| Home News Markets Weather Ag Events Auctions Archives Links Radio Affiliates Ag Youth Site Map Blog Contact Us | Saturday, May 17, 2008 |
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Podcasts
|
May 15, 2008
The
Last Farm Bill
I'm watching the members of the Senate fall all over themselves during this election year to approve the 2008 "Food, Conservation & Energy Act," -- that would be the renamed Farm Bill -- and this being the fifth farm bill vote I've watched over the years, it's a tad bittersweet. I'm pretty much convinced that the perfect storm of politics and pandering that finally shoved this bill through the process signals that traditional Farm Bills have seen their day. In five years, when we return to this legislation, -- and if the powers that be remain the same -- we'll be fighting over who can shove more money into "nutrition" progams, as in food stamps, food assistance and food give-away programs, along with how much really good farm land can we take out of production in the name of environmental stewardship, while racking up more dollars to see if we can turn just about anything on-farm into fuel of some sort. Of the $288 billion this food assistance bill will cost, fully 75% goes to nutrition programs. Only 16% goes to farm programs. Now, this may have simply been a sly way for the Democrats, facing a guaranteed GOP White House veto, to make sure the increasingly urban Congress voted "aye" on the bill, first to get a veto-proof majority and second to hand Democrat candidates another rock to throw at the GOP come November. But I think the motivation is more complex this go-around, and it has to do with the broadening chasm between urban and rural interests in the U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN), chair of the House Ag Committee, signaled the first shot to kill the next Farm Bill when he said this week that he'd like to revisit direct payments during the "next Farm Bill" because he personally doesn't like them and would like to see them go away. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week also took a shot at the bill, saying that subsidies to U.S. and European farmers were making global food shortages worse and estabilizing the Third World. Sen. Richard Lugar (R,IN) said conferees were oblivious to the World Trade Organization's warnings that the barely reworked U.S. subsidy program is illegal. It's not that I favor Farm Bills that are nothing but big buckets of special interest money as the White House contends this bill is. But I fear for a loss of focus on the importance of rural America, I fear a loss of independent producers through misdirected program finagling, I fear for the obvious loss of grit in Congress when it comes to tackling tough problems, and I fear I'm watching Congress begin to turn its back on the folks who feed the rest of us and big chunk of the planet. What I find ironic is that as I listen to Senate Majority Harry Reid (D, NV) talk about the wonderfulness of food stamps and food banks and food assistance, I wonder if he forgets where all of that "food assistance" will come from? *** No matter what you think of this particular Farm Bill, there's nearly $500 million in the bill that should be an embarrassment to Congress generally and the Senate specifically. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R, OH), joined by several Blue Dog Democrats on the House floor yesterday, pointed out three "airlifted" earmarks that mysteriously appeared in the conference report, none of which were ever discussed in either House or Senate ag committees or on the floor of either chamber. The first is a $200-million "land swap" by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT), to benefit a ski resort in Vermont. And while we pay the bill for the swap, we're also going to wind up paying to reroute the historic Appalachian Trail in the process. Boehner called this the "trail to nowhere." Then there's the $170 million we as taxpayers will fork over to make whole three salmon farms in Montana, thanks to Sen. Max Baucus (D, MT). The fish farms went under several years ago, and because there was no public discussion, we have no idea why it's necessary to buy them out. And then there's "forest fish," another gem from Montana that would spend tax dollars on land that has fish in its forests. Business as usual. # May 9, 2008
And so the final battle
begins...
Saying he was a "happy man," and likening the Farm Bill process to "passing a kidney stone," Sen. Tom Harkin (D, IA), chair of the Senate Ag Committee and chair of the 2008 Farm Bill conference, joined his House counterpart Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) in declaring this week "we have a deal." While not quite approaching the same level as the selection of a pope, the internal politics and the regional tug-of-war within this process is going to stand for a long time as probably the most frustrating Farm Bill process ever. While he smiled and said all the right things -- and even put out a press release saying all the rights things -- Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R, VA), was obviously the reluctant bridesmaid at this week's ceremony. He's previously said he'd withhold his support until he saw the bill in writing and knew the official cost, but as a good and loyal ag soldier, he did his duty at the public press conference. He was echoed throughout the day by other House members -- generally those getting a big chunk of the Farm Bill spending pie. Not so collegial was Rep. John Boehner (R, OH), House minority leader and former member of the House Ag Committee. Having never met a Farm Bill he didn't hate -- he's been a die-hard opponent of direct payment and support programs for years -- Boehner took the unusual step of publicly announcing he opposes the Farm Bill conference report. It turns out Boehner was the opening act for the headliner of this evolving variety show, as President Bush late in the day May 8, confirmed what everyone in town already knew, namely he would veto the bill when it hits his desk in the next 10 days or so. Now comes the melodrama of vote getting, deal cutting and vote counting. In order to override the veto, both chambers need to come up with two-thirds who will vote to overturn the President's veto. In the Senate, that looks to be fairly easy to do. However, the House is a totally different story. There are several factions in the House not happy with the bill. First are the fiscal conservatives who think a bill costing $610 billion over 10 years is way too fat and way too unnecessary. The Blue Dog Democrats, part of that fiscal conservative gang, are also not crazy about the apportionment of the dollars. Then there are the reformers, those who believed this was the golden opportunity to wean farmers and ranchers off the government dole, bring the U.S. farm programs into world trade alliance compliance, and signaling a new day in food and ag policy. Can Peterson exert sufficient pressure, charm and salemanship to win his two-thirds majority? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and her lieutenants will be marching the aisles next week, echoing the Speaker's support for the bill because it increases food stamps and other nutrition programs by $10.4 billion -- just as she demanded. You read that right -- every penny of new spending money in this bill, all those dollars over which battles were fought, friendships strained and headaches medicated, goes to nutrition programs. In fact, overall, 73% of the bill's spending goes to nonfarm items, with only 16% being spent on subsidies and farm payments. That's actually the winning message for the House. This is not longer a Farm Bill but a new "Food Bill." And it signals the beginning of the end for traditional farm programs and their funding. (I'm excited to see what the new title of the bill is -- rumor is staff spent hours arguing over what to rename the bill once they figured out most of the money was going to food stamps.) And if you don't believe me, just think about Peterson's comment at his press conference this week. "You know, I've never liked direct payments. I don't think they provide a decent safety net. We're going to get rid of them in the next Farm Bill." Where/when have I heard that before? # May 2, 2008
Is the Farm Bill Battle Over?
