NFU News Clips, June 8

Written by Administrator

Friday, 08 June 2012 10:27

NFU News Clips June 8, 2012

PLEASE NOTE - Contents in the NFU News Clips are presented from their original sources. National Farmers Union does not have editorial control over the content. NFU does not endorse the views and issues contained in these articles and they do not necessarily represent NFU's official policy and positions. The News Clips are intended to provide news stories as they are presented by the media.

Click on the title of the story to read the full story

In this edition:

· National Farmers Union, CFTC chairman, food aid advocates decry House approps bill

· Next Move for Senate Farm Bill?

· Amendments cover ethanol, insurance, beginners

· World Farmers' Organization plans for trade statement

· Brazil grows into Ag export powerhouse

National Farmers Union, CFTC chairman, food aid

advocates decry House approps bill

June 7, 2012

Hagstrom Report

Jerry Hagstrom

The National Farmers Union, Rep. Rosa De Lauro, D-Conn., Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler and domestic and international food aid groups have issued negative reactions to the fiscal year 2013 Agriculture appropriations bill approved by the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee on Wednesday.

The bill includes $19.4 billion in discretionary funding, which represents a cut of $365 million from last year’s level, and $1.7 billion less than President Barack Obama’s budget request for the Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration, the CFTC and the Farm Credit Administration.

National Farmers Union

“Compared to some of the proposals that this committee has produced in recent years, the [fiscal year] 2013 appropriations bill is less severe in its percentage cuts,” said NFU President Roger Johnson.

“The bill still contains unacceptable provisions that would effectively remove any possibility that rules to restore fairness for livestock and poultry producers could be implemented, including a clearer definition of competitive injury,” Johnson said. “These common sense regulations should be put in place immediately, and it is extremely disappointing that language to prevent that is in the subcommittee’s bill. This language should be removed before the appropriations bill becomes law.”

Johnson also noted that the bill cuts $25 million from the CFTC budget.

“Now is not the time to be cutting from an agency that has an important role to play in preventing the next financial meltdown. Our economy needs stronger rules and more referees — not fewer,” said Johnson. “The bill passed by the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee is in need of considerable improvement in order to better serve family farmers and ranchers.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

“The lower allocation put forth by the majority breaks the budget agreement both sides came to last August, and that has real consequences,” DeLauro, a former chairman of the subcommittee, said in a news release.

“It will have a dramatic impact on the priorities embodied in this appropriations bill, especially in the critical areas of nutrition, food and consumer safety and financial protection,” DeLauro said. “Programs such as Women Infants and Children (WIC), Commodity Supplemental Food program (relied upon by low income seniors to put food on the table) and the Food for Peace program, which literally saves lives, all face cuts that will severely impact the people they serve."

“We also need to ensure the FDA has the resources necessary to protect the American people,” she continued. “It is the cornerstone of our food and product safety system, and yet the chairman’s bill funds it at $16.2 million below last year."

DeLauro also noted that the subcommittee had rejected an amendment she proposed to provide more money to the CFTC, and said she “will continue to keep fighting to ensure there is finally accountability for Wall Street and big oil.”

Commodity Futures Trading Commissioner Gary Gensler

Gensler said the cut to the CFTC budget “effectively put the interests of Wall Street ahead of those of the American public by significantly underfunding the agency Congress tasked to oversee derivatives — the same complex financial instruments that helped contribute to the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression.”

“The CFTC’s hardworking staff is just 10 percent more in numbers than at our peak in the 1990s, yet Congress has now directed the agency to oversee the swaps market that is eight times larger than the futures market,” Gensler added.

“Picture the NFL expanding eightfold to play more than 100 football games in a weekend, leaving just one referee per game, and, in some cases, no referee,” he said. “Imagine the mayhem on the field, the resulting injuries to players, and the loss of confidence fans would have in the integrity of the game. We would not want similar mayhem and loss of confidence in markets so critical to farmers, ranchers and end users that may result from this bill’s significant underfunding of the CFTC.”

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Feeding America

Kaptur, a longtime member of the subcommittee, said that the cuts to the commodity distribution program would reduce the number of people who can get food packages by 43,000 and urged members to go to food banks in their communities “and stand in line and watch.”

Feeding America, the nation’s largest chain of food banks, said the cuts would eliminate nutrition assistance for tens of thousands of low-income seniors, women, infants and children.

“This House bill, as compared to the bill passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee in April, includes a nearly $14 million cut to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which provides boxes of food staples to mostly elderly participants,” Feeding America said.

The group, which includes more than 200 food banks, also noted that the bill includes the cut to WIC and a $2.4 million cut in funding that helps food banks store, transport and distribute food.

Catholic Relief Services

Catholic Relief Services noted that the bill had cut more than 20 percent — more than $300 million from the current $1.47 billion level — of the funding for Food for Peace, a program that provides both long-term and emergency international food assistance.

