Menu

OFBF listens to arguments about when to rewrite farm bill

by Amy Beth Graves

At first glance, the debate seems simple enough – should the United States extend the 2002 Farm Bill at least a year or go ahead and rewrite it next year? But dig deeper into the details and this turns into a very complex issue.

"There could be quite a showdown in Congress about the farm bill. There’s a lot of very different -- and very strong – opinions about what should be done," said Adam Sharp, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation(OFBF) senior director of national and regulatory affairs. "This is going to be a hot topic for several months."

American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has already taken a strong stance. In July, AFBF issued a statement urging lawmakers to extend the current farm bill by at least one year and make minor changes, if necessary, to comply with current World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. A couple of weeks later, the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance expressed strong opposition to extending the 2002 Farm Bill. The coalition represents more than 60 specialty crop grower organizations.

In Ohio, OFBF’s board and policy development committee have been listening to both sides of the argument to determine how Ohio Farm Bureau should weigh in on the issue. During an August meeting, board members had a lively talk about the farm bill, said OFBF Treasurer Brent Porteus.

"We’re looking at what role we can take that will most positively reflect Ohio agriculture," he said. "It’s not about one side versus another side – it’s about how to best represent our members’ needs."

The timing of the farm bill debate is perfect for OFBF’s policy development committee, which is currently examining pertinent ag issues and compiling recommendations for delegates to vote on in December. Earlier this month, the committee heard from a farm bill panel that consisted of an Ohio State University economist and members of the American Farmland Trust, National Corn Growers Association and Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance. (See Page 2 for a story on the policy development meeting.)

"This is an extremely complex issue that requires a lot of discussion," Porteus said. "We’ve been looking at this for some time but now we’re at a point where we need to determine what role we can play to be effective for Ohio agriculture."

The Bush administration favors rewriting the farm bill next year, and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has said Congress needs to make dramatic reforms to the farm bill, including cutting back on farm subsidies. He has said the current farm bill is unfair to specialty crops such as fruits and vegetables.

"Sixty percent of all farmers are all but left out of the farm program support because they don’t raise a program crop. So we have one group that gets the lion’s share of subsidies, and another group equal in production value that receives virtually nothing," Johanns told the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, last month.

The Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance has developed a series of farm bill proposals to enhance the global competitiveness of specialty crop producers. None of the proposals includes direct payments to producers.

"Now is the time for policymakers to take the lead and demonstrate commitment for programs that benefit all domestic producers," said John Keeling, CEO of the National Potato Council and co-chair of the alliance.

Johanns also has said the current farm bill needs to be rewritten before it is torn apart by WTO challenges such as Brazil’s successful challenge of U.S. cotton subsidies.

But AFBF argues that rewriting the farm bill next year could put the United States at a disadvantage with trade talks. The United States still has a proposal on the table that calls for reducing its domestic farm programs by more than 50 percent. In return, the United States wants more market access for U.S. farm products and significant concessions from other countries.

Since the WTO talks are on hold after falling apart this summer, now is not the time to rewrite the farm bill, according to AFBF.

"In the World Trade Organization talks, what the United States has to put on the table are our domestic support programs, and what most other countries have to put on the table is their tariffs. So if we write a new farm bill and we reduce some of those domestic support programs, in essence, we send our negotiators into the talks with a lot less leverage," said Mary Kay Thatcher, AFBF’s farm policy specialist.

Johanns has said the Bush administration is planning to issue its formal recommendations for the next farm bill a couple of months after the November elections.

"The Bush adminstration plans to write a new farm bill next year, but much will depend on this November's elections," Sharp said. "If the House and Senate stay in Republican hands, there is a good chance these leaders will work with the adminstration to attempt to write a bill next year. If the Republicans lose the House, farm bill discussions may stall. On Capitol Hill some think the farm bill shouldn’t be changed at all, others feel it needs drastic reform and some favor extending it so the United States won’t be at a disadvantage at trade talks. It’s definitely got people talking."

Caption: U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said his the USDA was opposed to extending the current farm bill during a visit to Union County last month.