House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson seems to be offering a smorgasboard of farm bill initiatives that can quell the appetites of his core agricultural supporters with a mix of payment rate "rebalancing" and modest tweaks from the 2002 Farm Bill. At the same time, he's trying to meet the demands from a wide variety of interest groups who have convinced Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that a "reform-minded" bill must arrive on the House floor. But depending on who you talk to, the Chairman's current "menu" is far from complete. The latest version of his farm bill, which is posted at www.agriculture.house.gov , is still short on fruits and vegetables, farm program payment limitation reforms, and most importantly, funding.

"The chairman has a very difficult situation now," explained Ranking Minority Member Bob Goodlatte during an interview yesterday. "He's been pressed by the Speaker of the House and others to deliver a modern farm bill, he has members of the committee who are very concerned that the commodity title has already been cut 58% and may have to be cut even further to get it through the House, and no additional resources have been provided (by leadership) to do things for conservation, nutrition and energy.

Goodlatte said he was concerned about some of the changes that had been made in the Chairman's mark in Title one (the commodities title) and other areas, but he preferred to talk to Peterson before discussing specifics. He expects a tremendous amount of discussion this week as members and staffs analyze the 644-page mark that was released late Friday night. "The entire legislation is very fluid and what we have before us right now may or may not be the final product coming out of committee."

Even one of Peterson's fellow Subcommittee chairs, who the Chairman praised repeatedly during a recent conference call with reporters, is anxious to work with Peterson on additional changes. Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) told A-P yesterday that he has "serious concerns" about the current Chairman's mark. "There are a number of areas the bill needs work in Title one, in the specialty crop section, and I know the nutrition advocates are not pleased at this point," explained Cardoza. We've got work to do and I hope the committee can do that. He added: "I don't think it will be successful on the floor as currently written.

"How we fix the deficiencies will be the question that's on everyone's mind between now and final passage," added Cardoza, who declined to speculate on whether a "fix" would come within Agriculture committee, on the House floor or perhaps as a result of other actions. The California Democrat also sits on the House Rules Committee and suggested that some concerns may be addressed by that body. "Out of the 13 people on the Rules committee, 12 represent specialty crops, nutrition interests or come from states that are not typically commodity states," Cardoza explained. "So that's an interesting way to look at it."

So what's in, what's left out of Peterson's farm bill plan?

In the latest version of his farm bill plan, Chairman Peterson made small tweaks in the farm safety net from the 2002 farm program. The target prices for wheat, barley, oats, minor oilseeds and soybeans increase and loan rates are adjusted upward for wheat, barley, oats, oilseeds and small chickpeas. Separate loan rates are established for feed and malt barley. The current sugar program and Milk Income Loss Contract program are extended. Small loan rate increases are included for sugar, as well as a program to use excess import quota sugar for ethanol production. In addition to individual yield or revenue policies, farmers can also purchase supplemental area-based crop insurance. A separate, 58-page "en bloc" amendment includes most, but not all, of the provisions which require spending offsets and are expected to be included if more funding becomes available.

Noticeably missing from the commodity title: any additional tightening of farm program payment limitations. According to several industry sources, Peterson asked that cotton, rice and peanut interests come back to him later this week with payment limitation language that they will support and that is reform-oriented enough to gain at least 218 votes on the House floor. That could include a lower ceiling on adjusted gross income, direct attribution of payments, or some combination of new restrictions. Peterson is also still looking for offsets in other areas, such as crop insurance, to provide funding for new provisions in the farm bill.

Editor's note: For more stories and a free, four-week trial subscription, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.

7/12/07

	Web hpj.com

Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012.  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