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.

Amid drought, farm income predicted to be way up

With 2012 corn and soybean supplies expected to be the lowest in almost a decade and their prices at new highs, partly because of an exceptional drought in much of the southern Midwest, U.S. net farm income is set to hit its highest levels since 1973 despite the drought's impact on production, according to Tuesday's U.S. Department of Agriculture farm and cost report.

In real numbers, that means net cash income for farms could exceed $139 billion. Agri-Pulse reports that  "the balance sheet also looks extremely good," with farm equity expecting to increase to an all-time high of almost $2.3 trillion in value. "Debt repayment capacity utilization -- a measure of farm exposure to financial risk -- is forecast to be at its lowest since 1970," the agricultural newsletter explained.

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

Delaware, Maryland entice and train young farmers with grants and no-interest loans

Cara and Philip Sylvester, on their farm
in Delaware (State photo)

Two states have recently introduced programs that make it easier for young people to start farming.

In Maryland's Montgomery County, this month County Executive Isiah Leggett announced an initiative that will train young farmers and place them on privately owned land to grow sustainable crops and livestock for five years or more. The Washington Post reports that county officials hope to approve five to 10 participants this winter and prepare them to farm in the spring. Funded by a federal Small Business Administration grant, the New Farmer Pilot Project aims to help build small farms at a time when the county is struggling to preserve farming. (Read more)

In Delware, 10 young farm families and individuals are on their way to owning their dreams with help from an economic development program designed to boost agribusiness in The First State. The farmers from Kent and Sussex counties all received help purchasing land – nearly 900 acres total – from the Delaware Young Farmers Program, marking its first year. The no-interest loan program was launched in July 2011 by Gov. Jack Markell as a way to reduce the capital investment for young people looking to set up agribusiness operations. It was funded through $3 million in the fiscal 2012 budget. (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.

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)

House leaders likely to delay Farm Bill until after election, to keep political messaging consistent

The last time Republicans took over the House, they couldn't produce a Farm Bill on schedule. This time, they are bottling up one the House Agriculture Committee has approved rather than have a floor fight between their traditionalists and their new Tea Party faction, led by Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, at left with Speaker John Boehner. (Getty Images photo by Mark Wilson)

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says nothing is more important to rural America than passage of the bill, partly because "the government’s capacity to respond to the drought is somewhat limited due to the lack of disaster programs," Julie Harker of Brownfield reports. But it seems that even the worst drought in decades won't get the Farm Bill to the floor for a vote anytime soon, David Rogers reports for Politico.

The bill would cut $35 billion from mandatory spending over 10 years, exactly the kind of cuts Congress promised to make last year, Rogers notes, but that's not enough for Tea Party types. He writes that the Republican leadership would rather delay a vote until a "lame duck" session after the November elections than "disrupt its political messaging."

Delaying the Farm Bill is "new ground for any Congress," Rogers writes. "Never before in modern times has a farm bill reported from the House Agriculture Committee been so blocked." He says there has never been a situation like this in 50 years of farm bills. "There have been long debates, often torturous negotiations with the Senate and a famous meltdown in 1995 when the House Agriculture Committee couldn’t produce a bill" in the wake of the last Republican takeover. "But no House farm bill, once out of committee, has been kept off the floor while its deadline passes."

Rogers writes, "There's some logic to letting voters reshuffle the deck before tackling tough issues," but that's not what's happening in this situation. "The Senate has already approved its farm bill; even if Republicans were to win [Senate] control in November, the GOP’s majority will be so narrow that Democrats will be able to block wholesale changes. In the House, the only certainty about a lame duck is there will be even more unhappy people hanging around," he writes. The real reason for Speaker John Boehner to delay the farm bill is that "He doesn’t like the answers he sees," Rogers says, "not because there will be better answers after the election."

Rogers writes that Boehner would rather "run out the clock with symbolic anti-red tape, anti-tax votes on which the GOP is more united" than "wrestle with this problem" of passing the Farm Bill before Sept. 30, when the current farm law expires and Congress will be panting to go home and campaign. The August recess means there are few days left to legislate before the election. (Read more)

Vilsack warns drought will worsen, raise prices; organic stock get a double hit as pastures dry up

The worst drought in decades is getting worse and will mean higher food prices for consumers, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said at a briefing in the White House Press Room yesterday. He also said the suggestion of waivers from ethanol mandates on oil companies isn't necessary because it's not affecting the price of corn, as some farmers have suggested.

