Farm bill lobbying intensifies on commodity title, payment limits, COOL
November 18, 2013 | 04:00 PM
As Congress reconvenes today and the farm bill conference continues in closed-door sessions, lobbying is intensifying on some of the contentious differences between the House and the Senate-passed bills.
One lobbyist suggested that the bill could be finished this week, although House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-0kla., who is chairing the conference, told The Hill on Friday he would not promise conferees would produce a report before Thanksgiving.
Other lobbyists said the Congressional Budget Office is being kept busy scoring the bill and that staff met last Thursday on the miscellaneous title and are meeting today on the credit title.
The Southwest Council of Agribusiness, the Lubbock, Texas-based group organized by former House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest, R-Texas, and Tom Sell, his partner in the Combest-Sell consulting firm, has sent conferees a letter with its members views on several titles of the bill.
The letter urges support for transition payments to cotton producers, urges adoption of the House version of the commodity title and says that there should be consistency in how shallow loss and price target-based programs are handled. The letter also opposes new commodity title payment limitations and actively engaged rules. The group also opposes the Senate bill’s adjusted gross income means test on federal crop insurance and conservation compliance.
The USA Rice Federation and other groups also sent the conferees a letter endorsing the House version of the commodity title and opposing tightening of program eligibility requirements and lowering of payment limits and means testing.
In reaction to these letters, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition today published a background paper on commodity title payment limitation proposals. Because the payment limit provision is in both the House and Senate bills, it should be “a non-conferenceable issue,” NSAC said.
“The attack on the reforms will very likely focus on the “actively engaged in farming” rules rather than the dollar limits,” NSAC said.
“While the opposition may very much dislike the proposed $50,000 and $75,000 limits, they truly despise the reform of the actively engaged rules because the current loopholes are the linchpins to their ability to receive multiple payments. As long as one can fairly easily collect unlimited multiple payments, the actual dollar value of the limits is obviously of lesser concern.”
Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and John Thune, R-S.D., and Reps. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., sent conferees a letter urging them to adopt the Senate provision requiring farmers who get subsidized crop insurance premiums to adhere to federal conservation standards, a practice known as conservation compliance.
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and the National Farmers Union are continuing their campaign to stop any changes to the country-of-origin labeling program in the bill.
USCA said late last week that USDA’s latest COOL regulations are scheduled to go into effect on Saturday and that, with the issue in the courts and in the World Trade Organization, Congress should not make any changes.
One lobbyist suggested that the bill could be finished this week, although House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-0kla., who is chairing the conference, told The Hill on Friday he would not promise conferees would produce a report before Thanksgiving.
Other lobbyists said the Congressional Budget Office is being kept busy scoring the bill and that staff met last Thursday on the miscellaneous title and are meeting today on the credit title.
The Southwest Council of Agribusiness, the Lubbock, Texas-based group organized by former House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest, R-Texas, and Tom Sell, his partner in the Combest-Sell consulting firm, has sent conferees a letter with its members views on several titles of the bill.
The letter urges support for transition payments to cotton producers, urges adoption of the House version of the commodity title and says that there should be consistency in how shallow loss and price target-based programs are handled. The letter also opposes new commodity title payment limitations and actively engaged rules. The group also opposes the Senate bill’s adjusted gross income means test on federal crop insurance and conservation compliance.
The USA Rice Federation and other groups also sent the conferees a letter endorsing the House version of the commodity title and opposing tightening of program eligibility requirements and lowering of payment limits and means testing.
In reaction to these letters, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition today published a background paper on commodity title payment limitation proposals. Because the payment limit provision is in both the House and Senate bills, it should be “a non-conferenceable issue,” NSAC said.
“The attack on the reforms will very likely focus on the “actively engaged in farming” rules rather than the dollar limits,” NSAC said.
“While the opposition may very much dislike the proposed $50,000 and $75,000 limits, they truly despise the reform of the actively engaged rules because the current loopholes are the linchpins to their ability to receive multiple payments. As long as one can fairly easily collect unlimited multiple payments, the actual dollar value of the limits is obviously of lesser concern.”
Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and John Thune, R-S.D., and Reps. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., sent conferees a letter urging them to adopt the Senate provision requiring farmers who get subsidized crop insurance premiums to adhere to federal conservation standards, a practice known as conservation compliance.
The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and the National Farmers Union are continuing their campaign to stop any changes to the country-of-origin labeling program in the bill.
USCA said late last week that USDA’s latest COOL regulations are scheduled to go into effect on Saturday and that, with the issue in the courts and in the World Trade Organization, Congress should not make any changes.
