Cotton Council, specialty crop growers urge passage while Heritage Action says no
January 29, 2014 | 01:49 AM
The National Cotton Council and a range of other groups today called for swift passage of the farm bill, while Heritage Action urged conservatives to vote against it, saying that it would “key vote" in its analysis of members’ records.
NCC Chairman Jimmy Dodson said the U.S. cotton industry appreciates the new crop insurance product tailored to cotton to resolve the Brazil WTO cotton case.
But Dodson added, “We especially appreciate the inclusion of a transition program for the 2014 crop year since enactment comes too late for USDA and the private sector to offer the new insurance product until 2015.”
Dodson also expressed the industry’s concern about the inclusion of instructions to the secretary to propose changes in the criteria used to determine eligibility for commodity programs beginning in 2015 and the further reduction in the adjusted gross income eligibility test. He noted that the re-imposition of limitations on marketing loan benefits could disrupt orderly marketing in times of low prices.
The Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, a national coalition of more than 120 organizations representing growers of fruits, vegetables, dried fruit, tree nuts, nursery plants and other products, called for passage, saying that the bill represents “the most significant government investment ever into the competitiveness of specialty crop producers and industry members, with support for research, pest and disease prevention, state block grants, child nutrition, trade, and more.”
The alliance said the 2014 bill includes an overall increase in investment of 55 percent over 2008 farm bill funding levels in critical produce industry initiatives and programs, including the state block grant program, specialty research initiative, a new fruit and vegetable incentive grant program for SNAP recipients, the pest and disease prevention program along with maintaining funding in the market access program and the fresh fruit and vegetable program.
“The Alliance has been steadfast in urging Congress to pass a five-year farm bill that continues a strong investment in specialty crop agriculture,” said Co-chairman Mike Stuart, president of the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association.
“We appreciate the dedicated efforts of the House and Senate agriculture committee leadership in bringing forward a bill that will put more nutritious produce in schools, provide critical research funding to fight citrus greening and other invasive plant pests and diseases, and help us to expand markets for our crops,” said Stuart.
Co-chairman John Keeling, executive vice president and CEO of the National Potato Council, said, “After years of effort, America’s fruit and vegetable growers are eager for a farm bill that supports producers, helps families put healthy meals on their tables, and assists local economies in retaining and growing jobs. We look forward to this final vote so that specialty crop producers can get back to what they do best: growing high-quality fruits and vegetables for America and the world.”
Co-chairman Tom Nassif, CEO and president of Western Growers Association, said “The federal government becomes an invaluable partner in food production when it invests in science and research that increases food safety, reduces our dependence on natural resources, increases the consumption of fresh produce and provides healthy, fresh snacks to those children least able to afford them.”
Nature Conservancy President and CEO Mark R. Tercek said, “This farm bill would be one of the strongest ever for conservation and forestry.”
“From our decades of work on the ground with farmers and other private landowners all over the country, we know that the farm bill’s conservation provisions are practical, cost-effective and provide solid ways for the government to collaborate with individual landowners,” Tercek said. “They enable growers to do what they want to do — be good stewards of the land.”
A coalition of farm groups led by the American Farmland Trust and including Bruce Knight, a former Agriculture undersecretary, praised the bill for tying crop insurance benefits to conservation compliance.
“It provides an effective risk management tool for farms of all sizes, while at the same time conserving and protecting fragile soils and wetlands by requiring basic conservation planning,” the groups said.
Heritage Action for America urged a “no" vote.
“Despite claims of reform, the bill continues to spend nearly $1 trillion on a variety of programs, including significant taxpayers subsidies to agribusiness, green energy handouts, conservation programs and of course the massive food stamp program,” the conservative group said.
“Once again, about 80 percent of the bill’s spending goes towards the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps,” Heritage said.