Vilsack said an additional 39 counties have been designated as primary natural disaster areas, raising the total to 1,297 in 29 states. Here is the list. Russ Blinch of Reuters reports. Vilsack urged Congress to work with the administration to improve aid to farmers, something the new Farm Bill could do. The House has stalled on voting on its version of the bill. Peter Baker of The New York Times reports. Vilsack said more than three-quarters of U.S. corn and soybean crops are in drought-affected areas, and more than one third of those are now rated poor to very poor.

Corn prices have risen to almost $8 a bushel, making it difficult for livestock producers to buy animal feed. This will likely cause the price of beef, poultry and pork to rise late this year or early next. Iowa Pork Producers Association President Bill Tentinger told The Gazette in Cedar Rapids that high corn prices would force many pork producers out of business, and the new Farm Bill would only help crop farmers, not livestock producers. Analysts predicted a 4 to 6 percent increase in beef prices pre-drought, but Hibah Yousuf of CNNMoney reports consumers could see 10 percent increases if the drought and high corn prices continue.

Meanwhile, Bob Meyer of Brownfield reports, "The drought presents a particular challenge for organic livestock and dairy producers. Organic standards require a portion of the ration to include pasture, and when pastures have dried up that is a problem. Another problem is while the price of conventional corn and soybeans hits record highs, the price of organic corn and soybeans is even higher." For Meyer's eight-minute audio interview with Harriet Behar, outreach coordinator for the Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education Service, click here.

Key Democrat says he will get Boehner to move Farm Bill, but sources tell Politico otherwise

The top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee predicted yesterday that that Farm Bill would   see House floor action the week before the August recess, but several sources told Politico that it "is unlikely to see a floor vote," reporter Jake Sherman writes. "The committee’s product won’t see the light of day. Instead, Republicans are likely to try to extend the current farm policy that they’ve consistently decried as broken."

Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said he and Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., "would speak to [House Speaker John] Boehner about the bill in the coming days," reports Amanda Peterka of Environment & Energy News,(a subscription-only service). "He's a practical guy. He's a friend of mine," Peterson said of Boehner. "Next week I'll go over and see him. We'll have a little talk. I think at the end, I'm predicting ... the last week before we leave, this will be on the floor."

Boehner's office has said the floor schedule is controlled by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is allied with more conservative members seeking bigger cuts in food stamps, which account for about 80 percent of the bill's spending.

"GOP leaders are worried about a messy floor fight over divisive regional policies months before voters head to the ballot boxes," Sherman writes. "Odd couples could abound: The far left and far right would likely vote against the bill on the floor, the former thinking the bill cuts too much from food stamps, the latter insisting cuts aren’t deep enough. There’s also division over how much the government should be subsidizing the farm industry and whether it should control commodity prices. Arguing complex farm policy on the House floor in this political climate gives many Republican members pause. If the House can’t pass a bill, then it would go into negotiations with the Senate with a weak negotiating stance." 

Sherman's colleague David Rogers writes, "The timing is crucial if the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are to have any hope of negotiating a final package before the current farm program expires Sept. 30," David Rogers reports for Politico. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told him, "We're not sure we could get the votes for an extension." Rogers writes, "The House floor debate could indeed be messy, but to do nothing would mean walking away from farm states months before the November elections."

There were more signs yesterday of a fractious floor debate, as two Democrats who withdrew major amendments on energy and conservation during committee markup of the bill said they would keep pressing their cases. Rep.Leonard Boswell of Iowa "pledged to continue fighting for mandatory funding" for programs that "help rural landowners make energy efficiency improvements, fund renewable energy projects and plant biofuel crops," Peterka reports. "At the markup, Boswell withdrew the amendment after committee leaders promised to work with him on the issue."

Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota "said he plans to continue working on adding a provision to the bill that limits crop insurance subsidies on newly tilled land" nationwide, not just in the Prairie Pothole region, Peterka reports. Walz said he withdrew the amendment because he was afraid of disrupting the 'fragile coalition' that [Chairman Frank] Lucas put together to move the provision forward on a regional basis.

House Agriculture Committee approves its version of Farm Bill, pushes for floor vote

The House Agriculture Committee approved its version of the 2012 Farm Bill about 1a.m. today. The bill would provide farmers with a new form of crop insurance and cut about 2 percent in spending from food stamps, officially the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program. The approval comes just three weeks after the Senate approved its version of the bill. Its prospects in the full House are uncertain; the current farm law expires in September.

