Farm Bill includes conservation provisions important to hunters and the economy

Many Americans probably don't realize that the Farm Bill contains provisions for wildlife conservation programs, and that this has caused more than just farmers to press Congress for a vote on the bill. Hunters, anglers and conservationists have also been petitioning for passage of the stalled legislation. In a Politico opinion piece this week, Dale Hall, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and current CEO of Ducks Unlimited, writes about why conservation programs are so important.

"The Farm Bill's Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program not only have a positive impact on wildlife populations but also help conserve soil and keep our streams, rivers and lakes clean," Hall writes. The incentive-based programs allow conservation groups to work with farmers  to create benefits for all stakeholders: wildlife, farmers, ranchers, the environment and hunters and fishers, "which generates significant financial support for out nation's economy," Hall says. Hunters, fishers and wildlife watchers spent $145 billion on wildlife-related recreation last year, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Three aspects of the Farm Bill are of particular concern to conservation groups, Hall writes: maintaining and strengthening effective wetland protections, a national "sodsaver" provision to protect native prairies, and preserving conservation programs. (Read more)

Crop insurance payouts likely to hit $15 billion; drought news gets only slightly better

The long, dry, hot summer will cost U.S. taxpayers big -- a record $15 billion. That is the amount that the Farm Bill's privately run crop-insurance program will pay to farmers affected by this year's losses. The program's runaway costs are in focus as Congress looks for ways to cut government spending, making crop insurance an even bigger target for reforms than it already might have been. Lawmakers return to Washington next month. (Read more)

As for the drought itself, there was some relief, at last, from one coast to another as storm systems pushed through some very dry parts of the nation this week. Still, 62.4 percent of the nation is still experiencing "moderate" drought, down from 63.5 percent a week earlier, according to Thursday's Drought Monitor, a weekly compilation of data gathered by federal and academic scientists. Reuters is reporting that "the portion of the United States under 'exceptional' drought' -- the direst classification -- fell to 5.8 percent, from 6.2 percent a week earlier." The worst news is still reserved for the High Plains -- some parts of Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas -- where drought classified as "severe" or worse covered more than 87 percent of the region. (Read more)

Romney releases rural platform, criticizes Congress and Obama for lack of new Farm Bill

Mitt Romney released his rural platform today. "Like President Obama, the Republican's rural policy is all about agriculture," says the Daily Yonder. "Of course, most people in rural America have little to do with farming, but in a campaign short on substance, we'll take what we can get." (Des Moines Register photo)

The Yonder notes that the platform criticizes Congress for failing to pass a Farm Bill before recessing for the election season. That has created some heat for Republican members of the House from rural areas. In an appearance in Iowa yesterday, Romney also blamed Obama, saying "The president has to exert the kind of presidential leadership it takes to get the House and Senate together and actually pass a farm bill.”

The four main points of the platform, which is available here, are:

Implement effective tax policies to support family farms and strong agribusiness;

Pursue trade policies that expand upon the success of the agriculture sector, not limit it;

Create a regulatory environment that is commonsense and cost-effective; and

Achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020.

Dairy farmers struggled through drought, now battle armyworms; will suffer without Farm Bill

Dairy farmers will lose up to 10 percent of their monthly income from milk beginning in October because the Milk Income Loss Contract expired when the Farm Bill wasn't renewed on Sept. 30. MILC is a program that provides dairy farmers with payments when the price of producing milk is more than the price for which it's sold. (Oklahoma Farm Report photo)

MILC payouts were cut to 34 percent, from 45 percent, when the Farm Bill expired, Melissa Miller of the Southeast Missourian in Cape Girardeau reports. High feed and gas prices have forced farmers to sell their least productive cows to slaughter, and some small farmers are considering leaving the business. Miller writes that the armyworm is adding to farmers' misery. The pest strips pasture grass, which often replaces expensive feed. Dairy Farmer John Schoen told Miller most farmers are likely losing $10,000 to $15,000 a month.

"Dairy is one of the few commodities that will get hit immediately by this [Farm Bill expiration] because we're on a monthly schedule," Jefferson County Farm Bureau president Michael Kiechle told Ted Booker of the Watertown Daily Times in far upstate New York. "We probably won't get anything now until the crops go in the ground next spring."

Commercial dairy farmers in Maine "depend on subsidies in the [Farm Bill] to help them get through tough times," reports Jay Field of Maine Public Broadcasting. They are selling milk for less than it costs to produce it because of high gas and feed prices. One farmer told Field he will spend $6,000 more on fuel this year, and is barely covering operating costs right now.

