Tag Archives: congress
Forestry And The Farm Bill
TUE JULY 23, 2013 Forestry and the Farm Bill By JULIA ALTEMUS As the U.S. House and Senate inched towards a Conference Committee on the farm bill last week, some believe the failure of Congress to pass a farm bill in 2012 (instead passing a nine-month extension), and the current stalemate, illustrates how impotent this policy has become. Some believed the extension was a gift to the taxpayer, who would have been stuck with paying for potentially exorbitantly expensive insurance, and price support subsidies, while others believed the extension eviscerated a score of important programs. With Congressional leaders, on both sides of the aisle, searching for inefficient, wasteful and outdated programs, at a time when federal budget deficits have simply become unsustainable; one thing is for sure, instead of addressing the urgent challenges our farm, food and wood fiber system faces, the farm bill has become a patchwork of programs that not only fails to support each other, but are often contradictory. Without a larger discussion about long-term goals for a system we want and can afford, this failure is no surprise. A potential solution being brought forward by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) is the replacement of permanent agricultural laws from 1938 and 1949 with the commodity title, which would allow the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP or food stamps, to continue as an appropriated entitlement rather than be formally reauthorized. It is still unclear when the House will agree to a conference committee and whether negotiators can produce a bill that could pass that chamber. Early indications are that the republican version of the bill will be unacceptable to nearly all democrats. Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) formally requested a conference on the farm bill last week, while she and other Senate leaders joined Administration officials in chastising the House for separating farm programs from SNAP. A group of republican House members began meeting last week to discuss the stand-alone nutrition title, and published reports indicated they were considering cuts in the neighborhood of $120 to $130 billion dollars over ten years, six times greater than the amount the original farm bill would have cut. If the Senate conferees demand a conference report that includes nutrition programs, it is unclear whether House conferees would report it back to the House, or whether it could even pass if they did. Unfortunately, many good programs funded by the farm bill are caught in the food stamp crossfire. Forest management, as well as forest research and forestry assistance, has long been within the jurisdictions of the Agriculture Committees. Although most forestry programs are permanently authorized, forestry has usually been addressed in the periodic farm bills. The 2008 farm bill contained a separate forestry title, with provisions establishing national priorities for forestry assistance. These provisions required statewide forest assessments and strategies; provided competitive funding for certain programs; created new programs for open space conservation and for emergency reforestation; and prohibited imports of illegally logged wood products. Forestry provisions were included in other titles as well—the conservation title revised the definition of conservation actions to include forestry activities for all conservation programs; the trade title required special reporting on softwood lumber imports; the energy title established two woody biomass energy programs; and the tax title included three provisions altering tax treatments for forests and landowners. These are all good provisions and are awaiting reauthorization. In addition, the 2013 House and Senate versions include several new and important forestry related provisions, with the majority originating in the House version. Provisions include codifying the Silvicultural Rule, repealing the Administrative Appeals Act, extending Stewardship Contracting, expanding forest health by including a 10,000 acre categorical exclusion for hazardous fuel reduction projects, expanding the Good Neighbor Authority, a categorical exclusion for salvage projects after a declared disaster, and a “know your customer” provision directing the U.S. Forest Service to analyze how the National Forests are meeting the needs of nearby wood consumers. The farm bill is reauthorized every five years. Assuming Congress will find a path forward and pass a bill this year, now is the time to address the many challenges facing our farm, food and wood fiber systems before the 2013 farm bill expires in 2018. We need a public policy agenda that supports a fair and sustainable system that builds resiliency and is able to withstand shocks in the market place, climate-induced events, and many other economic and environmental challenges. On behalf of the Montana Wood Products Association, I am Julia Altemus, thanks for listening. Continue reading
As Agriculture Booms, Farm Bill Gets Yawns
Legislation Fails to Engage at Grass-Roots Level as Farmers Reap Big Profits MARK PETERS and COREY BOLES For decades, the farm bill has served as the main vehicle for U.S. agriculture policy, getting renewed about every five years to keep billions of dollars flowing to farm subsidies and rural development programs. But lobbyists and lawmakers say the measure is drawing less grass-roots support from the Farm Belt this time around as the House struggles to pass the measure for a second straight year. Philip Scott Andrews for The Wall Street Journal Rep. Marlin Stutzman on his farm outside Howe, Ind. He is pushing to separate the nutrition programs from the agricultural part of the farm bill. [/url] “I think there are a number of farmers asking what do we need a farm bill for,” said Mr. Wolheter, whose office is adorned with dozens of hats from tractor and seed companies. “The federal debt is the real concern.” In certain slices of agriculture, the bill is attracting strong interest. Growers of vegetables, cotton, peanut and rice have pushed for an expansion of federal subsidies for crop insurance. In the dairy sector, a fight has erupted between dairy farmers and dairy-product producers over government price supports. The safety net for farmers is changing from automatic payments to farmers regardless of their economic circumstances, to crop insurance and other programs. Both the House and Senate support eliminating $5 billion a year in the direct payments to farmers, and would expand federal subsidies toward the cost of crop insurance. And so farmers in this corner of Indiana are questioning the composition of the bill like never before. “There is more concern about what they’re doing in other areas than the agricultural end of it,” said Stanley Sickafoose, who farms 6,500 acres of corn and soybeans. U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, who represents the region and farms 4,000 acres