An amendment repealing the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration provisions in the 2008 law, which were meant to protect small farmers by forcing new rules on meat and poultry buyers, was approved, Erik Wasson of The Hill reports. Approval of the bill is seen as a major victory for Committee Chairman Frank Lucas and ranking member Collin Peterson, left, "who had risked angering factions in their own parties to forge a compromise bill," Wasson writes. Lucas has said he will now immediately push for a full House floor vote, but his party leaders appear uncertain because of pressure from their right wing for more cuts in the food-stamp program.

The bill is estimated to save $35 billion over 10 years, mostly through major changes in commodity programs and cuts to food stamps, which are about 80 percent of its spending, David Rogers of Politico reports. Direct cash subsidies would end and be replaced by a new form of crop insurance, but target prices as a safety net, which are important to Southern farmers, would be kept. Five Democrats joined Republicans in a 31-15 vote upholding $16.5 billion savings over 10 years from food stamps. In a "pivotal" move, Rogers writes, Alabama Republican Martha Roby's amendment tightening procedures for verifying the legal status of immigrants receiving food stamps was upheld.

The strong bipartisan vote puts more pressure on House Republican leaders to give the bill a floor vote before the August recess, Rogers writes: "Seldom has a major bill moved so far in Congress with so little attention. But defying its doubters, it can no longer be ignored politically — with Iowa in play in the presidential election and the current farm program expiring Sept. 30."

The Environmental Working Group, a leading critic of how farm subsidies are structured, called the bill "the worst piece of food and farm legislation in recent memory. With the U.S government in a deep fiscal crisis, the committee’s farm bill increases unlimited subsidies for the largest and most profitable farm businesses. As millions of families struggle to put food on the table, the bill cuts funding for critical nutrition assistance programs by $16.1 billion. And with water, land and wildlife habitat under unprecedented assault by industrial agriculture, the committee’s bill slashes environmental programs by more than $6 billion while gutting regulation of pesticides, forestry, and genetically modified crops." (Read more)

Committee moving quickly through Farm Bill in hope of winning full House vote soon; that's in doubt

The House Agriculture Committee plowed through its version of the Farm Bill today as Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., right, pushed to bring the bill to the full House before the August recess and not delay action until a "lame duck" session after the Nov. 8 election.

The panel's ranking Democrat and former chairman, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, pointed a finger at Republican leaders: “If the House leadership fails to bring up this farm bill before the recess, they will jeopardize one of the economic bright spots of our nation’s fragile economy. Farmers need the certainty of a five-year Farm Bill. We cannot wait for the mess that will occur during the lame duck, and frankly, I think an extension of the current farm policy potentially creates more problems than it solves.”

Despite Peterson's partisan comments, his partnership with Lucas in writing a bill for committee consideration "appeared decisive thus far," reports David Rogers of Politico. "A ticklish political situation over an amendment by Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) to verify the legal status of immigrants receiving food stamp benefits was resolved peacefully. And five Democrats including Peterson joined Republicans on a pivotal 31-15 vote upholding $16.5 billion savings over 10 years from the program."

The bill "has caused intraparty tensions to flare up among both Democrats and Republicans, who are primarily squabbling over how much money should be allotted for food stamps," notes Daniel Newhauser of Roll Call. Liberal Democrats have railed against the cuts. The Senate has passed its own bill, and there is a possibility that House leaders could avoid a floor vote and go straight to House-Senate negotiations.

Lucas said he hopes to complete the markup tonight or early Thursday. Rogers writes, "Set in the blue and gold décor of the old Agriculture Committee rooms, the proceedings have an air of folksy formality. And the one-time Oklahoma rancher — his wife now heads the family’s cow-calf operation at home — is moving his herd along." (Read more)

House Farm Bill has more cuts in conservation, no mandatory funding for energy-related work

The House version of the Farm Bill "proposes a significant restructuring of farmland conservation programs and a downsizing of rural energy initiatives," Amanda Peterka reports for Environment & Energy News. "Unlike the Senate version, the House bill provides no mandatory funding for energy programs that help farmers and ranchers make energy efficiency improvements and plant biofuel crops." But it would expand the definition of "biobased" to include forest products.