In politics, everything is relative. Ag panel chiefs Rep. Collin Peterson (D,MN)and Sen. Tom Harkin (D, IA) are near giddy and relieved, respectively, over the near-conclusion of the 2008 Farm Bill conference, and when you consider the pain and frustration this effort has engendered, the two chairs have earned their emotional reactions. But is the battle over? We've allocated and authorized for five months and finally this week, thanks to doggedness and a fair bit of budget gimmickry, we've got a Farm Bill will cost a sweet $270-280 billion. And while the goal line is in sight, the race ain't over. The trump hand is with the White House at this juncture. All week long, Administration spokespeople, notably Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner, has told anyone who'll listen that if upon study the conference agreement doesn't pass the reform and spending smell tests, the President will veto the bill. I, for one, believe the President is deadly serious about this. Peterson called a presidential veto "political suicide," but how much does a lame duck president have to lose as he starts packing the Oval Office for the trip back to Texas? And if I'm an urban member of the GOP up for reelecton, I can think of about 20 soundbites that will get me off the hook. I'm guessing Peterson is actually more than a bit nervous about whether the House will pass his Farm Bill with a sufficient number of votes to override a Bush veto, and I'm guessing Harkin is counting votes on his side of Capitol Hill as well. For his part, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R, VA) is keeping his opinion of the package to himself until he quite rightly sees all of the discussion and agreements in black and white. Keep in mind, while Goodlatte was a good, bipartisan team player throughout the original drafting, committee and conference action, he led an almost-successful charge on the House floor during action on the House bill to have the final committee bill kicked back to the ag committee for more work. This kind of independent thinking is a frustration to herd-minded partisans, and Goodlatte going maverick on the final conference report will not be a surprise if he feels he's been ignored. There's also relatively little sympathy for a Farm Bill in the broad congressional membership. First, there's appropriations envy in an election year over all that money going to farm programs when it could be building bridges and swimming pools back home. Then there's the growing chorus folks keep hearing about farmers pulling down not only record income, but absolutely obscenely high income thanks to the bidding war over corn for ethanol, soybeans for biodiesel and acreage-deficient wheat for food. The simple logic at work is this: "Does anyone really get hurt if we just extend the 2002 Farm Bill?" So, as Harkin so aptly put it a month ago, "we've done our job" in hammering out a Farm Bill conference report. The big questions are: Will the President sign it? If the President vetoes the bill do we have the votes to override? My answers right now: Unlikely and who knows? # |
Recent Posts
The Last Farm Bill And so the final battle begins... Is the Farm Bill Battle Over? Food Safety – Who Pays? Head banging... The Pelosi Gang This weekend is the key to a new Farm Bill The Rush to Judgment Begins The Politics of a Farm Bill Flu Season, Turf Battles and No "New" Spending Pelosi Wants a Farm Bill and Food v. Fuel is about to Get Uglier Food safety debate is getting silly... It just keeps getting sillier... Harkin doesn’t get it Senate Gets a Dose of Reality So much for quick passage of a stimulus package... Moving like a freight train -- until spring A Congressional Group Hug Pelosi's 2008 Agenda -- More of the Same? Hope Not Stuff I won't talk about Steve Kopperud  Steve Kopperud has special expertise in
agriculture and food issues. Prior to joining Policy Directions Inc. , he was the senior vice president of the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) for more than 18 years, where he headed state and federal government affairs programs, and was treasurer of the Feed Industry Political Action
Committee (FIPAC). Steve is also former president of the Animal Industry Foundation (AIF), and chairs the Farm Animal Welfare Coalition (FAWC).Before his distinguished career in government relations, Steve was a reporter for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the San Diego Union, and he has also worked as bureau chief and Washington editor for ABC’s publishing division. He has appeared on Fox, MSNBC, CNN and ABC. Steve earned his B.A. in journalism from the University of Minnesota. He is a resident of Washington, DC. |
