we don’t get this bill done,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., a former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. “We have to get this bill done.”
House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., told reporters that he will insist that the farm bill be considered as a stand-alone measure.
“I might as well retire and go home if they're going to put the farm bill in another bill,” he said. “It’s the wrong thing to do.”
“If the farm bill is combined with other legislation now, the next time it comes up the House leadership will want to start with a combination,” Peterson said.
The problem in Congress, he said, is that “the committees are not allowed to operate.”
He said the problems started with the 1974 reforms that allowed the caucus to elect the chairs of committees.
Nutrition
The only new piece of information that emerged from the more than two-hour session came from Stabenow, who noted that on Friday the expiration of special Recovery Act food stamp benefits will result in a cut that will total $11 billion over the next three years.
Jerry Hagstrom writes more about the nutrition in a National Journal article published today. See link below.
Commodity title
Roberts and Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, laid out the basic arguments facing conferees on the new farm program.
Roberts said the 2012 Senate bill, when he was ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, “contained real reform.”
“We ended federal subsidies that encourage producers to plant for the government, i.e. target price programs,” Roberts said. “This year’s version created a new Adverse Markets Payments (AMP) program tied to de-coupled historic base acres.”
“The House Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Program went further backwards and recoupled production to planted acres and sets high fixed target prices,” he said. “A modern farm bill should not create planting, marketing, or international trade distortions. Let me be clear … target prices should be decoupled … and the government should not set prices at a level that practically guarantee profit, instead of acting as a risk management tool.”
“Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation about planting distortions,” said Conaway, who chairs the House subcommittee in charge of commodities.
“I don’t know if people are misinformed or if they just have trouble shooting straight,” Conaway said. “We have gotten this far in the farm bill process with zero, thanks to the groups who are recklessly obsessed over this issue.”
“They ought to know that nobody at this table is talking about going back to pre-1996 when farmers had to plant for the farm bill,” he said. “They also ought to know that the House and Senate farm bills both use planted acres while capping them at different levels. By now, they should also be aware that the approach used by the House is the same approach used under the current ACRE program.”
“Why are both chambers taking this approach? Because we are tired of defending charges that we are paying farmers on crops they do not grow or paying people who are not even farming,” Conaway said.
“Both bills address this problem by letting farmers grow whatever they want. We simply make sure that any farm bill benefit follows that decision. We know from the official economic analysis that Congress relies on that this approach results in an infinitesimal effect on planting decisions: about 1/10th of 1 percent.”
“We also know that every single option on the table is treated the same under WTO rules, despite rhetoric to the contrary,” Conaway said. “None has the advantage over the other. In fact, if shallow loss programs pay out over the next five years and price loss coverage does not — which is a strong possibility — shallow loss programs are more likely to be targeted.
“With all due respect, American lawmakers and farm groups who are building the case for a WTO challenge against our country’s farm policies are not exactly exercising the wisdom of Solomon,” Conaway said.
Dairy policy
Peterson said he now has the votes to prevail on the dairy policy that he and dairy farmers prefer.
“I might have to bulldoze that one. I have the votes,” Peterson said, referring to the opposition from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Asked why he believed he has the votes now, when the House added an amendment offered by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., to take out what dairy farmers call market stabilization and processors call supply management, Peterson said, “I've been working on it.”
Peterson said the Goodlatte dairy program “won’t work.”
The choice, he said, will be the Dairy Security Act he has written and that is in the Senate bill or current law.
Lobbying on dairy continues, however. The National Milk Producers Federation, which represents the dairy farmers, sent conferees a letter Wednesday urging them to support Peterson while the International Dairy Foods Association and a consumer coalition including the Consumer Federation of America sent a letter urging them to oppose his program.
Country-of-Origin Labeling
Country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for red meat was brought up several times during the conference.
“Another issue important to the livestock community is the pending [World Trade Organization] WTO case associated with mandatory country of origin and the potential retaliation from our trading partners,” Lucas said in his opening statement. “I am hopeful that working together we can prevent the imposition of tariffs on a wide array of products important to many states.”
Asked by a reporter if he would like to repeal COOL, Lucas said only that the current law needs some work.
Other members also brought up the issue. Rep. Jim Costa, C-Calif., noted that the House bill includes a study to determine the impact of COOL, but he added, “I don’t think we need a study.”
“It is not working, runs counter to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and our important trade partners both in Canada and Mexico who have protested that program,” Costa said. “I need not remind everyone that we have an agreement with Canada and Mexico in NAFTA.”
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said he hopes the conference addresses COOL “to avoid a potential trade war with our neighbors.”
The COOL issue is the subject of heated lobbying at the moment. The American Meat Institute and other industry groups are challenging the law while the National Farmers Union, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, the Consumer Federation of America and other groups say the current law should be left in the hands of the Obama administration to implement.
Commerce amendment
King said he would defend his provision in the House bill that would make it unlawful for any state to forbid the sale of foods produced in another state.
King acknowledged he wrote the amendment because California passed a law to forbid the sale of eggs produced in cages for hens smaller than those used in that state.
But Costa said that the King amendment is “vague and overly broad” and its removal is “of great importance for many of us in California.”
The King amendment, he said, is “not only anti-California, but if you think about it, sets up a one-size-fits-all policy to be determined in Washington.”
Royce also said he opposes it.
Food aid
Royce and House Foreign Affairs ranking member Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., both said they favor the Senate version of the food aid section, which would reduce the practice of “monetization” of food aid for development purposes and also give the government the flexibility to use 20 percent of food aid money to purchase food in other countries for food aid.
But Engel said the 20 percent provision matters the most to him.
