Brownfield, MO
07-23-07
Payment limits advocates decry House farm bill
by Peter Shinn
High-profile payment limits supporters held a teleconference Monday afternoon
to blast the language on payment limits included last week in the House
Agriculture Committee’s version of the 2007 farm bill. The crux of their message?
That the measure wouldn't reform farm program payment limits at all.
Roger McEowen, an ag law professor with Iowa State University, told
reporters a little-known USDA regulation would, in and of itself, undo the effect of
language restricting farm program payments to those with over a million dollars in
adjusted gross income. And he said the USDA regulation on payment limits
would also do much more to erase the so-called payment limit reforms included
in the House version of the farm bill as approved by the Ag Committee.
"If it is not changed, it will gut direct attribution and have the effect of gutting the
so-called three entity rule," McEowen said. Asked by Brownfield if he felt the
House Ag Committee’s farm bill didn’t represent payment limit reform in any
meaningful way, McEowen replied, That’s exactly right. This is not."
The 2007 farm bill is expected to come to the House floor this week. But Chuck
Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs, told Brownfield
payment limits supporters are trying to slow the process down.
"We want there to be a cooling off period so people can learn the truth about this
bill," Hassebrook said. "And second, we will support an amendment to put real
payment limit reforms in this bill, much like the Grassley bill."
But they may not be able to get a payment limits amendment similar to legislation
introduced by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley (R) and North Dakota Senator Byron
Dorgan (D) attached to the House version of the farm bill. And if that's the case,
Environmental Work Group President Ken Cook told Brownfield that payment
limits advocates will work on getting tighter payment limits included in the Senate
version of the farm bill.
"We're certainly hoping that as the Senate bill moves forward that the debate will
become a little clearer," Cook said, "and that there won't be so much
misrepresentation of something as being reform that is not."