• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Farm Bill

Kato

Well-known member
Are these guys ever going to agree on this? :???: It sounds like more of an issue of who will have control rather than what's actually in the bill.

US farm law spat--House vs. Senate vs. White House
Published Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 05:12 AMWASHINGTON, March 5 (Reuters) - The tussle over the new U.S. farm law is two fights -- the House and Senate are split on issues such as disaster relief while Congress and the White House spar over a $10 billion spending increase for the law.

"They've got some serious issues to work out, including jurisdiction," Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said on Wednesday, referring to disagreements within Congress.

Farm-state leaders in the House and Senate are at odds on how to pay for the farm bill, on setting more stringent crop subsidy rules and on who will control some land stewardship work, among other issues.

Congress faces a defacto deadline of March 15 to enact a new law or extend the 2002 law. If there is no action, the Agriculture Department says it will operate the farm program under the unwieldy 1949 farm law.

In the Senate, the Finance Committee wrote a tax package that would create a $5 billion disaster fund for agriculture and would use tax credits to pay for enrolling some land in the Conservation and Wetland reserves. The package was wrapped into the Senate farm bill.

"We're going to provide the money, we're going to control the programs," Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the Republican leader on the Finance Committee, said on Tuesday. "This institutional disagreement is why we're having a hard time getting a farm bill."

House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson on Sunday told the National Farmers Union convention that he would not accept a farm bill that reduced his committee's authority.

"They've tried to take some of our jurisdiction ... which I'm not willing to do," said Peterson, Minnesota Democrat.

The biggest fight at present, in the view of one farm lobbyist, is the Finance Committee's desire to name the "offsets" that will pay for the farm bill and to keep control of the money.

Although House and Senate farm leaders disagree on the offsets, they are united in rejecting the administration's ideas.

"All the focus now is to come up with the offsets," said Schafer. He said the Congress vs. White House struggle over a spending increase has overshadowed disputes within Congress over farm policy. The administration says there must be significant reforms to justify a spending increase.

One reform requested by the administration would be to bar crop subsidies to people with an adjusted gross income above $500,000 a year, compared to the current cut-off of $2.5 million. The House and Senate voted for differing packages of tighter payment rules but neither went as far as the administration wants.

The administration says the farm bill cannot rely on tax increases or budget gimmicks to disguise over-spending nor can it increase crop subsidy rates.

Among the disputes between the House and Senate are how to reweave the farm safety net so it shields farmer revenue from poor yields, not just low prices.

The Senate opted for an "average crop revenue" program to run alongside traditional subsidies. The House proposed a nationwide crop revenue trigger for the counter-cyclical payments now made when revenue from sales and subsidies is below a target set by law.

In another area, senators voted to ban meatpackers from raising cattle in competition with farmers. Peterson said the idea has no support in the House.

It's starting to sound more and more like there is an extension coming.

Question? If they extend the Farm Bill for a month, how does that affect COOL? Extended again? At the moment the uncertainty is making for some real bargains up here in the feeder cattle business. It would sure be sad to give away a bunch of cattle, and then two days later get an announcement that it's extended.

These guys need to paint or get off the ladder. :!:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Part of the problem is that the Farm Bill covers such a huge array of programs. Every program is a potential hangup for somebody.
 

Kato

Well-known member
This is something I've always wondered about in American politics. Why are your bills so big? It seems like everything has something glued on to it, and lots of the additions have nothing to do with the original bill.

Maybe it's time to split this one into separate parts that can be agreed on. When things get this complicated the result is that nothing gets done.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
This is something I've always wondered about in American politics. Why are your bills so big? It seems like everything has something glued on to it, and lots of the additions have nothing to do with the original bill.

Maybe it's time to split this one into separate parts that can be agreed on. When things get this complicated the result is that nothing gets done.

You're right about the "extras". They talk about doing away with things like that, but the culture is "You scratch my back..." so they want to keep the trough open.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
KATO ?Question? If they extend the Farm Bill for a month, how does that affect COOL?

Extended again?