What will really happen if there's no Farm Bill by Sept. 30? Not that much

Congress is not going to pass a new Farm Bill before its election recess, which is set to begin next week. That means that 2008 funding for programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (generally known as food stamps) and direct payments to farmers will technically expire on Sept. 30. In theory, some "fairly scary things" will happen, reports Julie Rovner of National Public Radio. But in reality, "almost none of the changes would happen right after Sept. 30," at which time, Congress could have passed a new bill.

Technically, federal price supports will revert back to 1949 levels without a new bill or an extension of the old one. That would mean the government would "pay huge bonuses" for certain crops, but not for others, because some commodities were added after to the list after 1949. It also would raise prices for commodities such as milk and soybeans. But, Montana State University economics professor Vincent Smith told Rovner the real reason Farm Bill supporters are pushing for a new bill has more to do with budget politics than the actual mechanics of it.

"They want to have a Farm Bill now that locks Congress and the taxpayer into obligations based on either the Senate or the House bill," Smith told NPR. "What they're concerned about is that, if serious deficit-reduction talks take place, then a lot more money than was initially identified to come out of the farm bill by the 'supercommittee' a year and a bit ago will have to come out of the Farm Bill."

"We actually have until about Jan. 1 before we run into a lot of administrative problems with this bill reverting to some very high prices," Mary Kay Thatcher, director of congressional affairs for the American Farm Bureau Federation, told Rovner. The 2008 measure covers all of this year's crops, even if they haven't been harvested yet. The first crop that would be affected by new price supports would be winter wheat, which is harvested in the Spring, Rover reports. (Read more)

In redefinining 'rural,' Senate version of Farm Bill could cut funds for neediest rural areas

The Senate version of the Farm Bill would streamline definitions of “rural” but one result "could be less funding for the very areas that most meet what many Americans would consider the targeted recipients for these programs," Farm Bill policy expert Aleta Botts writes for The Rural Blog and the Daily Yonder.

USDA Rural Development programs use varying definitions of “rural area,” Botts explains. “Rural water programs are allowed to go only to cities, towns, or unincorporated areas of fewer than 10,000 people. The limit for community facility programs (which pay for libraries, health centers, and many other community brick-and-mortar investments) is 20,000, while the limit for business programs is 50,000.” The Senate bill would use a 50,000 limit for all programs.

That could hurt rural areas with small populations, Botts writes. She notes testimony by the National Rural Water Association that more than 400 communities will have to wait until at least next year for water-project money. “This is an oversubscribed program and has been for years,” she writes.  “If it is oversubscribed now with its limit at 10,000 people, what will result when the population limit is raised to 50,000?”

The bill sets aside half of one rural water program’s funds to communities with fewer than 3,000 people and gives a “priority” to areas with fewer than 5,500. “But more than 80 percent of the funding already goes to areas of 5,000 or fewer, according to the National Rural Water Association testimony, so this language may actually mean little in practice,” Botts writes. For her full article, click here.

Democrats trying to use GOP Farm Bill inaction to their political advantage with rural voters

Some Democrats are trying to turn the failure of the Republican-controlled House to pass a Farm Bill into an opportunity to pick up rural votes in November. Analysts are saying it could influence races in Indiana, Wisconsin and North Dakota, where agriculture interests are very influential, Alan Bjerga of Bloomberg News reports. And while it might affect some House races, Bierga writes, it's unlikely that it will help Democrats wrest control of the House.

Iowa State University political science professor Steffen Schmidt told Bjerga that Farm Bill inaction could weaken Republican Senate efforts in rural, conservative states such as North Dakota and Montana, which likely won't be won by Democrats in the presidential election but could be won by Democrats in congressional races. Not passing a Farm Bill has “become a very salient issue in a lot of key battleground races," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee communications director Matt Canter told Bjerga. Canter added that Senate candidates, particularly in rural states, can localize their races around issues such as agriculture. In the Senate, Republicans only need to add three seats to take the majority. (Read more)

In debate, presidential candidates' surrogates give glimpses of their positions on farm and rural policy

Chris Clayton, agriculture-policy editor for DTN/The Progressive Farmer, sums up yesterday's debate on such issues between surrogates for the presidential candidates:

"Democratic President Barack Obama has supported rural America as farmers achieved record income over the past four years or is 'anti-agriculture' and helped induce an unprecedented regulatory burden on rural America.

