Statement of Administration Policy

Here is the link to the White House statement of Administration Policy on farm bill programs. It's a triple whammy: the f/v planting restriction, f/v program and the transfer of border inspectors back to USDA all get a thumbs down from the White House. Here are some highlights ( or low lights), but note the difference between "oppose" and "strongly oppose.":


At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by over $28 billion in one year, it is irresponsible to further increase commodity price supports that make payment programs more market-distorting. In addition, it is alarming that the Senate farm bill shifts the timing of farm payments in a fashion that does not allow for the proper accounting of $9.8 billion in actual government outlays. The Administration hopes these concerns can be addressed by continuing to work with Congress. However, if the bill were presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

The final farm bill must:

• better reflect the program reforms, and not exceed the spending levels, as proposed in Administration’s farm bill legislative proposal in connection with the President’s fiscal year 2008 budget submission;
• include reforms in marketing loan benefits for all years of the farm bill to address the "pick your price" issue;
• remove the provisions that make it more difficult to defend farm programs against trade challenges and distort our ability to advance the goal of free trade in international markets;
• eliminate timing shifts and unrealistic program sunsets that mask $22 billion in hidden costs to the taxpayer; and
• eliminate tax increases.

On items of interest to f/v interests:

The Administration also supports fully lifting the fruit, vegetable, and wild rice planting restrictions to eliminate any question that direct payments are "green box" in light of the WTO rulings in the Cotton dispute with Brazil.

The Administration opposes the Committee’s expansion of the Fruit and Vegetable Program to all States, which would increase direct spending by nearly $1 billion over five years. The Administration’s farm bill proposal increases the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables through the school meal programs, which make better use of existing purchase authorities and existing programs.

Potential Floor Amendments
The Administration understands that amendments may be offered to facilitate trade with the Cuban regime, raise the wage cost of agriculture-related construction, such as ethanol facilities, and disrupt Federal organizations that conduct agricultural inspections. The President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill if it contains any such amendments. Therefore the Administration strongly opposes any amendment that:
• would loosen current sanctions and restrictions against Cuba. The Administration believes that it is critical to maintain sanctions and restrictions to deny economic resources to the Castro regime. Lifting the sanctions now, or limiting our ability to enforce them, would provide assistance to a repressive regime at the expense of the Cuban people.
• attempts to include an expansion of the Davis-Bacon provisions. An expansion is contrary to the Administration’s long-standing policy of opposing any statutory attempt to expand or contract the applicability of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements.
• would transfer the Agricultural Inspection Function from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to USDA. Such a transfer of thousands of employees would divert attention from the real mission to prevent the entry of harmful plant and animal pests, disease, and threats to our agricultural resources and food supply. Furthermore, a transfer would degrade enforcement and seriously undermine the integrated border enforcement capabilities created with the formation of DHS. A transfer would also delay efforts to identify needed improvements in agricultural inspection, and set the program back for several years while another readjustment occurs for both USDA and DHS.
In addition, the Administration would strongly oppose any amendment that would appear to alter the roles and responsibilities of USDA, DHS and other departments defined in Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPD) 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002.