|
|
|
House committee plans to consider two versions of new farm billWithout 'new' funding, many initiatives may be shelved By Sara Wyant Throughout all of the subcommittee markups, House Agriculture Committee members added several new farm bill programs and initiatives with one caveat: subject to reserve funds. The House Budget Committee had allocated an additional $15 billion in reserve funds, but those dollars would only be available if offsets were found in other areas of the budget were cut. It was akin to using "funny money" noted Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin. Now, instead of "betting on the come" the committee will take a two-pronged approach: One that writes a bill, with existing funds and another that will embrace programs funded with the reserve--if those dollars become available. The House Agriculture Committee will consider two separate pieces of legislation when they start full committee markup on July 17, according to Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson. The committee will first consider a Chairman's mark that meets all of the existing budget rules, which require the committee to meet "pay as you go" requirements. However, the committee will also consider another bill that includes all of the "wish list" items that would need to be funded from additional budget offsets or any "new" sources of funding that become available. The Minnesota Democrat expects to release both bills to the public on July 6. Peterson says this approach allows for the committee to move ahead toward floor consideration, while retaining the ability to capture reserve funding if it becomes available at a later date. It also gives the process, which had become increasingly difficult to follow because several provisions are contingent on the availability of reserve funds, some "transparency," he explained. "If we don't move ahead in July, we will run out of time and we'll end up with an extension. I don't think that's a good outcome." Many provisions in the 2002 farm bill expire September 30 of this year. The Chairman's mark will reduce funding from 2002 projected levels to provide for about $3 billion in additional baseline funding, which will go towards adjusting target prices and increasing loan rates on minor crops, restoring the Wetlands Reserve Program to the 1.5 million acre level, providing about $685 million in mandatory money for fruits and vegetables interests for the first time, and other program areas. Mandatory funding would also be provided for some conservation programs, such as those focusing on small watersheds and areas like the Chesapeake Bay and for programs to assist "socially disadvantaged" farmers. Between $1 to 1.5 billion of those $3 billion in "savings" will come from eliminating farm bill provisions that provide for direct and counter-cyclical payments to be made in advance. Those payments will still be made, but delaying the payments allows the committee to grab a more favorable "score" from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). A "significant amount" of savings will also come from changes in the federal crop insurance program and by making some other small modifications. Peterson would not detail specific changes in crop insurance, but noted that the administrative and operating reimbursements were a likely target. No reductions in direct payments will be included in the Chairman's mark. Additional tightening of farm program payment limits, via direct attribution or some other method, "are up in the air," Peterson explained. "It's fairly clear to everyone that this is something that has to be addressed. The question is: Will it be addressed in committee or on the floor?" Peterson said he is also considering giving producers the option of signing up for either the current system of counter-cyclical payments or a revenue-based counter-cyclical program, calculated using national revenue targets. After a recent meeting with USDA Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner, Peterson said he is "seriously looking at the option" as "something we'd compromise with the administration on." Reserve bill The Minnesota Democrat also wants the committee to consider a second bill that would allocate "reserve" funds to several new and existing programs--if such offsets become available. That package calls for about $17.5 billion in additional spending on nutrition, fruit and vegetable provisions, conservation, renewable energy and a permanent disaster program. Peterson says he's "still optimistic" that he's going to be able to find offsets and use some of the "reserve" funds. Once the committee approves that "reserve" bill, it will be tabled and any of the provisions could be considered at a later date as a manager's amendment, Peterson said. "We don't ever have to pull the plug on the reserve bill. We could bring it into conference." Despite Peterson's desire to get House approval for a new farm bill in July, several political pundits are doubtful that a conference committee will be meeting anytime soon. The Senate Agriculture Committee has yet to even start marking up a bill and Congress is expected to take a two-week recess in August. That doesn't leave much time for Senate consideration in July, yet alone a conference committee. Editor's note: Columnist Sara Wyant is president of Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc. and publishes a bi-weekly newsletter, Agri-Pulse, on food and farm policy. For more information, you can e-mail her at Agripulse@aol.com. B 5 7/9/07 1 Star WK Date: 7/5/07 Advertisement
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2009. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
Market Snapshot Inside Futures |
