Boldly going where no man has gone before, he spoke in a decidedly non-Washington way when he added, “Farm Bill programs must be streamlined and simpler to understand.”
OK, it’s been said before by many a vote-crazed politician, but Vilsack doesn’t need to curry favor from Tea Partiers, Street Occupiers, 99 percenters or 1 percenters. Of course, no politician has ever carried through on that ‘streamlined and simpler’ statement.
The current $284 billion Farm Bill, approved in 2008 after much gnashing of teeth and wailing of doom, expires in September 2012. Approximately $210 billion goes to programs like food stamps and school lunches. Slightly more than $70 billion subsidizes commodity crops and funds agricultural research, rural development and energy.
In these times of growing personal accountability and shrinking tax dollars, the most controversial items in the 2008 bill are direct payments, subsidies paid regardless of crop prices and yields. In plain words, your tax dollars at work.
Vilsack takes the customary politician’s view stating farm aid is crucial but adding this qualifier about direct payments: “We have a responsibility to the American people to use their resources wisely and to provide assistance only when it’s needed.”
“A bad crop ruined by a natural disaster or an unpredictable price collapse can put a hard working farm family out of business quickly. Farm families rely on a strong safety net,” he said.
But enough of what Washington insiders say about a new Farm Bill. The Beltway’s behemoths are often guilty of strapping a plow onto a thoroughbred and wondering why that pony won’t race. When I asked Leo McDonnell what programs and titles the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association would like to see remain in the Farm Bill, he responded, “USCA will continue to support a Cattle Title. We are focused on ensuring that the U.S. cattle industry does not adapt the social capitalistic models found within the pork and poultry industries.
At this point, you’re probably saying, “Yeah, but what’s he really talking about?”
GIPSA, probably the one issue that crosses all agendas.
“It is with this in mind,” he said, “that USCA is urging Congress not to weaken several provisions that define the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. This includes various clarifications found in the proposed GIPSA rule. USCA is also urging Congress not to weaken any provisions dealing with the 2008 Farm Bill country of origin labeling law (COOL). USCA would like to note that it's important to address the global trade distortions and the risk that surging beef imports can have on U.S. cattle producers.”
To be fair to everyone effected by the shape of a new Farm Bill, McDonnell added, “In light of the restricted budget and resources that will be allocated to the 2012 Farm Bill, it is necessary that all agriculture groups share an equal cut to programs and titles so that no one group or area is unduly targeted. With that in mind, USCA urges for continued funding of Livestock Disaster programs, including: the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), the Livestock Forage Program (LFP) and the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, (ELAP). Recent and ongoing weather events have plagued the country and the need for these programs and the benefits they provide to all producers has been made apparent.”
Of course, the disaster provisions have to be reviewed and McDonnell said, “In addition to the maintenance of funds within these disaster titles, USCA would like to see working-lands and conservation-based titles retained. Titles such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) encourage ranchers to continue the sustainable practices they already employ on their operations.
“Ranchers are dependent on their land's natural resources for the success of their business; these programs reward and encourage those practices to continue. These titles are especially significant in order to equip ranchers with the tools and knowledge necessary to ensure they are in compliance with the growing number of regulations mandated through the Environmental Protection Agency.
“The restricted budget that will be offered to the Farm Bill calls for an intense scrutiny of all programs. USCA would like to see the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) be phased into a more grazing-based, working lands program. There is significant acreage within this title that if phased out into a grazing-only phase could be utilized by ranchers while maintaining the integrity of the land.”
McDonnell acknowledged that the USCA is focused primarily on those programs related to livestock, but said they have several members who also run farming operations. He seemed to align the organization with Vilsack’s position on direct payments when he said, “USCA agrees with many of the proposed changes to direct payments which have been circulated by numerous organizations and members of Congress that call for the transition of this program into a more robust insurance title that takes into account changes in commodity prices and market fluctuations.”
McDonnell wrapped up his comments with this plea to protect research funding: “USCA would like to see research funding maintained. The rising global population will place a significant burden on those who produce the world's food supply in the coming years and it is necessary to maintain and increase our research capabilities to provide the tools necessary to optimize and increase sustainable production practices.”
Yesterday, Mike Barnett, publications director with the Texas Farm Bureau, wrote about the Farm Bill and some talk at the Texas Ag Forum about the effects of the Super Committee’s deliberations. His primary concern was that a fast track farm bill might be “held hostage by the whims of a Super Committee, whose charge is to carve a huge chunk out of a massive federal deficit.”