"Republican Mitt Romney will either wreck the rural economy and cut meaningful rural programs or unleash greater prosperity by stopping new regulations on farmers and businesses while more aggressively championing free trade deals.

"Those were the stark contrasts for farmers as surrogates for both campaigns debated positions on agricultural and rural issues on Wednesday before a group largely made up of members of the National Association of State Directors of Agriculture." (Read more)

Petition would force vote on Farm Bill in full House

House Republican leaders have refused to allow a vote on a new Farm Bill until after the November election, even though the Agriculture Committee approved one in July. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, has initiated a discharge petition, which can bring a bill to the floor if it has 218 signatures, a majority of the House.

But the bill has to be formally reported to the floor before the discharge can be launched, and Speaker John Boehner has kept it from being reported, even though House rules require a "prompt" report, Bob Meyer of Brownfield Agricultural News reports.  "Committee Chairman Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., did not report the bill to the House clerk until Monday," reports Michael Catalini of the National Journal, citing an unnamed Democratic aide. "Discharge petitions can only be introduced either after bills have been reported out of committee, or after 30 legislative days go by."

Braley said in a statement yesterday, "Speaker Boehner is using all the moves in the procedural playbook . . . personally overruling a bipartisan and geographically diverse coalition that I’m helping lead, 50 different farm groups, and what I believe to be a bipartisan majority of the House. If he put this bill on the floor, it would pass, and we’d be one step closer to bringing stability and relief to American farmers and consumers." Braley said that of the last five farm bills, the longest delay between a vote to report and the actual reporting was 20 days. The vote was 66 days ago. (Read more)

Sen. Grassley, Farm Bill authority, says Congress won't have time to draft new bill this session

There is not enough time to fix the current Farm Bill that expires at the end of this month, Sen. Charles Grassley, an authority on the topic, said this week as Congress returned after the August recess. Grassley said Congress will likely include a one-year extension of the 2008 Farm Bill in a continuing resolution that lawmakers have to consider later this month.

Grassley said there was no sense of "farm revolt" in response to Congress' inability to pass a new Farm Bill, and that a one-year extension of the existing Farm Bill "should prevent any backlash from developing," reports DTN/The Progressive Farmer. He also said Congress will likely pass a drought disaster aid bill. Even though an extension will likely be implemented, it doesn't mean Congress will stop work on a new Farm Bill, DTN reports. It could act any time during the lame-duck session after the November elections, or in early 2013.

DTN is available by subscription only, but free trials can be accessed here.

'Farm Bill Now' group pushes on, but what if a hasn't passed when some laws expire Sept. 30?

The days are getting shorter for a 2012 Farm Bill, with the U.S. House having only eight more days in session before the election, and perhaps more important, before Sept. 30, when most of the current bill expires. Proponents of passing a full bill, not just a stopgap extension, say their task is made all the harder because farm income numbers are looking up in spite of the drought. Agri-Pulse reports that hasn't stopped major farm organizations, and a group called the Farm Bill Now Coalition from hitting the road in an effort to push to see things their way.

"Agriculture is one of the few bright spots in the American economy," explained National Corn Growers Association Vice President Pam Johnson during a press conference at the Farm Progress Show in Boone, Iowa, where the coalition went looking for support. "Our farmers continue to be more productive and innovative. But to continue that trend, we need to have some certainty about how we plan our business. And this is exactly what the Farm Bill does." The coalition plans another event on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 12.

Agri-Pulse notes that many programs will not expire on Sept. 30 if the bill is not reauthorized. Crop insurance, for example, is permanent. But dairy farmers would be particularly hard-hit, as would some conservation programs. Also set to disappear would be many nutrition programs, international trade and food aid programs, some targeted specifically at children.

Agri-Pulse is subscription-only, but free trials are offered at www.agri-pulse.com.

Farm Bill's Rural Development Title dates to 1972

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Rural Development Title, a section of the Farm Bill that outlines development spending in rural areas. It has continuously been threatened with budget cuts, and remains threatened in this year's deliberations over the farm law. For the Daily Yonder, Timothy Collins, director of research, policy, outreach and sustainability at the Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs, provides some history about the title and its importance to rural America.

The roots of the title can be traced to Franklin Roosevelt's post-Depression efforts to rebuild the country, but a bipartisan title wasn't included in the Farm Bill until 1972. "This was a watershed event," Collins writes. "It was an effort to bring together diverse programs that helped rural areas and moved rural development under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Agriculture." The title was also a shift from the War on Poverty, which focused mainly on urban areas, to "a more clearly defined" rural development policy, Collins writes.

