|
Roberts, Moran criticize "raw deal" farm bill frameworkBy Larry Dreiling Two Kansas lawmakers called for restoration of direct payment and crop insurance funding cuts in the proposed farm bill framework. In a conference call with reporters April 29, Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Jerry Moran said they would fight for restoration of the cuts once negotiations are open to all members of the Senate-House conference committee. "We have not had the open meetings to debate real policy issues that were promised by the two chairmen," Roberts said. "The majority Democratic leadership has again postponed action on the farm bill. "This so-called deal basically is a pretty raw deal for our producers. It's being at the sole direction of Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi, D-CA). It's being negotiated in some secret room in the castle in a meeting that includes only about four or five members. It does not include the full conference and it certainly does not include the members of the agriculture committees that reported the two bills out of the separate committees." For weather losses Cuts of $5.7 billion in crop insurance program funding and about $400 million in direct payments over the next four years are the focus of what Roberts and Moran want changed in this farm bill framework. The Kansas Republicans each charged that direct payment cuts are being used to support increases in loan rates and target prices that fail to provide any benefit to Kansas producers. Target prices are too low to assist producers, primarily wheat growers, when they suffer a weather-related loss. "We want to support programs that are most beneficial to Kansas farmers and that clearly is the direct payment," Moran said. "It is fine with me to raise loan rates and target prices but not at the expense of direct payments-the direct payment that our farmers have received through times of low commodity prices or in which there was a lack of production because of poor weather." The pair said that, despite statements from President Bush that he would veto a "bloated" farm bill, the issue Roberts and Moran said was the reason for the statements were over increases in target prices and loan rates rather than direct payments. "The White House is probably with us on the direct payment," Moran said. "Their opposition is directed at the target prices and loan rate increases." Crop insurance woes The lawmakers also disputed not only the cuts in crop insurance assistance, but the way the cuts would affect producers in the middle of spring planting and wheat harvest. "The changes in the timing of the premium payments will force our producers to make payments before they've harvested their crops. In many cases, they're going to have to take another loan from their lender to pay the bill," Roberts said. "If they can get a loan from their banker," Moran later added. Moran said he and Roberts were trying to protect crop insurance funding needed to assist crop insurance companies and their agents to write crop insurance in a high-risk state like Kansas. "The last thing we can afford to have happen in Kansas agriculture is the inability of companies to provide crop insurance when you farm in a place in which its very difficult to grow a crop because the weather is not often with us," Moran said. Funding offsets The cuts in crop insurance and direct payment funding also are being used to fund increases in nutrition and conservation programs. The nutrition program spending increases are especially dear, the pair said, to Pelosi and to Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. "They really are the ones in charge of finding more money for the farm bill," Moran said. "Mr. Rangel has his own priorities on how that money ought to be spent but they aren't always--if ever--the priorities of folks back home. "I'm pleased there is an interest in nutrition programs and in environmental and conservation programs. I'm displeased that no one took into account that we need to also protect the farmer who raises the food and fiber for all of us, who protects his farm's environmental quality every day and who feeds and clothes us with his daily efforts." Added Roberts: "The speaker demanded further cuts in direct payments so she increased nutrition payments, way over $10 billion, and to aid conservation and for assistance for wild salmon recovery. We're not opposed to nutrition programs, but you have to use a common sense yardstick. Instead, we're being used as a piggy bank." Other new ideas Roberts also told reporters of new provisions of the proposed farm bill being discussed that would require producers to pay a one-time $50 user fee to sign up for farm programs at U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency offices. "Here we are in the business of stopping the closing down of FSA offices and now they're talking about a tax to get their communication systems in sync," Roberts said. "They're talking about charging the farmer for that. That ought to be coming out of direct appropriations." "That is an insult, to charge $50 just to walk into an FSA office and to find out what's going on. I'll tell you what will happen. You walk into an FSA office and they'll say we haven't heard anything from Washington, yet. That's because the farm bill negotiators are meeting, and meeting, and meeting and delaying." The user fee scheme would be on top of other add-ons to the proposed farm bill, Roberts added, including enforcement of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements on the construction of future renewable energy sites and for reduction of USDA Rural Development loans to build coal and nuclear plants in rural areas. Bipartisan wrath Moran, for his part, said there has been plenty of bipartisan criticism for the way the farm bill framework was negotiated. "I think there is a lot of uncertainty on whether the White House wants to be for or against a farm bill and, as of now, they are sending signals they will veto this bill," Moran said. "We've heard those signals before. It has been very difficult to negotiate a farm bill with this congressional leadership and a White House that has taken that approach. We are moving in the wrong direction." As it stands, total spending for commodity programs under the framework bill is now below the traditional 15 percent of usual farm bills. Roberts said that, under the framework, commodity programs are now pushing 10 percent of farm bill spending. "That isn't right," Roberts said. "It occurs to me that somebody stole the farm from the farm bill. We need to put it back." Larry Dreiling can be reached by phone at 785-628-1117 or by e-mail at ldreiling@aol.com. 5/5/08 Date: 5/1/08
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2008. 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 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
