Farm Bureau outlines its farm bill conference priorities
October 15, 2013 | 10:49 AM
Maintaining the current dating of the farm laws and the “marriage” between the farm program and nutrition programs are “overarching concerns” of the farm bill conference process, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation’s largest general farm group, said in a letter to conferees sent today.
Bob Stallman
“For some time, the threat of reinstatement of the long-outdated policies of the 1938 and 1949 acts have served as strong motivation for Congress to enact new farm bills,” Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman wrote at the beginning of a five-page letter.
“Repealing those acts and making the 2013 farm bill commodity title permanent law could make it difficult in the future to generate sufficient political pressure to adjust the commodity safety net provisions should conditions in production agriculture change,” he continued.
“We also fear that a farm bill without a meaningful nutrition title will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the House and Senate to reach agreement on a final version that can be signed by the president,” Stallman said. “We urge you to move forward on a unified farm bill that continues the ‘marriage’ between the nutrition and farm communities and our constituents.”
The Senate-passed farm bill continues permanent law and has the reauthorization of the farm and nutrition programs on the same schedule, while the House bill would make the commodity title of the 2013 bill permanent and reauthorize nutrition programs for only three years and the farm program for five years.
In the letter, Stallman repeatedly noted that Farm Bureau opposes means testing and payment caps for conservation, commodity and crop insurance programs. He said the 15 percent point decrease in crop insurance premium subsidies for farmers who make more than $750,000 per year could lead to a 40 percent increase in premiums. That provision is in the Senate bill and at the urging of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. the House passed a resolution urging its conferees to support the Senate measure.
On an issue that has split commodity groups, Farm Bureau has come out in favor of a House provision making target-price-based payments on planted rather than historical acreage. The Senate bill makes the payments on historical plantings.
“We support payments being made on planted acres, but note it is imperative rates not be set too high as to encourage planting for government programs. We recognize this is a potential issue in tying a program to planted versus base acres,” Stallman wrote.
On other issues that are bound to be controversial, Stallman wrote that Farm Bureau:
In the letter, Stallman detailed the Farm Bureau’s positions in the Senate and House bills.
American Farm Bureau Federation letter to farm bill conferees
Bob Stallman
“For some time, the threat of reinstatement of the long-outdated policies of the 1938 and 1949 acts have served as strong motivation for Congress to enact new farm bills,” Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman wrote at the beginning of a five-page letter.
“Repealing those acts and making the 2013 farm bill commodity title permanent law could make it difficult in the future to generate sufficient political pressure to adjust the commodity safety net provisions should conditions in production agriculture change,” he continued.
“We also fear that a farm bill without a meaningful nutrition title will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the House and Senate to reach agreement on a final version that can be signed by the president,” Stallman said. “We urge you to move forward on a unified farm bill that continues the ‘marriage’ between the nutrition and farm communities and our constituents.”
The Senate-passed farm bill continues permanent law and has the reauthorization of the farm and nutrition programs on the same schedule, while the House bill would make the commodity title of the 2013 bill permanent and reauthorize nutrition programs for only three years and the farm program for five years.
In the letter, Stallman repeatedly noted that Farm Bureau opposes means testing and payment caps for conservation, commodity and crop insurance programs. He said the 15 percent point decrease in crop insurance premium subsidies for farmers who make more than $750,000 per year could lead to a 40 percent increase in premiums. That provision is in the Senate bill and at the urging of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. the House passed a resolution urging its conferees to support the Senate measure.
On an issue that has split commodity groups, Farm Bureau has come out in favor of a House provision making target-price-based payments on planted rather than historical acreage. The Senate bill makes the payments on historical plantings.
“We support payments being made on planted acres, but note it is imperative rates not be set too high as to encourage planting for government programs. We recognize this is a potential issue in tying a program to planted versus base acres,” Stallman wrote.
On other issues that are bound to be controversial, Stallman wrote that Farm Bureau:
- Supports the House provision introduced by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that would prohibit states from banning the sale of foods produced in other states due to objections over production standards.
- Opposes the Senate provision to require farmers to file a conservation compliance plan with USDA and follow for all crops planted in wetlands and for all annually tilled crops on highly erodible land in order to qualify for crop insurance premium assistance. Farm Bureau was part of a coalition of farm and conservation groups that favored conservation compliance but recently its board reversed that position.
- Opposes House provisions to repeal regulations on livestock and poultry practices that USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration finalized in December 2011 that provide for treatment of producers of those animals. “This is especially harmful to the poultry industry,” Stallman noted.
- Opposes a House provision to repeal the authority for USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service to inspect catfish and move that responsibility solely to the Food and Drug Administration.
- Supports a House provision to require a scientific and economic analysis of the Food Safety and Modernization Act before final regulations are enforced. “The primary focus of the analysis will be the impact of the legislation on agricultural businesses of all sizes,” Stallman wrote.
- Supports a Senate provision to establish a new “Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research” to supplement USDA’s research activities and provide total mandatory funding of up to $200 million if the foundation secures an equal amount of non-federal matching funds.
In the letter, Stallman detailed the Farm Bureau’s positions in the Senate and House bills.
American Farm Bureau Federation letter to farm bill conferees
