The case for Dorgan Grassley

From the office of Sen. Byron Dorgan:

(WASHINGTON, DC) – U.S. Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are offering an amendment to the farm bill, now before the Senate, that would put a hard cap on federal farm program payments and ensure that only farmers get payments. Debate on the amendment began today with a vote expected on Thursday morning.

“We have a federal farm program to help family farmers make it through tough times,” Dorgan said. “It was not created to send multi-million dollar payments to giant corporate farms, or payments to people who haven’t been near a farm in decades. Our amendment puts a reasonable cap on payments to any one farm, and requires that those receiving farm program payments be actively involved in farming. The farm bill before the Senate is a good one, but our amendment will make it better by returning its focus to where that focus needs to be – helping family farmers.”

“This amendment hits right where our farm program unfairly tilts the lion’s share of farm payments to a fraction of the nation’s biggest farmers. It will help allow young people to get into farming and lessen the dependence of federal subsidies,” Grassley said. “We’ll also begin to restore public respectability for the federal farm program by targeting this assistance to those who need it.”

The Dorgan-Grassley amendment is the only amendment to the farm bill that preserves the farm safety net while putting a hard cap on all three program direct payments, countercyclical and average crop revenue payments, and marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments.

A similar amendment passed the Senate during the 2002 farm bill debate. The language was ultimately taken out of the bill during conference committee negotiations.

Specifically, the amendment would do the following:

• Set a hard, enforceable cap of $250,000 for payments received by any one individual on an annual basis.

• Limit the amount that farms could receive under specific programs to $40,000 for direct and fixed payments, $60,000 for counter-cyclical and average crop revenue payments, and $150,000 for marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments.

• Close the loopholes that allow mega farms to receive many multiple times the soft, unenforceable current nominal cap of $360,000.

• Require individuals to be actively engaged in farming to receive payments, adopting recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office and the USDA Payment Limitations Commission established by the last farm bill.

The $1.1 billion in savings generated by this amendment will be reinvested to aid young beginning farmers trying to break in to the agriculture industry, conservation programs that preserve land and water resources, and nutrition programs that help feed seniors, children and others in need.

Dorgan-Grassley up for grabs

Breaking this pm from the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:

Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (H.R. 2419)

The Senate has just proceeded to up to two hours of debate on the Dorgan-Grassley amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500, to strengthen payment limitations and direct the savings to increase funding for certain programs (#3695, as modified).

Upon the use or yielding back of this time (approximately 6:25pm, if all time is used), the Senate will proceed to roll-call votes in relation to the following amendments:

Alexander amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500, to increase funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, with an offset (#3551)

Alexander amendment to Harkin-Chambliss substitute #3500, to limit the tax credit for small wind energy property expenditures to property placed in service in connection with a farm or rural small business (#3553)

What's going on with the RSS feeds?

Well, I couldn't tell you, but it seems to be a system-wide problem for blogger today. You will find the RSS feeds I have on the right hand side of the column - Mulch, CSPI, USDA, Real Clear Politics, Heritage blog, Barfblog, etc. - are broken. I anticipate they will work tomorrow, just as I think the sun will rise. I'm a glass half full kind of guy, after all.

This may be a good opportunity for you to give me any feedback you have on the RSS feeds Fresh Talk features. What is your single favorite RSS link?

As for me, Mulch blog is the one I find going to most often, despite the fact Ken Cook infamously once called produce industry lobbyists the "cheapest date in town."

Short term extension

From Kate Cyrul, press spokesperson for the Senate Agriculture Committee comes this word about an agreement for a short term extension in the farm bill. From Kate:

Chairman Harkin agreed to the short-term extension of the current farm bill to ensure that nothing falls through the cracks while we work on a new bill in Congress. This need became more evident – and Chairman Peterson and his staff were convinced – when economists realized we could lose billions from our baseline if anything were to lapse. This short-term extension provides funding at a low level to keep agencies running, while keeping the pressure on to get a new, 5-year farm bill passed as soon as possible.

TK: Also, from the Senate floor staff are notes about debate time for pending amendments:

We just entered into the following consent agreement regarding debate time on the following pending amendments to the Farm bill:

- Alexander amendments #3551 and #3553 (60 minutes);

- Gregg amendment #3673 (2 hours);

- Dorgan-Grassley amendment #3695 (2 hours);

- Sessions amendment #3597 (30 minutes);

- Klobuchar amendment #3810 (60 minutes); and

- Coburn amendments #3807, 3530 and 3632 (90 minutes).

The amendments are to be debated in the order listed. We have not set any times for roll call votes in relation to the amendments with the exception of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment (9:15am, Thursday). Once a time is reached to vote in relation to an amendment or a stacked sequence of amendments, another message will be sent.

Manager's amendment

Kate Cyrul at the Senate Agriculture Committee reports that more than 100 amendments have been cleared by both sides for inclusion into the manager's amendment, which she reports is "still coming together." More Democratic amendments will be laid down this afternoon.

