Politicians target $15 billion in direct payments, $4 billion in conservation funds

By JERRY HAGSTROM

For the Capital Press

WASHINGTON -- The leaders of the House and Senate agriculture committees say they will support $23 billion in ag budget cuts over 10 years in exchange for an opportunity to write a new five-year farm bill as part of the bill the Congressional super committee in charge of deficit reduction is supposed to send to Congress by Dec. 23.

In a letter to the committee, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; Senate Agriculture ranking member Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla.; and House Agriculture ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said they would send recommendations on how to achieve those cuts by Nov. 1.

The four ag leaders did not say how they would divide the cut, but Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said that Stabenow, Roberts, Lucas and Peterson plan to achieve the savings by cutting $15 billion from direct payments and $4 billion each from conservation and nutrition programs.

The agriculture committee leaders did not say in the letter that they want to write a new farm bill, but staff aides have been working furiously for weeks to try to prepare one and have been consulting farm lobbyists about what they would want -- or at least could live with -- in a new bill.

Members of Congress and farm lobbyists say they believe they can better protect farm programs in the super committee process than in the regular order of business, which would open the bill to amendments on the House floor and require 60 votes to end debate in the Senate.

The process through which the four principals may lead the farm bill discussion remained a mystery. One Capitol Hill aide said that it is unlikely they would hold hearings or markups before finalizing a proposal.

The tight deadline has also set off intense competition among agricultural interests, with commodity groups facing off against crop insurance interests and general farm groups divided.

Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said he is afraid that writing the farm bill through the super committee process, which does not allow amendments on the floor of the House or Senate, will mean the bill gets written without input from "healthy food reformers."

While three of the four leaders have made no comments to the press beyond their joint statement, Roberts issued his own statement, "I am pleased this agreement protects the crop insurance program by keeping its baseline whole, regardless of any interactions from other programs."

The American Farm Bureau Federation wants to maintain current farm programs -- including direct payments -- but is willing to accept reductions in those programs.

It sent Congress a letter questioning proposals by commodity groups that would attempt to help protect farmers from "shallow losses" that are not covered by crop insurance.

On Oct. 19, the American Soybean Association and the National Corn Growers Association joined with the National Farmers Union to write Congress that they support a "revenue-based risk management program" to replace parts of the existing farm safety net.

They also disputed Farm Bureau's concerns about shallow losses, "Under a revenue-based program, compensation for losses that exceed a certain threshold would only be made as they are incurred, on all production, and only on a portion of the loss."

Meanwhile, David Graves, a lobbyist for the American Association of Crop Insurers, said that the group was pleased by Roberts' statement because its members had worried that some of the proposals to cover shallow losses may be duplicative and undermine use of the program.

While the commodity groups, the crop insurance industry and the general farm groups squabble, other groups are also trying to maintain their place in the farm bill. Sugar growers and dairy farmers want their programs in the bill,and the United Fresh Produce Association is lobbying to maintain the fresh fruit and vegetable snack program in schools.