|
|
|
Farm groups challenge change in commodity titleFight continues over direct payments, farm program payment limits By Sara Wyant Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin says he basically has two bottom lines when it comes to developing the 2007 farm bill: ensuring profitability and providing a safety net for agriculture. Beyond that, he wants a bill that can "really push us into the future." "We need to get agriculture looking ahead, not looking back," he told us during an exclusive interview where he talked about several new program ideas associated with renewable energy. "Change is hard and we need some help to make transitions. But those who embrace change usually come out ahead." Yet, the Iowa Democrat has yet to hold a subcommittee meeting to start writing the next farm bill. And when he does, many veteran farm policy observers believe that he'll have a tough time getting any major changes out of his own committee. Preliminary efforts within the House Agriculture Committee indicate that proposals to tighten up and modify some of the existing 2002 farm bill programs will generate a whirlwind of resistance. Draft draws fire Last week, the House Agriculture Committee released a draft of the proposed commodity title for the 2007 farm bill. The 69-page document offered potential reductions in direct payments, adjustments in loan rates and target prices, and modest changes in farm program payment limits. It was designed to be a starting point for discussions, but turned into a lightning rod of dissent. Just a few days later, it had been modified about a dozen times--and that was even before subcommittee consideration. The final subcommittee product is expected to look a lot more like the status quo. Such is the challenge associated with writing future commodity programs. Even modest changes, often considered to be "too little, too late" for those advocating real reforms, bring the opposition out of in full force. After the draft was released, the National Association of wheat Growers (NAWG) immediately objected in a letter to House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson. As the chart below shows, the draft commodity title offered to increase the wheat loan rate by 19 cents above the current level, and bump the wheat target price up by 23 cents. Direct payment rates would have remained the same. However, the percentage of base acres that would have been eligible for direct payments would decline in order to pay for those adjustments in loan rates and target prices. "While we continue to support the current structure of farm programs, the direct payment is the only safety net that wheat growers are able to use," wrote NAWG President John Thaemert in the letter. "Severe weather conditions, like we are currently experiencing, create a short crop and push prices higher, leaving those unable to harvest a crop without any support from the counter-cyclical program. And, as you know, if you don't have a crop, the loan program is useless." Thaemert also noted concerns that cutting direct payments to increase loan rates "puts ourselves in a more vulnerable position when it comes to possible litigation from our foreign competition. "Because of these reasons, the members of NAWG cannot support any proposal to reduce direct payments, even if those cuts would increase loan rates or target prices," he emphasized. Floor strategy? While continuation of the primary 2002 farm bill provisions seems like the direction many farm organizations are headed in 2007, they may hit their own "brick wall" when such legislation arrives on the House floor. Hundreds of non-farm groups have been working for months to make more substantial modifications to new farm legislation. For example, Rep. Ron Kind, D-WI, who came within 26 votes of making dramatic changes in the 2002 farm bill, is prepared to offer two different alternatives in 2007. He's already lined up over 120 co-sponsors for his "Healthy Farms, Foods and Fuels Act." and recently introduced the "Food & Agriculture Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (FARM 21)," In a recent interview, Kind said he plans to continue working with Peterson, noting that the Chairman raised some "interesting new ideas" during a recent House Democratic leadership meeting. "It would be lovely to work with him," he emphasized, "But conditions are ripe for reform." Sidebar: Too radical? A preliminary draft of the commodity title was attacked early and often by several commodity groups because it would have tightened some farm program payment limits and reduced the base acres for calculating direct payments by a yet to be determined factor. That reduction would have paid for increasing some loan rates and target prices. (See chart.) However, groups like the National Association of wheat Growers weighed in against the plan, noting the importance of keeping direct payments. B 3 6/25/07 2 Star EK Date: 6/21/07
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
|