with his father and brothers, voted against the farm bill and found support from farmers as he returned home for the Fourth of July break. The Indiana Republican is pushing in Congress to split off the nutrition programs from the core farm bill. Splitting the legislation in the House would complicate negotiations over a final bill in the Senate, where the Democratic leadership in control of the chamber is staunchly opposed to a breakup. Rep. Collin Peterson, who represents a district in rural Minnesota and is the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, has warned that if the farm bill is split, no House Democrats would vote for it, and it would die in negotiations with the Senate anyway. He says he fears that without a farm bill, growers would become more exposed to a sustained decline in prices. Farmers “are very quick to forget the bad times,” Mr. Peterson said. “Right now they’re not too worried about this.” Write to Mark Peters at mark.peters@dowjones.com and Corey Boles at corey.boles@dowjones.com A version of this article appeared July 10, 2013, on page A6 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: As Agriculture Booms, Farm Bill Gets Yawns. Continue reading
Farm Bill Defeat Shows Agriculture’s Waning Power
Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press Speaker John A. Boehner failed to draw enough Republican support for a bill last month. By RON NIXON Published: July 2, 2013 WASHINGTON — The startling failure of the farm bill last month reflects the declining clout of the farm lobby and the once-powerful committees that have jurisdiction over agriculture policy, economists and political scientists said this week. Although a number of factors contributed to the defeat of the bill — including Speaker John A. Boehner’s failure to rally enough Republican support and Democratic opposition to $20 billion in cuts to the food stamps program — analysts said the 234 to 195 vote also illustrated the shift in the American population and political power to more urban areas. “There are a small number of Congressional districts where farming continues to carry much sway,” said Vincent H. Smith, a professor of agricultural economics at Montana State University. “Especially in the House, the farm lobby has been substantially weakened.” For much of American history, the agriculture sectors wielded tremendous political power. Farm groups were able to get key farm legislation passed by rallying millions of farmers in nearly every Congressional district. Influential farm state legislators like Representative Jamie L. Whitten of Mississippi, a Democrat who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee on agriculture, brought billions in agriculture financing to their states and fought off attempts to cut subsidy programs despite pressure from both liberals and conservatives. Mr. Whitten died in 1995 after 53 years in Congress. But as Americans have moved to the cities and suburbs, farmers and lawmakers representing districts largely dependent on agriculture have seen their political muscle steadily decline. Just 2.2 million people now work in farming in the United States, or about 2.5 percent of the total work force. Farming now accounts for about 1 percent of gross national product, down from a high of about 9 percent in 1950. Only 40 lawmakers represent largely farming districts, according to research by Mr. Smith in 2006. He said that number was probably smaller today. Nonetheless, agriculture groups said they continue to have influence and blamed increased partisanship for the inability of Congress to pass the farm bill. “Agriculture used to be a nonpartisan issue that both Democrats and Republicans could support,” said Danny Murphy, president of the American Soybean Association. “Now people are lining up to take sides; it’s nutrition or farm programs,” he said. “For us, it’s a nonissue. We’re farmers, how can we be against food?” Barry L. Bequette, dean of the School of Agriculture, Research, Extension and Applied Sciences at Alcorn State University in Lorman, Miss., said the issue was not a lack of power. “Farmers just haven’t learned how to utilize the power they have,” he said. “All the groups are fractured and focused on their own narrow issues.” But agricultural economists like Mr. Smith said the Congressional response to last year’s drought and this year’s debt talks provide more evidence of the waning political influence of agriculture. Last summer, as the worst dry spell in 50 years was causing widespread damage to farmland and livestock, national farm organizations pushed for the passage of a farm bill that would provide relief. But the groups were unable to muster enough support to even get the bill to the floor for a vote. Representative Frank D. Lucas, Republican of Oklahoma and chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, which did pass a farm bill , made several appeals to House leaders to bring the legislation up for a vote, but they declined. When the Obama administration and Republican leaders worked out a compromise to avert automatic tax increases in January, Mr. Lucas and Senator Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, tried desperately to get the farm bill included in the talks. Both touted the savings they had achieved in both the House and Senate version of the bills. But their pleas were largely unheeded. The Senate instead chose to include in the tax package a slimmed-down farm bill proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader. Mr. McConnell’s proposal extended only portions of the current farm bill, which was passed in 2008. The extension did not provide disaster assistance for livestock owners, who had to kill thousands of cows, pigs and chickens because of rising feed prices and lack of water. It eliminated money for conservation programs and financing for fruit and vegetable growers and organic farmers, and cut a program that pays milk producers when feed prices increase. The proposal did contain provisions to prevent milk prices from rising and left in place direct payments to farmers or farmland owners, whether or not they grow crops. The payments, which total about $5 billion a year, have long been criticized as examples of wasteful government spending. The bill passed the Senate by 89 to 8, with a reluctant Ms. Stabenow voting for it; it passed the House by 257 to 167. Mr. Lucas also voted for the House bill. Farm groups said they felt equally ignored. An exasperated Ms. Stabenow summed up the feeling of both farm state lawmakers and the farm sector in an interview shortly after the deal was announced. “There is absolutely no way to explain this other than agriculture is just not a priority,” she said. Collin C. Peterson, the Minnesota Democrat and ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee, sent a letter to House leaders involved in the debt talks. “I could not believe that you and your leadership team could treat the committee with such disrespect,” he wrote. Continue reading