Tasked with the hard-to-grasp duty of cutting $1.5 trillion out of the deficit over the next 10 years and making it happen in just a few short weeks, the Super Committee’s deliberations could shrink the usual months-long wrangling over details into a few days, hardly enough time to think through the potential impact of their decisions. The Committee members have to put their proposal on the table by Nov. 23 and the seats at that table are owned by the same fractious group of politicians that were unable to reach an agreement on the Federal budget until the last possible second.
Barnett wrote, “The direct payment program is under huge pressure, not only from the national media but from freshmen members in the House, who were elected to cut dollars, and a number of Senators who are up for reelection.”
“Emerging from a number of fronts,” wrote Barnett, “is the idea of a revenue-based safety net that covers ‘shallow losses’ of revenue while traditional crop insurance would cover deep losses.”
Barnett wrapped it up with this frightening statement: “We could have a new farm bill by Christmas. Or it could be a long, hot summer. Stay tuned.”
I asked Bill Donald, NCBA’s well-traveled president, about the shape of the new farm bill, too. Like Barnett, he was also concerned about what the Super Committee might do. He said, “The nation’s $14 trillion debt is unsustainable. The ‘Super Committee’ was formed to create a path toward fiscal solvency, and depending what they propose, we may be writing the 2012 Farm Bill a year early. We’ve heard words could end up on paper as early as this fall. That is why NCBA members proactively gave our Washington, D.C., office marching orders for the 2012 Farm Bill.
“As policymakers work on crafting a farm bill representing a whole host of interests, while also cutting spending, NCBA is working to ensure cattlemen get a fair shake. That doesn’t mean cattlemen want taxpayer dollars. It means they want the government out of their business so they can raise and market their cattle in the manner that best fits their operation.”
Donald talked about the best parts of the 2008 bill and what the NCBA wanted to see retained. “There are some conservation programs that are very beneficial for cattle producers. For example, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, more commonly known as EQIP, was originally authorized in 1996 and most recently revised in the 2008 farm bill. This is a voluntary program administered by USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service that provides producers technical and financial assistance for implementation of soil and water conservation programs for up to ten years.
“Many of our producers have invested a lot of time and energy in this partnership, which has made a big difference in reducing the carbon footprint of beef production,” he said as he also emphasized that the program is not a government handout or subsidy.
“This program is a partnership that provides incentives for producers to make improvements on their operations in order to preserve the land, water and all of its valuable resources for future generations. Cattlemen are committed to preserving, conserving and responsibly using our natural resources but improvements are very costly and this partnership minimizes the financial burden on producers, while benefitting all of us.”
The 2008 bill was a compromise and all parts were not equally acceptable among the effected groups. Like McDonnell, Donald pointed to the controversial GIPSA rule as a case-in-point. “While the livestock title in the last farm bill may have been well intentioned, it led to the proposed GIPSA rule, which is the most pervasive example of government overreach into the private marketplace the industry has ever witnessed,” he said. “That is why NCBA member’s top priority for the 2012 Farm Bill is to reduce or eliminate the livestock title. Members of Congress on both sides of Capitol Hill, both sides of the political aisle and who come from rural and urban backgrounds are realizing that the GIPSA rule will fundamentally change the livestock marketplace by taking away a producer’s ability to market cattle and ultimately taking away consumer choice at the marketplace.”
“With this Congress’ attention on generating economic growth and job creation – it should be an easy fit to eliminate a livestock title that produced a rule that would kill thousands of jobs and cost the economy billions. We have one primary priority for this farm bill. Quite simply, we want the livestock title eliminated or substantially reduced.”
Expanding his thoughts on the new bill and what might be critical to NCBA members, Donald said, “I see two big-picture requirements for the 2012 Farm Bill. The bill needs to be dissected in such a way that we can streamline processes and increase efficiencies. This will save money and minimize some of the bureaucracy involved. The other requirement would be proportional cuts. Specifically, we support the need to cut spending and are ready for our share of cuts. At the same time, the cuts need to be proportional and not designed in such a way that agriculture is taking more that its share.”
