Farm Bill Talks Begin Conferees Talk About Common Ground, But Differences Are Highlighted Chris Clayton DTN Ag Policy Editor Wed Oct 30, 2013 04:50 PM CDT OMAHA (DTN) -- After more than two years of fits and starts, Congress finally started conference talks on the farm bill Wednesday. The formal opening of talks amounted to statements from the 41 members around the table on Capitol Hill with terms such as common ground being used frequently. Yet, other divisions arose Wednesday in areas such as target prices, conservation compliance, country-of-origin labeling and a provision in the House bill that would limit states ability to regulate agricultural products. The two chambers are trying to resolve differences in a Senate farm bill that scores out at $955 billion over 10 years and a House bill that would cost $921 billion. The bulk of the divide revolves around a $35 billion difference in cuts to nutrition programs. While opening statements are now out of the way after Wednesday, its unclear when the two committees will set another meeting that will get closer to a final deal. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., who also chairs the conference talks, said in his statement that lawmakers must make sure the farm bill provides the right tools for farmers and ranchers, as well as consumers. I know that we face some daunting challenges, Lucas said. We are working in a very complicated environment to complete a very technical bill. Lucas had faced a long road getting the farm bill to conference talks, so much so that Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said Lucas has been challenged like Job in the Old Testament. On conservation compliance, Lucas said he is not in favor of more regulatory burdens; thus, compliance shouldnt have to apply to insurance because it already applies to the commodity title. Tying this measure to crop insurance is a redundant regulatory burden on people who are already the best caretakers of our natural resources and who already have conservation practices in place, he said. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., described her chambers bill as the biggest reforms to agricultural policy in decades. She noted the bill stood by the principle of expanding and improving crop insurance. Our bill reflects that by expanding crop insurance to cover more farmers and more kinds of crops, she said. Yet, Stabenow said that reconnecting conservation compliance helps protect the future of agriculture. She also called on lawmakers to save grasslands by enacting a national sod-buster provision in the Senate bill. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, later added that farmers are challenged with having to produce more on the land, and that leads to more soil going down the river. Harkin said more conservation on working lands is needed. Moreover, a few bad actors should get to buy insurance while the vast majority of farmers are doing the right thing, he said. Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., later came to the Houses defense on conservation compliance. I think that is the right approach, Hoeven said. Stabenow was among several lawmakers who highlighted that the farm bills both reinstate disaster assistance for livestock producers. We have seen the importance of having the disaster assistance in place. House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., indicated the two committees would be able to come to terms as long as someone in leadership isnt trying to derail the process. Peterson has frequently complained about the heavy hands of House leaders when it comes to the farm bill. I believe if the conference committee is left alone and allowed to do our work, well find some middle ground and be able to finish a farm bill, Peterson said. Steve King, R-Iowa, said one of his top priorities in conference would be to defend his provision that prevents states from blocking the commerce of agricultural goods approved by USDA or the Food and Drug Administration. Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., later described the King language as anti-California because a ballot measure on chicken cages was the impetus of Kings amendment. It sets up a one-size-fits-all policy to be determined in Washington, Costa said. He questioned why federalists would back the amendment. King later tweeted, My amendment already mischaracterized as attempt to override state govts constitutional authority. Not so. Divisions were regional over issues such as whether a commodity program should be based on planted acres or base acres. Conaway said some groups are recklessly obsessed about this issue. He said it would change one-tenth of 1% of planted acreage. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., later questioned the argument, saying, Tying target prices to planted acres runs the risk of ruining decades of reform. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., also criticized both the Senate and House target-price programs, saying the House plan went further backwards in policy. A modern farm bill should not create planting, marketing, or international trade distortions. Let me be clear... target prices should be decoupled... and the government should not set prices at a level that practically guarantee profit, instead of acting as a risk-management tool, Roberts said. Chris Clayton can be reached at chris.clayton@telventdtn (AG) © Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved. © Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer, A Telvent Brand. All rights reserved dtnprogressivefarmer/dtnag/common/link.do;jsessionid=6A02B43F7AAC0327DB052DD4E41C2432.agfreejvm2?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&product=/ag/news/bestofdtnpf&vendorReference=cdc37f49-a12b-4710-8d92-f41326abfc58__1382978085379&paneContentId=3030&paneParentId=0
Posted on: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 05:36:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015