Robert Guenther of United reports that one question is whether Calif. Sen. Dianne Feinstein will present an amendment that will transfer AQI (border pest inspection services) from the Department of Homeland Security back to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Feinstein may also have an amendment about the leafy greens marketing order, but that could be included in the manager's amendment.

Craig making some noise

Sen. Craig continues to support the grower community, despite being hamstrung politically by the June incident at the Minneapolis Airport. I'll keep you posted if I see this come up today.

From the American Land Rights Association:


December 10, 2007
CRAIG OFFERS EMINENT DOMAIN SAFEGUARD
Amendment to Farm Bill would bolster farmers' and ranchers' property rights


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Idaho Senator Larry Craig offered an amendment today to the 2007 Farm Bill that seeks to preserve the private property rights of the nation's farmers and ranchers. The amendment, cosponsored by Senator Brownback (R-Kan.) and Senator Allard (R-Colo.), would deter States and local governments from using eminent domain proceedings to take working agricultural land for parks, open space, or conservation areas. The amendment includes exceptions for traditional eminent domain uses for projects to benefit the public good, such as power lines, roads, schools, or other similar projects.

"Private property rights are one of the most basic pillars of our free society," Craig said. "If cities, counties or states want to preserve open space, they should find a willing seller. Unfortunately, in the wake of the Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London decision, governments all across the country are being tempted to abuse eminent domain to seize private land for uses the Founding Fathers never intended. I think this amendment strikes a balance, allowing State and local governments to continue using an effective tool to benefit the public, while preserving farmers' and ranchers' land rights."

While the amendment does not prohibit the use of eminent domain to convert farm or ranchland into parks or open space, it creates financial disincentives for State or local governments to do so. Farmers and ranchers could continue to sell private land for parks or conservation purposes, if they so choose. This amendment has the support of American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Public Lands Council.

California and NAFTA - Myth and Reality

Roberta Cook of UC Davis had this powerpoint presentation from 2005 about "NAFTA at 11" that offers some great insights about factors influencing trade relationships.If you haven't voted in the Fresh Talk NAFTA poll yet, this may swing your vote to the option of "positive impact." She makes these summary points:

Exchange rates and the WTO have influenced California ag much more than NAFTA.
Mexico’s decision to join the GATT in 1986 had a greater impact on reducing trade barriers in the Mexican market.
Prior to joining GATT Mexico had high average tariff rates and major nontariff barriers in the form of licensing restrictions.
Mexico made a decision to “unilaterally disarm” in ’86, partly as an internal strategy for controlling food costs and inflation.
Mexican fruit and veg average tariffs were already reduced from around 50% to a max of 20% prior to NAFTA.
Licensing restrictions were removed on most ag products, including fruit/vegs. This began to open Mexico to US exports prior to NAFTA. (ag licenses: 320 in ’85, 57 in ’90)
The US trade-weighted average tariff rate for Mexican fresh vegetable imports was 7% prior to NAFTA. There were only a few fruits and vegetables facing high ad valorem tariff rates (like 25% on asparagus, 35% on melons.) Grapes were already duty free (big growth in Sonoran grape exports since NAFTA not due to improved market access).
Arguably, the US had the most to gain from improved market access since Mexico had higher average tariffs.

TK: Cook provides her take on myths and realities:

Myths and Realities
Myth:
It is an advantage to be underdeveloped.
Reality:
US ag benefits from:
enormous support in RD&D from govt. institutions such as USDA and from the land grant university system.
enormous public sector investments in transportation and infrastructure of many types, including water storage and distribution.
extensive private sector research targeting specific crop needs.
a transparent and relatively responsive govt.
unimpeded access to the largest consumer market in the world and usually a transportation cost advantage.
Myths and Realities
Myth:
Because fruit and vegetable production is labor-intensive, countries with low wage rates naturally have the advantage.
Reality:
Fruit and vegetable production is capital, technology, management, research, marketing, and infrastructure intensive.
Mexico’s advantage is generally seasonal (climatic advantage) rather than a cost advantage.
Exceptions: crops requiring bunching at harvest – green onions, radishes, asparagus, give Mexico a cost advantage; and avocados.
Myth:
A given wage rate differential is equivalent to the same differential in labor costs.
Ag labor is abundant everywhere in Mexico.
Mexican growers provide few social services to workers.
Reality:
Labor is generally less well trained and efficient, offsetting some of the wage rate advantage.
Certain areas also experience labor shortages.
Labor management can be challenging in Mexico due to social and policy issues.
Common to provide housing and schools.

Myth:
Food safety and pesticide practices are substandard in Mexico.
Reality:
Important to distinguish between domestically-oriented growers and export growers.
Although it depends on the grower/exporter, practices have improved markedly for exporters and many now are third party certified and implementing GAPS.
It is possible to find operations in Mexico with superior food safety controls.

Strawberry market look in