After Richard Nixon, right, took office in 1969, he appointed the Task Force on Rural Development to develop a report about rural policy. The report "connected rural and urban well-being, mainly focusing on helping rural communities slow the migration to cities and develop community leaders. It also stated that rural development couldn't happen unless local communities actively worked for it. Nixon wanted to "reshape federal-state relationships" and give rural communities more flexibility in how they used federal funds, David Roth writes in "The Nixon Administration Through Passage of the Rural Development Act of 1972."

The 1972 Farm Bill included loans for commercial and industrual development in rural areas; insured and guaranteed loans, instead of direct federal loans, to press the private sector into playing a role in rural development; cost-sharing provisions; and, improvements in the administrative machinery of the Farmers Home Administration. Rural Development became a named section of USDA. (Read more)

Collins reports the USDA is taking "particular pains to tell its story and point out where its Rural Development programs are working" because the title is struggling under budget cuts and has been threatened with more. To learn more about the "success stories," click here.

Rural matters a lot in election, liberal columnist says

It's all politics at the Iowa State Fair in this presidential election year, as it has been for decades. Presumptive Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan visited the fair last week, but left John Nichols of The Capital Times in Madison, Wis., wondering what he was doing there after refusing to answer questions about the epic drought that's devastating much of the Midwest.

Nichols suggests Ryan won't talk farm policy because farm states would likely turn against him, Mitt Romney and possibly Republican congressional candidates. Iowa, Colorado, Ohio and Wisconsin "have vast rural regions and long histories of voting with an eye toward farm, food and small-town issues," Nichols writes. But in 2010, rural regions "swung hard to the right," making two-thirds of all U.S. House gains by Republicans come from 125 of the most rural districts.

"Rural matters, a lot, in 2012," Nichols concludes. "Control of the Senate will be determined by contests in states such as Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin. To retake the House, Democrats must win back a substantial number of the 39 rural districts that shifted to Republicans in 2010." (Read more)

Farm Bill politics: Obama says U.S. will buy meat, blames Ryan for lack of bill; incumbents feel heat

Obama speaks in Council Bluffs today.
(Register photo by Bryon Houlgrave)

President Obama is announcing today that the Department of Agriculture intends to buy up to $170 million of pork, lamb, chicken and catfish to help support farmers suffering from the drought. The food purchases will go toward "food nutrition assistance" programs such as food banks. Reuters reports "The president will also direct the Department of Defense to encourage its vendors to speed up purchases of lamb, pork and beef and freeze it for later use." (Read more)

Today in Iowa, a key swing state, Obama gave U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan partial blame for Congress' failure to pass a Farm Bill with short-term relief for farmers, and called Mitt Romney's running mate the “ideological leader of the Republicans in Congress,” Jason Noble reports for the Des Moines Register. Obama also criticized Romney for favoring expiration of tax credits for wind energy. (Read more) A campaign spokesman replied, "Paul Ryan hails from an agriculture state and supported disaster relief, and the truth is no one will work harder to defend farmers and ranchers than the Romney-Ryan ticket." When a reporter asked Ryan about drought relief, which the House passed but which died in the Senate because of the Farm Bill impasse, he declined to discuss it, Steve Peoples of The Huffington Post reports.

Ryan's selection has made it less likely that a new Farm Bill will pass before the election, writes Chris Clayton of DTN/The Progressive Farmer: "Despite increasing pressure to adopt the legislation to help rural America cope with the drought, the Farm Bill now becomes an even more political document." (Read more)  While the drought is not the president's fault or a problem he can cure, "It is a far bigger issue for Barack Obama than Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney," says the Chicago Sun-Times. "Corn is the biggest crop in the U.S., and the price impacts a variety of domestic and international markets." (Read more) However, Obama's "promising help and compassion" in Iowa shows the advantages of an incumbent, McClatchy Newspapers reported.

The lack of a new Farm Bill has also turned up the heat on congressional incumbents in farm country. "Farmers are complaining loudly to their representatives, editorial boards across the heartland are hammering Congress over its inaction, and incumbents from both parties are sparring with their challengers over agricultural policy," Jennifer Steinhauer writes for The New York Times. "This year’s Farm Bill was unlike any before it. While the House Agriculture Committee signed off on a measure, its substantial cuts to food programs alienated too many Democrats. And its cuts to those programs, as well as to some forms of farm aid, were not enough to appease the chamber’s most conservative members." (Read more)

Obama orders additional drought-relief measures

President Obama told the Agriculture Department today to authorize another $30 million to help crop and livestock producers damaged by the nation's worst drought in 50 years, and announced some other steps intended to mitigate the drought's impact, including a program to help commercial truck drivers make deliveries to drought-stricken areas.