Nothing is changed, The Mandatory Date is still Midnight September 30 2008 !!!
 

Kato

Well-known member
Nothing is changed, The Mandatory Date is still Midnight September 30 2008 !!!
\

Isn't COOL part of the Farm Bill? If that's the case, then why would they pick one little bit of the bill and implement it by itself without the bill being passed?

Besides, as far as I can find out, the USDA has not released the final wording of COOL yet. Has anyone here seen it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
Nothing is changed, The Mandatory Date is still Midnight September 30 2008 !!!
\

Isn't COOL part of the Farm Bill? If that's the case, then why would they pick one little bit of the bill and implement it by itself without the bill being passed?

Besides, as far as I can find out, the USDA has not released the final wording of COOL yet. Has anyone here seen it?

Because M-COOL was part of the 2002 Farm Bill that is current law- only that USDA had been able to get the implementation date postponed until September 2008... It would just go into effect as originally written...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato, I know you're trying desperately to make sense of what our Congress is doing. It'll never happen. Give it up - all of us Americans did long ago! :lol:
 

Kato

Well-known member
Congressional Quarterly writer Catharine Richert reported yesterday that, “Both parties in the House have agreed to move a 30-day extension of the farm policy law this week as negotiations continue on a five-year rewrite.

“‘We are not going to let the farm bill die,’ said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio.”


“An extension would give lawmakers until mid-April to finish up work on the comprehensive bill. Congress departs for a two-week spring recess this weekend.”

Ms. Richert noted that, “It’s unclear how close to a final deal the House and Senate are, but House Agriculture Chairman Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn., told soybean farmers this week that enough progress has been made to warrant a second extension, according to an aide in his office.

“The Senate Agriculture Committee’s ranking member, Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said the extension indicates progress is being made, but added that no deal on the bill was expected in the next couple of days.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Oldtimer;Because M-COOL was part of the 2002 Farm Bill that is current law- only that USDA had been able to get the implementation date postponed until September 2008... It would just go into effect as originally written...

You got that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Kato

Well-known member
Peterson Demands Farm Bill Results
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson made a surprise appearance during Wednesday's OFBF visit to Capitol Hill. The Chairman interrupted comments from fellow Democrat and Ag Committee member Zach Space (OH-18) to report breaking news on the farm bill:

"I don't know if I have enough time to explain what's going on," the Chairman explained to chuckles from the crowd. "We're still trying to write a farm bill with money we don't have," he said, explaining the holdup from Senate and House Budget writers and appropriators. "I've just left a meeting with the Senate conferees, and we told them that if we don't have an answer by Friday morning on the funding issues, on the tax issues that need to be removed from the bill, and on these jurisdictional issues, the House will move forward with a Baseline Farm Bill." Explaining that a baseline farm bill meant a bill written with the current baseline and not the additional money originally requested by the House or Senate, the Chairman commented that "if we write a baseline bill, we don't need all these other people involved muckin' up our farm bill," echoing sentiments expressed earlier from House Minority Leader John Boehner that agriculture members wished they'd never involved the other committees on funding issues.

In terms of details, Peterson shared that a baseline bill would contain the House version's Commodity Title, meaning no "beneficial interest" provisions, raising the loan rate on soybeans and a handful of other commodities, basically extending the current farm bill with a few changes. While there would obviously be reduced funding for conservation, nutrition, and rural development, the Chairman promised that funding reductions to meet baseline would be made equally among the remaining titles of the bill.

In addressing the timeline for completion of the bill, Peterson announced he would be staying in Washington over the Easter recess to complete the bill so the language could be written as soon as the other members returned to town. Other provisions of note include the "fix" of Country of Origin Labeling and Interstate Shipment of Meat, a disaster provision that will be written but not funded, and alterations in crop insurance to "rein in" increased commissions agents have been receiving due to premiums which the Chairman said have doubled in recent years.