The draft bill was released yesterday by the House Agriculture Committee and is scheduled for committee markup Wednesday. E&E reports that its conservation title differs from the Senate version by more tightly limiting enrollment in the Conservation Stewardship Program, "which rewards farmers and ranchers on a tiered basis for conservation activities" and does not include the Senate's "5 percent earmark for wildlife habitat projects." Like the Senate bill, it would cut to 25 million acres from 32 million the size of the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays property owners not to use marginal lands. "The reduction in CRP acres comes amid high crop prices that have spurred farmers to plant lands rather than set them aside for habitat and water quality reasons," E&E reports.(Subscription may be required)

Both bills would end direct payments to farmers and expand the crop-insurance system and limit insurance help for farmers who put native prairie land into production, but the House would apply that only to the Prairie Potholes region of the Upper Midwest. The so-called "sodbuster" rule is favored by environmental groups, sportsmen and the National Rifle Association.

House right wing's focus on food-stamp cuts complicates efforts to pass Farm Bill

A food-stamp fight will complicate efforts to pass a Farm Bill, reports Politico's David Rogers, perhaps the best in the business at explaining the politics of American agriculture and food policy.

To get the bill through the House, Rogers writes, Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) "must go to the right of the Democratic-controlled Senate, which took only $4.5 billion from SNAP," or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which the food-stamp program was dubbed in the 1996 welfare reform bill. "But in trying to show some deft and care, Lucas is meeting stiff resistance in his own committee, where nearly two-thirds of the Republicans are freshmen from the large 2010 class so influenced by the rise of the tea party."

Getting little or no help from House GOP leaders, Lucas has abandoned his hope "to build on the decades-old farmer-food stamp coalition, which has helped sustain support for rural agriculture in the more urban House," Rogers reports. "Instead, the path chosen by the GOP is a political dead-end in the Senate and could become a nightmare for farm and crop-insurance interests trying to fend off tighter income limits on subsidies." The bill would eliminate direct cash payments to farmers but create a larger program for crop insurance.

Food stamps are the largest single part of the bill. The right wing wants to repeal "categorical eligibility," which appears to have allowed states to enroll more people in the program, ballooning its costs. Rogers calls it "an administrative shortcut that’s become far more common since the economic downturn in 2008," putting more people in need of food stamps. The impending House approach "could drive at least 1.8 million people off the rolls and has twice been rejected by the Senate." Lucas and Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., the committee's ranking Democrat, want to raise food-stamp eligibility to 140 percent of the poverty threshold to compensate for repeal of categorical eligibility.

Rogers sums up: "Seldom have the haves and have-nots had so much common stake in one bill. Consider that for a family of three, the distinction between 130 percent of poverty and 140 percent . . . comes down to those earning $24,817 vs. $26,726 a year — about $37 more a week. That’s less than the annual direct cash subsidies for two acres of corn today. And this in the context of a debate where it was considered a major breakthrough for the Senate to trim the rate of crop insurance subsides for producers with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $750,000." (Read more)

Senate passes bipartisan Farm Bill; House faces split between Midwestern and Southern farmers

The Senate approved a wide-ranging, bipartisan-pleasing Farm Bill Thursday that would expand crop insurance, eliminate direct payments to farmers -- the backbone of farm subsidies since the mid-90s," notes David Rogers of Politico -- and make other cuts for a projected savings of more than $23 billion over its five-year lifespan. The bill passed on an unusual bipartisan vote of 64-35, after senators defeated most of the 73 amendments on a list agreed to by party leaders. The deal was brokered largely by Sens. Pat Roberts of Kansas and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, top Republican and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, right (Associated Press photo).

One amendment that didn't make the list would have prevented meatpackers from owning livestock, reversing the trend in the industry. It was worth a vote, the Daily Yonder opines. Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee blocked "implementation of regulations meant to bring a little market fairness into the lives of poultry and hog producers," the Yonder says. "What a lively week for the nation's livestock raisers!"

"In the final hours Thursday, exhausted Democrats only narrowly beat back two anti-regulatory proposals — each of which got a solid majority but fell short of a 60-vote threshold," reports Rogers. "On a 56-43 vote, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) came surprisingly close to winning a flat ban" on aerial surveillance of agricultural operations by the Environmental Protection Agency and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) "came even closer, 58-41, on his proposal" to let rural water companies forgo mailing annual reports to customers if no violations had been found.