“There are now nearly 48 million individuals on food stamps, compared with nearly 31 million in 2008 and 17 million in 2000. Even after the dramatic loosening of eligibility standards contributed to one in seven Americans now collecting food stamps, the conference report contains minuscule reforms. All told the proposal is expected to save just 1 percent. That is below the 5 percent cut passed by the House last September and well below the 17percent reduction outlined in the House-passed budget.”
“By restoring the link between food stamps and agriculture policy, the conference committee reversed what Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., described as a “victory for common sense that taxpayers won last year," Heritage Action said.
Heritage also said, “While some bad subsidies and program were removed, lawmakers replaced them with even riskier taxpayer-funded programs. The inclusion of the Senate’s Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program is of deep concern. An initial CBO score suggested the average cost of about $2.9 billion per year, but an analysis by the American Enterprise Institute found the program could cost as much as $7 billion annually based on the 15-year historical average price.”
“The inclusion of the House’s Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program is similarly problematic, setting the baseline for these commodity prices higher than what would be necessary to cover major losses. These baseline scoring gimmicks could wipe out all the “savings” that negotiators are touting in the conference report.”
“The bill contains many smaller provisions too. For example, in a win for Senate negotiators, it will include $881 million in mandatory funding for the Agriculture Department renewable energy and biofuels programs,” Heritage said.
The group said it opposes the conference report “and will include it on our legislative scorecard.”
A group of New York chefs, anti-hunger activists and officials will hold an event at a New York church on Wednesday to discuss the impact of the food stamp cuts on New York City. But the announcement does not say that the group will actually call for opposition to the farm bill.
The speakers will include:
The National Conference of State Legislatures praised the conferees for leaving out the King amendment on interstate commerce and for limiting cuts to the food stamp program.
The Rural Coalition and its allies, who represent low-income and minority farmers and rural residents, endorsed the bill, although they called the cut to food stamps “unconscionable.”
The coalition released a lengthy document listing programs that will help low-income and minority rural Americans.
The National Grain and Feed Association, which represents country grain elevators and other rural businesses that serve farmers, praised the bill for reducing the number of acres in the land-idling Conservation Reserve Program, which takes land out of production, from 32 to 24 million acres.
In addition, the bill would predicate farm program payments under both revenue-assurance and target-price programs on base acres, rather than actual planted acres, avoiding potential international trade conflicts, the group said.
The Coalition for Sugar Reform, which represents industrial sugar users, did not take a position on the bill, but said in a news release its members remain “deeply disappointed” that the bill did not make changes to the sugar program.
The Union of Concerned Scientists said Congress should pass the farm bill because it “includes reforms that could sow the seeds for a sustainable food and agriculture system.”
“Programs that incentivize increasing access to healthy foods, developing regional food systems, and promoting sustainable agricultural practices are included and funded at higher levels,” the group said.
“But these programs should be the core of this legislation instead of on the periphery. This farm bill, like many before it, still reinforces a food system rooted in overproduction of ingredients for processed food that tax our health and our environment.”
“Transitioning to a sustainable food and farm system will not happen overnight," the group said. "The farm bill is still the best avenue to start making this transition and this bill at least contains nuggets of improvement. There is always more work to be done, but for now, we urge Congress to put an end to the almost two years of uncertainty and pass the farm bill.”
Below is a list of the “high points and disappointments regarding the bill,” UCS said.
Highlights include:
Disappointments include:
NCC Chairman Jimmy Dodson said the U.S. cotton industry appreciates the new crop insurance product tailored to cotton to resolve the Brazil WTO cotton case.
But Dodson added, “We especially appreciate the inclusion of a transition program for the 2014 crop year since enactment comes too late for USDA and the private sector to offer the new insurance product until 2015.”
Dodson also expressed the industry’s concern about the inclusion of instructions to the secretary to propose changes in the criteria used to determine eligibility for commodity programs beginning in 2015 and the further reduction in the adjusted gross income eligibility test. He noted that the re-imposition of limitations on marketing loan benefits could disrupt orderly marketing in times of low prices.
The Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, a national coalition of more than 120 organizations representing growers of fruits, vegetables, dried fruit, tree nuts, nursery plants and other products, called for passage, saying that the bill represents “the most significant government investment ever into the competitiveness of specialty crop producers and industry members, with support for research, pest and disease prevention, state block grants, child nutrition, trade, and more.”
The alliance said the 2014 bill includes an overall increase in investment of 55 percent over 2008 farm bill funding levels in critical produce industry initiatives and programs, including the state block grant program, specialty research initiative, a new fruit and vegetable incentive grant program for SNAP recipients, the pest and disease prevention program along with maintaining funding in the market access program and the fresh fruit and vegetable program.
“The Alliance has been steadfast in urging Congress to pass a five-year farm bill that continues a strong investment in specialty crop agriculture,” said Co-chairman Mike Stuart, president of the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association.
“We appreciate the dedicated efforts of the House and Senate agriculture committee leadership in bringing forward a bill that will put more nutritious produce in schools, provide critical research funding to fight citrus greening and other invasive plant pests and diseases, and help us to expand markets for our crops,” said Stuart.
Co-chairman John Keeling, executive vice president and CEO of the National Potato Council, said, “After years of effort, America’s fruit and vegetable growers are eager for a farm bill that supports producers, helps families put healthy meals on their tables, and assists local economies in retaining and growing jobs. We look forward to this final vote so that specialty crop producers can get back to what they do best: growing high-quality fruits and vegetables for America and the world.”
Co-chairman Tom Nassif, CEO and president of Western Growers Association, said “The federal government becomes an invaluable partner in food production when it invests in science and research that increases food safety, reduces our dependence on natural resources, increases the consumption of fresh produce and provides healthy, fresh snacks to those children least able to afford them.”
Nature Conservancy
Nature Conservancy President and CEO Mark R. Tercek said, “This farm bill would be one of the strongest ever for conservation and forestry.”
“From our decades of work on the ground with farmers and other private landowners all over the country, we know that the farm bill’s conservation provisions are practical, cost-effective and provide solid ways for the government to collaborate with individual landowners,” Tercek said. “They enable growers to do what they want to do — be good stewards of the land.”
American Farmland Trust
A coalition of farm groups led by the American Farmland Trust and including Bruce Knight, a former Agriculture undersecretary, praised the bill for tying crop insurance benefits to conservation compliance.
“It provides an effective risk management tool for farms of all sizes, while at the same time conserving and protecting fragile soils and wetlands by requiring basic conservation planning,” the groups said.
Heritage Action for America
Heritage Action for America urged a “no" vote.
“Despite claims of reform, the bill continues to spend nearly $1 trillion on a variety of programs, including significant taxpayers subsidies to agribusiness, green energy handouts, conservation programs and of course the massive food stamp program,” the conservative group said.
“Once again, about 80 percent of the bill’s spending goes towards the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps,” Heritage said.
“There are now nearly 48 million individuals on food stamps, compared with nearly 31 million in 2008 and 17 million in 2000. Even after the dramatic loosening of eligibility standards contributed to one in seven Americans now collecting food stamps, the conference report contains minuscule reforms. All told the proposal is expected to save just 1 percent. That is below the 5 percent cut passed by the House last September and well below the 17percent reduction outlined in the House-passed budget.”
“By restoring the link between food stamps and agriculture policy, the conference committee reversed what Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., described as a “victory for common sense that taxpayers won last year," Heritage Action said.
Heritage also said, “While some bad subsidies and program were removed, lawmakers replaced them with even riskier taxpayer-funded programs. The inclusion of the Senate’s Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program is of deep concern. An initial CBO score suggested the average cost of about $2.9 billion per year, but an analysis by the American Enterprise Institute found the program could cost as much as $7 billion annually based on the 15-year historical average price.”
“The inclusion of the House’s Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program is similarly problematic, setting the baseline for these commodity prices higher than what would be necessary to cover major losses. These baseline scoring gimmicks could wipe out all the “savings” that negotiators are touting in the conference report.”
