Cotton Farming Peanut Grower Rice Farming CornSouth Soybean South  
spacer
topgraphic
HOME ARCHIVE ABOUT US CALENDAR LINKS SUBSCRIBE ADVERTISE CLASSIFIEDS COTTON GINNERS MARKETPLACE
In This Issue
Looking Ahead
Big Questions
Finding Solutions
Safety Net
Variety Data Must Be Studied
Riverside Farmer Wins Special Award
Estate Tax Issue Crucial For California Farms
USDA To Help Restore Gulf Coast
Navy Announces Purchase Of Biofuel
Deltapine Launches Three New Varieties
Back To Drawing Board For Farm Bill Debate
Record Floods Presented Challenge To Agricenter
Mid-South Farmers Forge On Despite 2011 Adversity
CFBF Group Completes Special Class
New Arkansas Gin Gains Global Reputation
Kansas State Students Embrace Cotton Class
Old Gins Have A Special Charm
American Ag Provides Array Of Food Choices
Energy Grants Help Rural Areas
AFBF Files Comments On Child Labor
Web Poll: Price Still Drives Cotton Acreage
Cotton's Agenda
What Customers Want
Publisher's Note
Editor's Note
Industry Comments
Specialists Speaking
Industry News
Cotton Ginners Marketplace
My Turn: Fighting Harder
ARCHIVES

Back To Drawing Board For Farm Bill Debate

By Christine Souza
California Farm Bureau
print email

Following the failure of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to develop a proposal into which the 2012 Farm Bill could have been included, Washington policy analysts say the crafting of national farm policy will be a more open process, with programs facing additional scrutiny.

“What is going to happen now is the process will slow down, and it will become a little bit more transparent for everybody who is interested,” says Mark Maslyn, American Farm Bureau Federation public policy executive director. “We’ll have more time to do the things that normally occur in a Farm Bill, whether they be hearings or analysis for different proposals.”

Asked to achieve $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction during the next 10 years, the “super committee” members failed to reach an agreement by the Nov. 23 deadline set by Congress. As a result, the Office of Management and Budget will likely announce soon that farm programs will be subject to “sequestration,” or across-the-board cuts.

Return To Committee Discussion

The chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate agriculture committees – who helped identify $23 billion in cuts to farm programs for the super committee – indicated that work on the new Farm Bill will now return to their respective committees for further discussion, under a more deliberative process than was possible under the time constraints imposed on the Joint Committee.

Following the super committee’s failure to reach an agreement, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, stated, “We will continue the process of reauthorizing the Farm Bill in the coming months and will do so with the same bipartisan spirit that has historically defined the work of our committees.”

Whether lawmakers intend to use the super committee proposal as a guide for writing the next Farm Bill, Maslyn says, remains unclear.

“Time was the biggest constraint to getting something we could support. What you would normally do in a 12-month period, the super committee caused to happen in about six to eight weeks, which doesn’t allow for the full vetting, involvement and inclusion that normally occurs in the Farm Bill debate,” Maslyn says. “Now that it is under ‘regular order,’ it is an open question as to whether they will go back to where they left off.”

Break From Tradition

The rush to pass a new Farm Bill to meet the super committee’s schedule, Maslyn says, was a departure from the way Farm Bills have been traditionally negotiated, with hearings and input from affected groups.

“Back under regular order, the down side is when you go to the floor, it will likely be an open rule and is not afforded the parliamentary protections that it would have had if it were in the debt committee report,” Maslyn says. “That means members of Congress who either don’t understand farm programs, or think that the money ought to be spent somewhere else or not spent at all, are free to go to the floor and offer up amendments to strike or delete funding. Regardless, we are pretty sure we’re going to be writing a bill with a lot less money.”

Whether discussions on farm programs return to current law as the starting point or begin from the “fast track” version, AFBF will conduct expanded analysis on its proposal to establish a Systemic Risk Reduction Program, which it describes as a safety net to help farmers deal with “large systemic risk issues.”

Rayne Pegg, California Farm Bureau Federation National Affairs and Research Division assistant manager, says CFBF will continue to place emphasis on issues specific to California agriculture, such as specialty crop programs, conservation programs, research, pest exclusion, market development and maintaining the integrity of the national organic standard, while consulting with other groups in the state on farm-program commodities, including dairy.

“The bipartisan agriculture committee proposal was good for specialty crops, then 72 hours later things fell apart,” Pegg says. “This now leads back to future Farm Bill discussions, where we will be seeking that the progress that was made, be maintained.”

Christine Souza is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at csouza@cfbf.com.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
email
Tell a friend:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


ad2

 

end