Bill Bullard, R-CALF’s top exec, weighed in on the issues in his usual succinct style. When I asked what should absolutely, positively be included in the new bill, he said, “ Due to the unusual Farm Bill development procedures currently in effect, our principal goal is to preserve the new provisions we won in the 2008 Farm Bill. These include country-of-origin labeling (COOL), the GIPSA rulemaking process that has yet to be completed, and the authorization for state-inspected meat plants to engage in interstate commerce.”
Bullard was also watching the Super Committee with the same caution he might watch an approaching winter storm. “If after the Super Committee deliberations the rest of Congress is allowed to help shape the new Farm Bill,” he said, “we will reinstate our pending request that the COOL law be amended to prohibit beef exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. to bear a label that includes foreign countries. We also request the inclusion of the bipartisan Livestock Marketing Fairness Act that would restrict packers from using formula cattle to manipulate cattle prices as well as a ban on packer ownership of livestock that was passed in the Senate in each of the last two Farm Bills.”
Bullard bullet-pointed a long wish list, saying, “Additionally, the following should also be included under the Livestock Title of the new Farm Bill:
• A prohibition against relocating the Plum Island, New York, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) research laboratory to the mainland at Manhattan, Kansas.
• A prohibition against the importation of live cattle or fresh or chilled beef from any country that is not completely free of FMD.
• An amendment to the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 to clarify that USDA is required to prevent the introduction of foreign animal diseases rather than to merely prevent their establishment within America’s borders.
· Amendments to the Beef Checkoff Program to allow U.S. producers to promote their USA beef and to prohibit any politically-oriented trade associations from being involved, in any way, in the management, administration or operation of the program.
• A prohibition against a mandatory animal identification system in the United States.
• An authorization to allow meatpackers to voluntarily test for BSE or mad cow disease.
• A prohibition against the importation of live cattle unless they were born at least three years after the most recent birth date of cattle detected with BSE.”
Asked about exclusions, his list was much shorter and highlighted that organization’s concern about pending changes in the Packers and Stockyards act. Bullard said, “Under no circumstances should the new Farm Bill:
• Limit or prevent USDA-GIPSA from finalizing its rule to clarify and enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), commonly known as the GIPSA rule.
• Amend the Packers and Stockyards Act in a manner that would in any way relax prohibitions against a packer’s use of unfair trade practices against livestock producers.
• Weaken the COOL law.”
But the stakeholders in the new bill go far beyond cattle organizations. This huge and ungainly bill affects everyone who eats and every way food is delivered to the consumer – from crops to processed foods, from the price of a loaf of bread at Whole Foods to food stamps.
Adele Douglas, Executive Director, Humane Farm Animal Care had this to say: “Here is what I would like to see in the 2012 Farm Bill:
1. Grants to farmers who want to change their current housing systems to alternative housing systems from current confinement systems such as those for pigs that use gestation stalls or for chickens that use cages to cage free (barn raised for example).
2. Very low interest loans to farmers who want to change their current housing systems to alternative housing systems from current confinement systems such as gestation stalls, and cages.
3. Research on sexing of chicks before hatch in eggs to eliminate the need for maceration of male chicks.
4. Research on sexing of dairy calf embryos to have a lower rate of male dairy calves to ensure less unwanted calves on dairies.
5. Funding for Universities to develop courses for farmers on alternative housing and growing systems, handling and other important information for farmers which farmers could access online.
6. Revitalize the Extension Service, which seems to be non-existent in many parts of the country. Farmers need information and we need knowledge disseminated. Unfortunately, due to lack of federal funding, the only research being funded is from industry.
7. Development of holistic farm models - those that include crops and animals and take into consideration the environment - air, streams, soil, erosion, nutrient cycles. The maximum carrying capacity for different species of animals in these models in different geographic areas of the country and farms that utilize polyculture as opposed to monoculture.”
The discussion has just started and even more groups will be dipping their oars in these waters this time around. The era of easily available tax dollars is gone and anytime cash is taken off the table, bloody battles are fought with no quarter offered and none taken. This is a bill whose contents might not be decided by the Super Committee, but the odds are that group will force a significant reduction in the money spent.
Chuck Jolley is a free lance writer, based in Kansas City, who covers a wide range of ag industry topics for Vance Publishing.
Tom Vilsack says the next Farm Bill needs to “provide aid to farmers affected by natural disasters, increase funding for agricultural research and continue important conservation programs.”
Comments (1) Leave a comment