To illustrate the seriousness of the situation, Peterson acknowledged that the House came very close on Saturday to push forward with Permanent Law on the farm bill, meaning the 1938-1949 policies that have been established as the "fallback position" should a farm bill not come to fruition. These policies are extremely out of synch with current law, but Peterson said the Speaker of the House is "fed up" with the Senate, and to a lesser extent the Administration, for the holdup on getting a bill completed in a timely manner. "If we're not done by April 18th, we will have permanent law."

Other provisions of note include the "fix" of Country of Origin Labeling

Not quite carved in stone yet. :!:

I realize Porker is wringing his hands in glee hoping to make a lot of money over MCOOL, but there are other people out there who are going to lose a lot more from it. Not just Canadians either.... :shock:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato, "I realize Porker is wringing his hands in glee hoping to make a lot of money over MCOOL, but there are other people out there who are going to lose a lot more from it. Not just Canadians either...."

How are Canadians going to lose money?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I watched the food safety hearings in Congress last night on C-SPAN- and many of these Congressmen are finally getting pretty upset at FDA/USDA and the importers/Packers/Retailers for not coming up with some more truth in labeling....

They were really upset with the fact that many are passing off old (sometimes even rotten) meat products, packaged in CO2 to maintain fresh colorization, without any labeling to show that has been done...Not only is this happening with beef products- but also imported shrimp/fish that actually was found to be rotten altho it looked fresh :shock: :(

They were also upset over the fact that the FDA/USDA has done little in updating their labeling rules- altho they have been "studying" it since 1999... :roll:

Just like with the M-COOL, if they don't act on their own- I think Congress may be forced to legislate it in the Food Safety Act they are putting together....

An animal science professor from Iowa (an irradiation expert) testifyed that there is absolutely no negatives to irradiated beef except the additional cost of doing it- and that the only way you are going to rid beef or produce of ecoli is thru irradiation... He said the opposition to it is no different than the opposition the dairys/producers/consumers had to pasturization years ago- which now we wouldn't do without....
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Kato, "I realize Porker is wringing his hands in glee hoping to make a lot of money over MCOOL, but there are other people out there who are going to lose a lot more from it. Not just Canadians either...." What Loss??

The law calls for traceability, no matter the kind of animal or food/ingredients and no matter your level of enterprize, or whether you live in the Third World or New York ,New York. I don't see anyone rushing out to compete with ScoringAg from field to fork traceback either.

Country-of-Origin Labeling
Some customers want country of origin labeling (COOL) for food so they can support domestic farmers and producers, or because they want to minimize the “food miles” their groceries travel. Others want COOL out of concerns about pesticide and other residues on imported fruits and vegetables, or mad cow disease.

While COOL labeling for food has been slow to implement on the federal level, states have implemented their own rules.

For an explanation of why states might want to pass country- or state-of-origin labeling rules, see Ask Dr. Dave - COOL

For examples of rules that promote your state's agricultural economy, see State-of-Origin Rules

RULES

Federal
On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, more commonly known as the 2002 Farm Bill. More...
Florida
All producers, growers, and shippers of fresh fruits and vegetables and bee pollen and honey in Florida shall be permitted to mark each package to indicate to an ultimate purchaser that the product was produced in Florida. More...
Idaho
The Idaho labeling statute requires all foreign meat, poultry, eggs and butter to be marked with the country of origin. While the law has been on the books since 1965, it is currently not enforced by the Idaho Department of Agriculture. More...
Maine
The original Maine country-of-origin law passed in 1989 and required labeling of fresh produce "in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of Maine citizens from the dangers of pesticides used or applied in a manner or at a rate disallowed in the United States". More...
Mississippi
Mandates "Country of Origin" labeling on beef products sold in retail stores. The labeling will provide three distinctions for labeling retail beef products: "American," "Imported," and "Blend." More...
Montana
A law requiring retailers to label meat with country-of-origin, and creating a "Made in Montana" program. More...
European Union Law
Since 2000, Member states have to indicate on the label, down to the retail level, the country of slaughter, country of cutting/deboning, the reference code of the animal and its category. The second stage, which took effect January 1, 2002, requires member states to indicate the country of birth, fattening and slaughter.
 
Top