Obama said the Small Business Administration "is working with other government agencies to connect even more eligible farmers, ranchers and businesses with low-interest emergency loans as well as counseling and workforce programs," and "The National Credit Union Administration is allowing an additional 1,000 credit unions to increase lending to small businesses."

The president said the White House is actively soliciting other ideas for drought relief. also called on Congress, which just started a five-week recess, to pass a Farm Bill with drought relief. "That's the single best way to help rural communities both in the short term and in the long term," he said. For the White House's drought "fact sheet," click here.

Senate blocks drought disaster aid, presses for full-scale Farm Bill; House bipartisan rebellion stirs

The House's $383 million disaster aid package for some farmers and livestock producers in drought-riddled areas of the U.S. stalled in the Senate last night just before Congress' August recess. Democrats who control the Senate want the House to vote on the larger 2012 Farm Bill before the Senate will consider disaster relief.

"By refusing to bring up the Farm Bill, House leadership is doing what Congress always does -- kicking the can down the road instead of coming together to solve problems," said Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, right, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee. "If Congress does not pass a farm bill, there will be no reform, direct payments will continue, we’ll lose the opportunity for major deficit reduction and we’ll deliver a real blow to our economic recovery."

David Rogers of Politico reports the "continued impasse . . . remains a serious liability" for Republicans, and quotes Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, ranking Democrat and former chair of the House Agriculture Committee, as saying the disaster package "is a sad substitute for what is really needed -- a long term farm policy." Stabenow, Peterson and other farm-state legislators met yesterday to determine how to move forward. Current farm law expires Sept. 30. (Read more)

Erik Wasson of The Hill reports that Stabenow and her House counterpart, Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., will try to write a compromise bill by Sept. 10. He also reports that "a bipartisan group of rural lawmakers" in the House is getting behind a discharge petition that could force a floor vote by mid-September on the Farm Bill approved by the House Agriculture Committee but blocked by House Republican leaders because of deep divisions in their party over the bill. If signed by a House majority of 218 members, the bill would be placed on the House calendar. (Read more)

Lacking votes to pass it, Republicans pull 1-year Farm Bill extension, replace with drought package

Facing certain defeat, not to mention near-universal displeasure from farm groups, Republicans pulled their one-year Farm Bill extension from the House docket late Tuesday in favor of a narrower $383 million disaster aid package to address the immediate needs of drought-stricken livestock producers. (Agri-Pulse graphic)

The abrupt turnaround, writes David Rogers of Politico, "came just minutes before the House Rules Committee had been slated to take up the extension in anticipation of floor votes Wednesday. Within hours, the slimmer 22-page disaster bill had been filed with the promise of floor votes Thursday. The action shows how much the GOP leadership — having boxed itself in by refusing to take up a five-year Farm Bill — is scrambling now to find something the party’s candidates can take home to farm states in August given the severe drought plaguing much of the country."

The substitute disaster bill will restore livestock indemnity and forage programs that have expired in the current farm program, with some assistance also for specialty crops. To keep down costs, the aid will apply only to 2012, while offsets will come from imposing caps on two conservation programs much as the House Appropriations Committee has already proposed. Early estimates indicate the net savings would be about $256 million. (Read more)

Farm Bill extension would get most cuts from conservation programs, drawing much opposition

UPDATE, July 31: David Rogers of Politico reports "signs that House Republicans may pull back from a one-year extension of farm programs and focus instead on the immediate needs of drought-stricken livestock producers," partly because of Democratic and commodity-group opposition. Rogers calls the extension "highly divisive." (That's true of the Farm Bill itself, which is why GOP leaders are not taking it to the full House.) As for the extension measure, Rogers reports, "Fiscal conservatives and taxpayer groups are upset that the bill walks away from earlier promises to end costly direct cash payments to farmers. Environmentalists are agitated by the fact that the greatest share of the cuts to pay for the disaster aid would come from conservation programs."

Bob Meyer reports for Brownfield, "There are growing indications there are not enough votes in the House and Republican leadership may pull the bill before it is scheduled to come to the floor Wednesday." Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, wants the extension only as a path to a conference on a five-year bill, but tea-party Republicans oppose that strategy. (Read more)

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says one-year Farm Bill extension that House Republican leaders will try to pass this week, probably Wednesday, would reduce direct spending next year by $400 million, mainly by cutting conservation programs, "while disaster assistance programs to help livestock producers with the drought would receive increases in the short term," Amanda Peterka reports for Environment & Energy News, a subscription-only service.

