|
 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No
Farm Bill Yet... The ongoing saga of the development of a farm bill came only slightly closer to a conclusion after the week’s efforts. During much of the week, it was nearly impossible to obtain information from conferees or staff, as a select group of conferees met to hammer out an agreement. An order was given that no information should leak from the debate until agreement was reached and the complete package was unveiled. Later in the week, word was received that an agreement on loan rates had been reached. However, there was a setback when Senate conferees announced midweek that the informal agreement on loan rates was not acceptable. House conferees, angered by the setback, left the meeting room. During a conferee meeting on Thursday, the House presented a proposal to Senate Conferees. The proposal, within WTO guidelines and yet offering as much support as possible, was a delicate balancing act. In an effort to compromise with Senate the provisions of higher loan rates, the target price on commodities was necessarily dropped, diminishing protection for producers. In the case of wheat, the loan rate was raised to $2.74, and the target price dropped to $3.92. Basic provisions of Senate and House Proposals as of April 19, 2002
Following proposals and counter proposals, a spate of press releases has been issued as House and Senate leadership and stakeholders assert their opinions. Generally speaking, commodity groups--except Soybeans--have spoken out in favor of the House proposal. However, Senator Tom Daschle (SD), who in an earlier media advisory said that he is "working to bring the farm bill out of conference negotiations and to the President’s desk for signature," blasted the House on what he called their lack of compromise. The House was quick to counter this criticism, pointing out that the House has proposed compromise in each of the areas cited by Sen. Daschle. Further Rep. Larry Combest (TX) pointed out the support of NAWG and other commodity organizations. Receiving a great deal of attention, not only in the conference, but also on the House floor, is the payment limitation issue. On April 17, the House voted on a motion to instruct conferees on the farm bill on the issue of payment limitations. The motion was introduced by Rep. Nick Smith and Rep. David Bonior, both of Michigan. In a speech on the house floor Rep. Smith spoke in favor of payment limitations of $275,000 per farmer per year. The motion was agreed upon by the House by a vote of 265 to 158. Rep. Max Sandlin of Texas spoke against the motion; calling it unnecessary and disruptive, and pointing out that a proposed amendment to the Farm Security Act, containing similar language was defeated by a bipartisan vote of 238-187. This motion to instruct is not binding on the conferees and is given due consideration by the Conferees. The 2001 emergency funding provision is in limbo. While the Senate waived the imposed budget limitations, allowing for its passage, the House is not expected to approve such a waiver. NAWG continues to seek a vehicle to provide the desperately needed assistance. The House Bill based on months of research and planning is a well-balanced and equitable bill. It provides a safety net to wheat producers and remains within the guidelines of our trading agreements. It does not encourage overproduction, and offers help during crop failures. NAWG has criticized the erosion of target prices, but understands the need to compromise and to find common ground. There is great need to pass a farm bill under the present budget resolution. If not, any bill written under new budget assumptions will be drastically reduced. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