As a result of this cut, up to 8.5 million people will no longer be served by Food for Peace programs, said Bill O’Keefe, CRS senior vice president for advocacy.

Additionally, the panel added a provision that would allow the government to divert up to 80 percent of Food for Peace funding dedicated to long-term anti-hunger programs for emergency use, O’Keefe said.

House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said that provision would make it easier to administer the program, but O’Keefe said allowing the diversion of 80 percent of the funds from long-term hunger programs would reduce them to $80 million or less. Developmental programs designed to boost agricultural production and improve nutrition in regions like the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, as well as in countries like Haiti, South Sudan, Bangladesh, and Guatemala, would be impacted and some would disappear, he added.

O’Keefe pointed out that funding for Food for Peace has not been this low since 2004, when commodity prices were much lower. This level of funding could purchase 2.7 million metric tons of commodities in 2004 but less than half of that amount today, he concluded.

World Food Program USA

WFP USA, a group that encourages funding for the U.N. World Food Program, also decried the cuts.

The U.S. government has traditionally been the biggest donor to the WFP, the group noted, but said “the effectiveness of emergency response is now challenged by the reality of shrinking budgets and the unlikelihood of supplemental funding requests.”

“When faced with funding shortfalls, humanitarian organizations like the U.N. World Food Program must prioritize life-saving interventions and reduce investments in preventative programs,” WFP USA said in a document it released. “Over time, this can lead to significant reductions in people's resilience, making each recurring crisis deeper and more costly to address.”

“In addition, people suffering moderate food insecurity may face reduced food assistance, forcing them to adopt short-term coping mechanisms to survive,” the group said.

Next Move for Senate Farm Bill?

June 8, 2012

Farm Futures
Willie Vogt

As the ayes and nays were counted up Thursday, it was apparent early that Sen. Debbie Stabenow's prediction of having 60 votes for cloture was an easy call. In fact, the Senate voted 90 to 8 for cloture, which means members of the chamber can move ahead.

The Michigan Democrat says the Senate bill represents "the greatest reform in agriculture in decades. The bill ends unnecessary direct payment subsidies, consolidates programs and cracks down on fraud and abuse." The Congressional Budget Office scores the bill with $23.6 billion in savings over 10 years and a total estimated cost of $969 billion for the same period.

Shortly after the vote was taken, farm groups weighed in with their take on the measure. Garry Niemeyer, president, National Corn Growers Association, says the "overwhelmingly positive vote on the floor reaffirms that Senators understand the importance of passing the 2012 Farm Bill this year. [NCGA] cheers the strong bipartisan vote and appreciates the work of Senators Stabenow and Roberts on this legislation."

SENATE AT WORK: The work begins in earnest on the Senate version of the 2012 Farm Bill next week.

Niemeyer adds that the measure creates reforms needed to reduce the budget deficit and provisions that "ensure a positive beginning for the next generation" of farmers.

Jerry Kozak, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation, says Thursday's action "greatly increases the chances that we can get our dairy reform proposal through the Senate, as well as the House, and passed into law this year." The legislation includes a new, voluntary margin protection program, endorsed by NMPF, to help safeguard farmers against what the group calls "disastrously low" margins.

The Obama Administration issued a statement after the cloture vote supporting passage of the Senate bill, but also says there are concerns to address before final passage of the measure. Essentially, the Administration applauds the cuts and savings, but sees further opportunities for cuts noting work to achieve "crop insurance and commodity program savings that are not contained in [the bill], while at the same time strengthening the farm safety net in times of need and supporting the next generation of farmers."

A key point of contention is a move to cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Spending by $4.5 billion. Already, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is pushing an amendment that would restore the cuts and get the spending through changes in crop insurance provisions. In the Administration statement, it was clear there is strong support for SNAP which it calls "a cornerstone of our Nation's food assistance safety net, which why it was not subject to cuts in the President's Budget."

In her post-cloture-vote statement, Stabenow pointed to a range of changes in the current measure. She has also acknowledged in press appearances that the Senate floor will deal with many amendments as full debate begins. Colleague and Senate Ag Committee ranking minority leader Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., notes the measure includes that $23.6 billion in savings and the elimination of at least 100 programs and authorizations.

In his post-vote statement, Roberts pointedly address the Obama Administration pointing out the hard work that had gone into crafting the final version of the bill, adding that "this is a reform bill. No other committee, in the House or Senate, has voluntarily undertaken programmatic and funding reforms at this level in this budget climate."

But what about those nays?

Eight senators voted no to the measure and comments from those that issued statements show that not only don't they think the bill goes far enough in spending cuts, but raises those regional concerns that have been bubbling on the Senate floor since the markup hearing. Check out the roll call.

