Next few weeks will be a critical time for farm legislation

By DALE HILDEBRANT, For Minnesota Farm Guide
Friday, December 7, 2007 3:43 PM CST

Rep. Collin Peterson

FARGO, N.D. - What happens in these next few weeks will determine whether there is a 2007 Farm Bill, or if the nation turns to an alternative solution of either extending the current Farm Bill or reverting back to permanent law to guide farm programs.

Either one of the alternatives will not be good for farmers according to Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), and Scott Stofferahn, one of Sen. Kent Conrad's (D-N.D.) Senate staff, who has been instrumental in drafting past farm legislation.

Peterson and Stofferahn addressed those gathered at the Northern Ag Expo in Fargo on Nov. 28 and brought the crowd up to date on the latest news regarding the 2007 Farm Bill.

Peterson, who is chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, guided the House version of the 2007 Farm Bill through committee and House action before the start of the August recess. The Senate, initially, was on course to follow the same schedule, with action completed by the August break followed by the two versions going to conference committee to hammer out a final bill.

“They tried,” Peterson said of the Senate action, “but it is the United States Senate and they have some goofy rules over there to say the least. And basically there situation is if you can't get every single Senator to agree, you can't do anything unless you can get 60 votes to close debate.”

Action in the Senate, according to Peterson, was first delayed because they didn't have enough money, but then the Democrats on the Senate Finance and Taxation Committee became involved and found the resources to fund the farm legislation.

“I give Sen. Conrad a lot of credit,” Peterson said. “Without him taking a role in the Senate, like I did in the House, they wouldn't have gotten a bill out in the Senate.”

Once the committee-passed Senate version of the Farm Bill got to the floor was when the trouble began, with over 300 amendments being offered for attachment to the bill, the vast majority of which aren't related to agriculture.

“One thing about the SenateŠthey all seem to think they know best what needs to be done,” Peterson said. “So you have these guys who aren't on the Agriculture Committee and who don't understand a whole lot about agriculture, introducing amendments that are absolutely crucial to the future of agriculture and they are not going to agree to anything unless their amendment gets considered. And that's got them bogged down.

“I've looked over these amendments that have been offered in the Senate and I can't see one single amendment that is useful that's being offered. A lot of them will guarantee that the Farm Bill won't pass if they are adopted,” he added.

Peterson indicated that many of these amendments are offered with the only purpose of dividing up the vote on the Farm Bill and thus assuring its defeat.

“Some of these amendments are meant to divide farmers so they can take us apart,” Peterson stressed. “Payment limits are one of those. Up in this part of the world this idea looks good, but you are not going to get any Southern support if the payment limits amendment that Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dorgan (D-N.D.) made is adopted. And if you divide the South and the North, that's the end - there won't be a farm program. Getting into a fight between big farmers and small farmers and the South and the North is the last thing we need.”

In the event farm legislation is passed in the next two months or so, there is some talk of passing an extension of the current farm program, which Peterson terms a solution that isn't realistic.

“Anybody who thinks we are simply going to get an extension of the current law without any changes is kidding themselves,” Peterson said. “There will be no money for conservation and no money for food stamps, and in the House, 80 percent of our members are urban. So if we end up with an extension, what's going to happen is they are going to take money out of the farm program and shift it over to those programs.

“We have a much better bill than an extension and we probably have until March before this really becomes critical. But I am not sure an extension can pass and if we don't get an extension we go back to permanent law, and for those of you who have been around long enough, that's the old quota system or production system based on parity.”

Under permanent law, Peterson noted the price support levels for milk go to about $30 per hundredweight, corn support would be around $10 per bushel, wheat $15 a bushel and sugar goes to $40 a hundredweight. And although these prices would be fun for a while, he noted, at these levels we would be out of the export market and production would have to be cut back to balance supply. In addition there would be no program for soybeans, and no conservation programs.

“But is not outside the realm of possibility that if we get gridlocked we could end up with 49 Law,” Peterson warned. “It would require a referendum and a bunch of other things. But hopefully this will all get worked out. My goal now is to try and get this done before the end of January and with any luck that will happen.”

Stofferahn, who was standing in for Con-rad because of conflicts in Washington, D.C., noted the Senate's version of the 2007 Farm Bill isn't too much different from that which was passed by the House, and where differences exist, they aren't major. And yet they have this array of amendments that have been offered ranging from alternative minimum tax to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which occurred in the 1980s, and from Internet safety to immigration issues, all totally unrelated to the farm bill, Stofferahn noted.

“Now if you want to hook an anchor around a bill, load it up with immigration,” Stofferahn said. “...(W)e have to find a way to get rid of those kinds of amendments that weigh it down and at least get something that is reasonable to vote on.”

Stofferahn said the hope is the Senate can move forward soon and pass their version so it can move forward to conference committee.

“We're never going to get a Farm Bill negotiated between the House and the Senate before Christmas,” Stofferahn said. “We'll be back at it right after the first of the year, if we should get something through the Senate.”

Stofferahn agreed with Peterson on an extension. “Get that out of your mind. There is no such thing as a one-year extension,” he said. “It will be two years because you are not going to work on a farm bill in the middle of an election year.

“If you want to get this Farm Bill moving, I would say to all of youŠput the pressure on that this has got to move,” he added. “That's the thing we have to do to get it going.”

When asked about the threatened Presidential veto of the Farm Bill, Peterson indicated he has a plan of action in mind to gain President Bush's support.

As soon as the Senate passes the bill and it goes to conference committee, he said he would call the President and ask for the opportunity for just the two of them to sit down and figure out what needs to be done to hammer out the differences.

“I think we can do that. I may have to agree to some stuff I don't like, but if we can get all of these other people out of this thing and just sit down and say, ‘Look, for the betterment of the countryŠ', hopefully we can work this out. That's my plan.” 

Comments »

Comment on this story

Comments will be approved within 48 hours

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)