Extending the cuts for 10 years, as is done in most federal budget estimates these days, would take $759 million from conservation programs. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program would be cut $350 million, with most of the cuts front-loaded to the near-term; the Conservation Stewardship Program would be reduced by $289 million, $31 million in most years.

Direct subsidy payments to farmers, which would be eliminated under farm bills approved by the House Agriculture Committee and the Senate, would be cut "$29 million a year starting in fiscal 2014, for a total reduction of $261 million over the next decade," Peterka reports. "Disaster assistance would increase by $365 million in fiscal 2013, $235 million in fiscal 2014 and $21 billion in 2015 to help farmers and ranchers devastated by the drought." For the CBO report, click here.

Drought could move Farm Bill, or a 1-year extension

Speaker John  Boehner said yesterday that before the House leaves Washington in a week for its August recess, it "will address the livestock disaster program" that has been made more critical by the worsening drought. That could be done by a one-year extension of the Farm Bill now on the books, which expires Sept. 30, but that course would pose for Boehner the same political problems that have kept a new Farm Bill from getting a House floor vote.

"Two-thirds of the continental United States was under moderate to exceptional drought with 40 percent of U.S. counties declared agricultural disaster areas," notes Charles Abbott of Reuters. "Livestock producers with drought-stunted pastures face skyrocketing feed prices," and "Programs that allowed the Agriculture Department to share the cost of livestock feed or to help fruit, vegetable and tree farmers expired at the end of 2011."

Democrats who have been pleading for passage of the new Farm Bill now say they would be willing to vote for a one-year extension "as a vehicle to negotiate a larger comprehensive deal with the Senate," which has passed its own bill, David Rogers reports for Politico. That tactic would also give Republicans in farm country "some protection" as they head back to their districts, he notes.

Democratic votes would be needed to pass a bill because many conservative Republicans with little agribusiness in their districts object to some of the subsidies, particularly dairy, in the bill approved by the House Agriculture Committee. Perhaps more importantly, they say it would cut too little from the food-stamp program, which is about 80 percent of the bill's cost. "With the severe drought now pounding much of the country, this has become a genuine political problem for farm state Republicans running in November," Rogers writes. "And the House leadership must contend with friendly fire now from fellow Republicans in the Senate." (Read more)

In an editorial titled "Ease up on the drought drama," The Washington Post said, "The flawed bill is irrelevant to the farm belt’s current predicament, and it could perversely magnify losses from future natural disasters" because its shift to crop insurance "encourages farmers to cultivate marginal land and engage in other risky practices." (Read more)

House leaders look for ways to help farm-district members after blocking floor vote on Farm Bill

"Having blocked the pending five-year Farm Bill, House Republican leaders now appear to be racing ahead of their own Agriculture Committee to come up with some alternative to protect the party’s farm state candidates during the upcoming August recess," David Rogers reports for Politico. "Disaster aid for livestock producers hard hit by the current drought was one option under discussion Tuesday, as well as a one-year extension of the current law due to expire Sept. 30.

"Farmers are wondering why the stall on that and what the Farm Bill will offer, said House Speaker John Boehner, reflecting the concerns of Republicans from agricultural districts. “We understand the emergency that exists out in rural America and we’re concerned about addressing it as quickly as possible.” Boehner said he was working with Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, but Lucas did not appear to be fully in the loop. “I’d like some clarification of what I’m picking up on the grapevine,” Lucas told Rogers, who writes: "Asked if he was preparing a new package, the Oklahoma Republican answered with some exasperation: 'I’m not writing a package at this moment. I’m just trying to figure out what is going on for sure.'"

"Given the serious drought, there’s little question that the pressure from farm state lawmakers is growing," Rogers reports. "And Boehner, who spent his early years on the House Agriculture Committee, seems eager to respond. Livestock producers are most vulnerable because of the loss of good grazing lands as well as higher prices for feed. The House and Senate farm bills promise disaster aid for the current year, but without action, these producers are left without the protection enjoyed by field crops, for example, covered by crop insurance. Two leadership aides said a full-year extension of the current farm program was being discussed. But this was news to the Senate Democratic leadership and could be a perilous path given the fact that it would mean extending the current system of direct cash payments to producers at a cost of close to $5 billion a year."(Read more)