Farm News, IA
09-12-07
Senate begins work on farm bill
By Kristin Danley-Greiner, Farm News staff writer
U.S. Senators are itching to get started on their version of the federal farm bill, while some ag commodity groups are hoping for better policies for their farmermembers in the Senate’s version while closely watching the progress of this process in a tight schedule.
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa told Farm News that he doesn’t think the House farm bill is considered to be reform and won’t work.
“As much as I appreciate what Chairman Peterson was trying to do in the House farm bill, the bottom line is that it isn’t reform,î” Grassley said. “In fact, it’s a step backwards. Big farmers will continue to get bigger and young and beginning farmers will continue to be shut out. The Senate needs to step up and pass a real cap that the public has been asking for. The farm bill has been brought up at nearly every town meeting I have had the last several months. Limiting farm payments has been a major topic within those discussions, so I think we’ve got the grassroots behind us as we look forward to the Senate debate.”î
Grassley also said he hopes that the Senate takes up the issue of concentration in the ag industry, an issue he has focused on in the past.
“Along with payment limits, I’d like to see the Senate address competition in this year’s farm bill,”î he said. “Vertical integration hurts the ability of farmers to get a fair price for their products.”î
Recently, Grassley sent a letter to Senate Ag Committee members with Sen.
Byron Dorgan, urging them to include reasonable and legitimate payment limits in the farm bill. He and Dorgan have authored legislation that would close loopholes in the farm program that permit corporate farms and large-sized operations to collect sizable government checks. The legislation, known as the
Rural America Preservation Act, would set a limit of $250,000 for farm payments.
Chairman Tom Harkin also expressed concern about the House’s farm bill proposal regarding conservation. Under that bill, there would be no new enrollments in the Conservation Security Program (CSP), which was Harkin’s signature environmental initiative, until 2012.
Bruce Berven, executive director of the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association (ICA), said that the ICA is “pleased with the funding given to conservation programs, particularly EQIP, which have proven to be invaluable to cattle producers.”î

“We also feel that the House dealt equitably with COOL,”î Berven said. “We are supportive of the House version and do not expect the Senate to take up the matter, thus allowing it to have final resolve in conference committee.î”
What does concern Berven and the ICA is the current timeline legislators are facing regarding the farm bill.
“The timeline is concerning,”î he said. “Will the Senate bill pass early enough and how long will the conference take are two questions almost everyone is asking.
We cannot, however, at this point, predict whether the process will be completed on time. The matter of funding will have to be resolved for the farm bill to be successful.Ӕ
Harkin said that he and his staff are working “in consultation with other offices to iron out details and secure the funding needed to make his proposed investments in energy, conservation, nutrition and ru ral development a reality.”î
“Once this funding is secured, I will unveil my proposal and work quickly to get it marked up in committee and to the Senate floor,”î he said.
Roger McEowen, a Leonard Dolezal Professor in Agricultural Law and director of the Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and
Taxation , said that nothing may materialize in the Senate until late fall or even in
December.
“That wouldn’t necessarily be out of the ordinary, though,”î he told Farm News.
While the Iowa Pork Producers Association (IPPA) said it is pleased with the general direction of the 2007 farm bill, the group also is watching and waiting for the Senate to gear up.
“Overall, we believe the legislation will help farmers in general and pork producers specifically to help improve the environment with programs such as conservation spending,î said Dave Moody, a pork producer from Nevada. “While
IPPA is pleased so far, we realize that we’re a long way from having a final farm bill and we’re anxiously awaiting the Senate version.”î
Iowa Soybean Association (ISA) past president Ray Gaesser of Corning said that his group would have liked to have seen a higher target price established in the
House’s version of the farm bill.
“Otherwise, we were pretty comfortable with everything in the House bill and most everything in the Senate bill looks favorable,”î he said. “The main thing is that we need to be sure we have a safety net for farmers. Times are more volatile, and there is more risk than ever before, in agriculture. Conservation is an

important issue for farmers and the general public. Providing incentives to improve conservation practices is also important. We also need to continue to support farmer-owned renewable energy, improving current technology as well as devel oping new technology for renewable fuel production.Ӕ
The ISA also isn’t too concerned yet about the waiting game being played in this process.
“We never did think that things would happen in July,”î Gaesser said. “We knew that it would be later in the year or early next year before the farm bill is complete. There’s lots of negotiating to do and it doesn’t happen overnight.”î
Farmer Keith Sexton of Rockwell City, a leader with the Iowa Corn Growers
Association (ICGA), said that his organization has been working for more than two years to promote a county-based revenue program for the commodity title that would replace the marketing loan and the price based countercyclical program and would work ’’hand in handî with crop insurance rather than independent of it.
“We were very pleased the House Ag Committee, and the House of
Representatives as a whole, under the leadership of Chairman Peterson, included a revenue based program integrated with crop insurance as an option for producers to choose for their saf ety net,”î Sexton said. “While the House’s bill provides for a national based revenue program, Chairman Peterson has stated he would be willing to consider modifications to that option when the bill is in conference with the Senate. We will continue to promote to the Senate Ag
Committee and to Chairman Peterson the benefit of a county based program over a national or a state based program is that the closer the index is to the farm level — without being so close that an individual farm can influence the index average — the more reflective the program will be of the needs of the individual producer.”î
This aspect is important to the ICGA and would be beneficial for two reasons,
Sexton said.
“There could be regions of the country or state that have enough of a production shortfall that revenue is drastically reduced, yet the country or state as a whole had a good enough average revenue that income support is not triggered for anyone,”î he said. “There could be regions of the country or state that has good enough yields that producers in that region have adequate revenue, yet the country or their state triggers income support directing ‘unneeded’ benefits to that producer —funds that could have been distributed more appropriately to producers with greater need.”î
However, Sexton said that regarding the House’s conservation title, the ICGA would’ve liked to have seen more funding directed toward the conservation

security program that would be implemented “in a manner it was envisioned to work.”î
“Unfortunately, the House version allowed no funding for that program,”î he said.
“In the research title, we feel program crops were shorted on research dollars.
Because of high commodity prices, the budgeting process dramatically reduced funding for income support for the program crops; that is just the way the process works. However, we feel more research should be done on program crops that are in short supply to enhance the production of the most desirable traits of those crops.Ӕ
As it sits, the ICGA isn’t “overly concerned”î with the timeline the next farm bill is following.
“The WTO negotiations are picking up some and that could help the case of a revenue based safety net. Additionally, the more time legislators have to look at the pros and cons of the various commodity title proposals, the more consideration will be given to the features we think are important,”î he said.
“There are so many components to the farm bill that no one or two items will determine a ‘successful’ farm bill.”
Kristin Danley-Greiner can be reached at ksdg13@msn.com