Sen. James Inhoffe, R-Okla., was one of the nay votes noting that the Senate bill "contains several measures that would be counterproductive for Oklahoma farmers and our nation." He notes that of the $969 billion to be spent over the next 10 years, $770 billion - or 80% - is for SNAP. Inhofe raised concerns about the growth of SNAP which has increased 45% during the Obama Administration. He also expressed concerns about changes to the commodity title that would hurt Oklahoma wheat, peanut, cotton and other commodity producers.

For Orrin Hatch, R-Utah., the nay came over concerns about the cost of the bill and what he calls insufficient reforms to reduce redundant and duplicative programs noting the bill "spends money we just don't have." He points to the need to eliminate duplicative food assistance programs included in the measure. He says that as he looks at the bill, while he is hopeful it could be fixed, that it is "too fundamentally broken to be fixed."

As for Dean Heller, R-Nev., he is offering an amendment to the bill that would ban Members of Congress, their spouses, and immediate family members from benefitting from ag programs authorized in the bill. He called the current situation, where farmer-members of Congress are included in the farm bill, a situation where they are using their "position of elected office for personal gain." He calls that both unethical and unfair.

Looks like the debate, which could start next week, will include plenty of viewpoints and ideas. Stay tuned.

To view this story at its original source, follow this link: http://farmfutures.com/story.aspx/next-move-senate-farm-bill-17/60501

Amendments cover ethanol, insurance, beginners

June 7, 2012

Agriculture Online

Daniel Looker

By Thursday, more than 30 amendments had been filed to the 2012 Senate farm bill, ranging from a ban on support for ethanol blender pumps, to two approaches to limiting crop insurance premium subsidies, to increasing the bill's relatively small level of funding for beginning farmer programs.

Senator John McCain, a veteran critic of ethanol programs, has filed Senate Amendment 2163, described in the Congressional Record as "Prohibition on Use of Federal Funds Relating to Ethanol Blender Pumps and Ethanol Storage Facilities."

It's uncertain whether the amendment will be allowed a vote, but it makes industry groups like the Renewable Fuels Association uneasy.

"Senator McCain never misses an opportunity to try to roll back the progress America's renewable fuels industry is making in helping this country become more energy and economically secure," said RFA president, Bob Dinneen "Three out of four Americans say they want greater choice at the pump. Amendments like this would deny the will of 75% of Americans and only lead to a greater dependence on petroleum and higher prices for fuel."

Two amendments take different approaches to limiting subsidies for farmers' crop insurance premiums. One, introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), would reduce premium subsidies by 15% for farmers (or legal entities) with adjusted gross income above $750,000. The limit would start with the 2014 reinsurance year.

The other approach, backed by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) would limit subsidies for farmer premiums to $40,000 per year.

“The Shaheen-Toomey amendment simply proposes the same payment limitations that have been applied to direct payments for years,” said Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “This makes perfect sense as crop insurance has become the primary farm safety net.”

The EWG said the $40,000 hard cap on subsidies, would save the federal government $5.2 billion over 10 years. The Coburn-Durbin approach cuts spending by about $1.2 billion.

Both approaches are opposed by many farm groups, including the National Association of Wheat Growers, whose newsletter said Thursday: "If adopted, this amendment would limit participation in crop insurance and distort the risk profile of those who do participate. This change could also reduce the ability of producers to secure financing. Driving farmers out of the crop insurance program will reduce the overall safety net for U.S. farm production and could impair the ability of the program to function efficiently and effectively, leading to calls from farmers for supplemental disaster assistance in times of acute crisis."

The limits would not bar the largest farms from buying crop insurance, nor would they affect indemnity payments on losses.

They do have the support of National Farmers Union, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Center for Rural Affairs and Oxfam America. Those groups and EWG on Wednesday sent letters to all members of the Senate supporting premium subsidy limits.

Crop insurance would also be affected by another amendment from Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) that would tie conservation compliance requirements to crop insurance eligibility. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and former chairman, told Agriculture.com Thursday that he supports linking compliance to crop insurance.

Ag groups, including NAWG, generally oppose that, too, but not all. The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has it on a short list of key priorities.

According to the group's lobbyist, Fred Hoefner, besides supporting conservation compliance and the Coburn-Durbin 15% cut to premium subsidies for high-income farms, his group backs:

--an amendment by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) to ban packer ownership of livestock (prior to 2 weeks before slaughter, and not including small packers and coops).

-- an amendment from Grassley to put a $150,000 per year cap on marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments

--an amendment by Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) to direct USDA to spend a portion of its research budget on public plant and animal breeding

--an amendment from Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) that directs USDA to develop an organic price series so that the Risk Management Agency can start allowing indemnity payments at organic prices rather than much lower conventional prices.

A top priority for the group is increasing funding for rural development and beginning farmer programs, which Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) will push.

The Brown amendment, which would restore grants for popular beginning farmer training programs, also has the support of the National Young Farmers' Coalition.

To view this story at its original source, follow this link: http://www.agriculture.com/news/policy/amendments-cover-ethol-insurce_4-ar24570