“The bill contains many smaller provisions too. For example, in a win for Senate negotiators, it will include $881 million in mandatory funding for the Agriculture Department renewable energy and biofuels programs,” Heritage said.
The group said it opposes the conference report “and will include it on our legislative scorecard.”
New York City nutrition activists
A group of New York chefs, anti-hunger activists and officials will hold an event at a New York church on Wednesday to discuss the impact of the food stamp cuts on New York City. But the announcement does not say that the group will actually call for opposition to the farm bill.
The speakers will include:
- Tom Colicchio, chef and restaurateur
- Marc Murphy, Benchmarc Restaurants
- Joel Berg, executive director, New York City Coalition Against Hunger
- Jilly Stephens, executive director, City Harvest
- Sheena Wright, president and CEO, United Way of NYC
- Gale Brewer, Manhattan borough president
National Conference of State Legislatures
The National Conference of State Legislatures praised the conferees for leaving out the King amendment on interstate commerce and for limiting cuts to the food stamp program.
The Rural Coalition
The Rural Coalition and its allies, who represent low-income and minority farmers and rural residents, endorsed the bill, although they called the cut to food stamps “unconscionable.”
The coalition released a lengthy document listing programs that will help low-income and minority rural Americans.
National Grain and Feed Association
The National Grain and Feed Association, which represents country grain elevators and other rural businesses that serve farmers, praised the bill for reducing the number of acres in the land-idling Conservation Reserve Program, which takes land out of production, from 32 to 24 million acres.
In addition, the bill would predicate farm program payments under both revenue-assurance and target-price programs on base acres, rather than actual planted acres, avoiding potential international trade conflicts, the group said.
Coalition for Sugar Reform
The Coalition for Sugar Reform, which represents industrial sugar users, did not take a position on the bill, but said in a news release its members remain “deeply disappointed” that the bill did not make changes to the sugar program.
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Union of Concerned Scientists said Congress should pass the farm bill because it “includes reforms that could sow the seeds for a sustainable food and agriculture system.”
“Programs that incentivize increasing access to healthy foods, developing regional food systems, and promoting sustainable agricultural practices are included and funded at higher levels,” the group said.
“But these programs should be the core of this legislation instead of on the periphery. This farm bill, like many before it, still reinforces a food system rooted in overproduction of ingredients for processed food that tax our health and our environment.”
“Transitioning to a sustainable food and farm system will not happen overnight," the group said. "The farm bill is still the best avenue to start making this transition and this bill at least contains nuggets of improvement. There is always more work to be done, but for now, we urge Congress to put an end to the almost two years of uncertainty and pass the farm bill.”
Below is a list of the “high points and disappointments regarding the bill,” UCS said.
Highlights include:
- $30 million for the farmers market promotion program, which the group called “an important vehicle for growing local and regional food systems, which can increase jobs and bolster local economies.”
- Electronic benefit transfer at farmers markets for redemption of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, increasing access to healthy produce for the neediest consumers.
- $100 million for the Hunger-Free Communities Incentives Grants, to encourage SNAP recipients to purchase fruits and vegetables.
- Strengthening of whole farm revenue insurance, offering farmers more flexibility in planting decisions and increasing production of healthy foods.
- Reinstating the national organic certification cost share program, which helps farmers with the startup costs incurred by transitioning their farms to organic production.
- Appropriately funding the organic research and extension initiative and organic data initiative, and a rebound in funding for the National Institute for Food and Agriculture. Research.
- Linking eligibility for crop insurance and other support payments with conservation compliance.
Disappointments include:
- Cuts to funding for conservation programs.
- While direct payments have been eliminated in name, the overall system of commodity subsidies that incentivizes overproduction of certain crops remain largely in place in the form of expanded crop insurance and new subsidy programs.
- Despite bipartisan support in both the House and Senate to limit crop insurance subsidies for producers making more than $750,000 per year, this measure was removed. Even worse, the conferees increased the allowable total subsidies per individual beyond what was proposed in any earlier draft.
