Farm
bill issues awaiting Senate consideration
With Congress in recess we will have to wait until at least September
to see the details of the Senate’s farm bill proposal. In
the interim, those who were disappointed with the recently passed
House legislation are hoping that they will be able to get some
of their reforms written into the Senate’s bill.
It seems certain that the Senate legislation will include stronger
support for Agriculture Committee Chair Tom Harkin’s Conservation
Security Program. Although it was a part of the 2002 Farm Bill that
Harkin shepherded, it has not been fully implemented. In the House
version of the farm bill, funding for the program was put off until
2012. In an interview Harkin said, “We need to support new
practices on working lands and reverse some of the budgetary damage
done to the Conservation Security Program.”
Senators Dick Durbin and Sherrod Brown are trying to reform farm
legislation with their Farm Safety Net Improvement Act which is
a revenue insurance program. While this program offers some protection
for single-year events like floods and droughts, it provides a declining
level of protection during sustained periods of low prices like
1998-2001.
Concerns about agriculture in the Northeast have been expressed
by Senator Charles Schumer. He is sponsoring legislation that would
increase marketing assistance to “encourage the use of local
and American produce.” The legislation also includes a crop
insurance provision to ensure that farms in the Northeast “have
access to better risk management tools.”
While WTO compliance was of major concern a year ago, the stalling
of trade negotiations has reduced interest in considering possible
future trade rule changes in current farm bill discussions. As Saxby
Chambliss, Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee recently
said, “We are going to abide by trading rules that we have
to live by and the decisions that have come out of WTO, but what
I can also tell you is we’re not about to let the WTO write
this farm bill.”
The National Family Farm Coalition, the National Catholic Rural
Life Conference and a number of other groups are supporting the
establishment of a grain reserve program that would provide bottom-side
price protection for farmers while ensuring the availability of
storable crops in the event of a sharp reduction in production or
sharp increase in demand.
The question of farm payment limitations is also on the table. The
House set the basic income cap at $1 million as opposed to the $250
thousand proposed by the administration. By reducing the income
eligibility limit, the Senate would free up additional funds that
could be used to fund changes in other programs.
The current high prices and projections that these prices will continue
for the next ten years have resulted in a lower budget baseline
than would have otherwise been available to legislators. This in
turn has severely crimped the ability of legislators to respond
to new concerns on food and agricultural policy. Harkin has indicated
that he is willing to seek additional funding for the farm bill
saying, “We can’t afford to settle for an extension
of the status quo—not in terms of budget and not in terms
of policy.”
Daryll E. Ray holds the Blasingame
Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy, Institute of Agriculture,
University of Tennessee, and is the Director of UT’s Agricultural
Policy Analysis Center (APAC). (865) 974-7407; Fax: (865) 974-7298;
dray@utk.edu; http://www.agpolicy.org.
Daryll Ray’s column is written with the research and assistance
of Harwood D. Schaffer, Research Associate with APAC.
Reproduction Permission Granted
with:
1) Full attribution to Daryll E. Ray and the Agricultural Policy
Analysis Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN;
2) An email sent to hdschaffer@utk.edu
indicating how often you intend on running Dr. Ray’s column
and your total circulation. Also, please send one copy of the first
issue with Dr. Ray’s column in it to Harwood Schaffer, Agricultural
Policy Analysis Center, 309 Morgan Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-4519.
|