The new emphasis on crop insurance created "a real and lasting split" between corn and soybean farmers in the Midwest and "Southern rice, peanuts and wheat growers," Rogers notes, pointing to the roll call (which is available from the Yonder). Bridging that split will be high on the agenda in the House, where Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) "is open to keeping some target price supports" to help Southern farmers, "a heavier government hand than some tea party Republicans may want," Rogers writes. "At the same time, Lucas is shooting for greater savings than the Senate, meaning he will have to cut more from food stamps, straining his bipartisan coalition with farm state Democrats." The bill passed Thursday would cut about $4.5 billion from food stamps. The House Republican budget introduced earlier this year by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would turn the nutrition program into block grants for the states.

The House is scheduled to start work on its own Farm Bill July 11, but before then it will consider an agriculture appropriations bill. "The fact that the Agriculture and Appropriations committees should be thrown together on the floor next week has its own irony," Rogers writes. "Both committees have a tradition of bipartisanship, which has earned them the scorn of many in the House Republican leadership. But that same history of working together is what the Senate was celebrating Thursday in Stabenow and Roberts’ performance." (Read more)

Senate votes mandatory funding for some Rural Development programs in Farm Bill

The U.S. Senate voted this afternoon to amend the 2012-17 Farm Bill to include $150 million mandatory funding for certain Rural Development programs in the Department of Agriculture, rather than leave them at the mercy of appropriators and administration officials.

The amendment would secure funding for non-farm microenterprise development, which advocates said is in danger, guarantee funding for water and sewer projects for which applications have already been filed; and avoid cuts in programs for beginning and minority farmers.

The vote, 55-44, was almost entirely along party lines, with Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri voting no and Republican Susan Collins of Maine voting yes. Collins' seatmate, Republican Olympia Snowe, voted no. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, another moderate Republican, switched from no to yes near the end of the vote.

Debate was limited to one minute on each side by the agreement governing consideration of 73 amendments to the bill. Democrats Sherrod Brown of Ohio, left, who sponsored the amendment, and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, chair of the Agriculture Committee, spoke for it. She implicitly defended her committee's decision to leave the usual Rural Development title out of the bill, saying the move eliminated 16 specific spending authorizations. For Brown's press release on the amendment, click here.

Republican Pat Roberts of Kansas opposed the amendment, saying it reduces the five-year savings in the bill to an estimated $23.2 billion, and "If we're going to achieve savings we've got to hold the line."

Final Senate approval of the bill is expected next week. UPDATE, June 20: Agri-Pulse reports that it could pass this week. The early consideration of the Rural Development amendment, because of its financial implications, may have helped secure its passage.

Meredith Shiner of Roll Call reported that "Sources were cautiously optimistic that the Senate will approve a bill that received a bipartisan 16-5 vote out of committee. But it is also clear that certain regional disputes will be tougher to bridge and that even if the Senate does pass the bill, the road to the president’s desk likely will be difficult, if not impossible, with a Republican-controlled House."

Shiner wrote that the agreement on the amendments was a "massive" deal that was passed by unanimous consent and includes some measures that are not germane to the bill Reuters reports several of the amendments, including those about debt reduction, subsidies and soil erosion, "are meant to put lawmakers on the record on hot-button spending issues."

David Rogers of Politico reports that crop insurance, sugar price supports and food stamps "will all likely be subject to multiple challenges testing their political support." Rogers also reports that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was promised a vote on his RAISE Act, which amends labor laws to give employers more ability to reward performance bonuses. The Associated Press notes the bill, which financially is mainly about nutrition, will provide $80 billion a year for the food-stamp program.

The Rural Development amendment was "hanging by a thread," Chuck Hassebrook of the Nebraska-based Center for Rural Affairs wrote earlier for the Daily Yonder. He asked, "Why is the political system unresponsive to the more than 95 percent of rural people who do not farm but need jobs, opportunity and community development?" He offered these answers: "Rural Development gains little mention in the news media. It’s not on the list of concerns that pundits say must be resolved before the Farm Bill can muster enough support to pass the Senate. Rather, all eyes are on the dispute between Midwestern and Southern agriculture interests on how commodity payments are structured. Rural development scarcely prompts a mention. . . . Our organizations are not presumed, individually or collectively, to represent the rural masses. And there is little fear that ignoring our pleas will prompt dire electoral consequences with rural voters generally."