Reuters
writer Charles Abbott reported on Thursday that, “The
Senate could pass its $288 billion farm bill to boost food stamp benefits and
for the first time guarantee crop revenue by the end of next week under an
agreement on Thursday that broke a month-long impasse.”
Mr.
Abbott noted that, “‘With swift action in the Senate, this bill can
pass our chamber by the holiday recess,’ said Agriculture
Committee chairman Tom Harkin in a statement. Only hours before, the Iowa
Democrat warned that a parliamentary ‘train wreck’ might derail the bill.
“There
are roughly two weeks left in this year's session. Farm groups say it
will be impossible for Congress to enact a new farm law this
year. The
White House has threatened to veto
the Senate bill, as well as the House
version passed in July.
“If the Senate passes its
bill this month, House and Senate negotiators could draft a final version early
next year to send to the president,” the article
said.
Congressional Quarterly reported on Friday that, “After
reaching a last-minute deal on amendments to the farm bill, lawmakers resumed
debate Friday on the five-year reauthorization measure.
“Under
the deal, the Senate will debate up to 40 amendments, with the first
roll-call votes scheduled for Dec. 11. Republicans may offer 20
amendments of their choosing, with Democrats permitted to offer the same
number.”
DTN
Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom reported on Friday that, “Senate Ag Committee
Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said there would be no votes Friday or Monday, but
senators were free to offer amendments. Votes on amendments will be held
Tuesday.
“Harkin
said he hopes to finish the farm bill by the end of next week. ‘Maybe that's a
little optimistic,’ he said. Harkin also told reporters if the Senate
finishes the bill next week, it might be possible to complete a conference with
the House before Christmas, though it is more likely a conference report will be
completed in January.”
On the
issue of an executive branch veto threat, Mr. Hagstrom added that, “According to
lobbyists, the real issue for the White House is the revenue raisers in each
version that Democrats say close loopholes and Republicans say are tax
increases. A meat lobbyist said this week that the White House
calculation will come down to a decision about whether there is more to gain in
helping Republican candidates by sticking to a position of being unwilling to
raise taxes or whether there is more political danger in being blamed by the
Democrats for not getting the farm bill done.”
Also on
the veto issue, Dale Hildebrant reported on Friday at the Farm
& Ranch Guide (North Dakota) Online that, “When asked about the threatened
Presidential veto of the Farm Bill, [House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson
(D-Minn.)] indicated he has a plan of action in mind to gain President Bush's
support.
“As soon as the Senate
passes the bill and it goes to conference committee, he said he would call the
President and ask for the opportunity for just the two of them to sit down and
figure out what needs to be done to hammer out the
differences.
“‘I
think we can do that. I may have to agree to some stuff I don't like, but if
we can get all of these other people out of this thing and just sit down and
say, ‘Look, for the betterment of the country', hopefully we can work this out.
That's my plan.’”
And
Tom Hintgen reported on Saturday at The Daily
Journal Online (Minnesota) that, “U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota
Republican, said Friday during a conference call with The Daily Journal and
other area news media representatives that a bi-partisan agreement will likely
lead to passage of the five-year farm bill in the U.S. Senate in the near
future.”
The
article added that, “Coleman said Friday he is confident President Bush
will sign the bill, and not opt for a presidential veto.”
Meanwhile, Kevin Bogardus reported on Friday at The Hill
Online that, “Even if the Senate finishes a bill, a difficult conference with
the House likely awaits, probably in 2008. ‘There is no doubt that
conference will be tougher,’ said Robert Guenther, senior vice president of
public policy for the United Fresh Produce Association. His trade group is part
of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, which pushed for a farm bill vote in a
letter to senators last week.
“Guenther said the agreement is a
positive step, but warned the bill will have to be modified in
conference, and must still win the approval of President Bush, who has
threatened to veto the House and Senate farm bills.
“[Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid (D-Nev.)] insisted the Senate would finish the bill before adjourning for
the year. ‘We’re going to move through and finish this farm bill before we head
home,’ he said in a Friday floor speech.”
In more
specific news reports highlighting Senate floor action from Friday, Reuters news
reported on Friday (via DTN) that, “With the Senate close to
passing a $286 billion farm bill, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
proposed language on Friday to deny subsidies to wealthy investors and
hobby farmers with well-paying jobs in town.
“‘I do
not believe we should be handing money out to multimillionaires when the
payments should be targeted to family farmers,’ Klobuchar, a Democrat, said in a
preview of showdown votes next week on reform of crop subsidy
rules.”
The
Reuters article went on to explain that, “Klobuchar proposed more stringent
rules on who qualifies for subsidies. She would curb payments to large farmers
as well as blocking payments to nonfarmers.
“At
present, people with incomes up to $2.5 million in adjusted gross income are
eligible for crop subsidies and land stewardship payments. The Senate farm bill
has a $750,000 AGI limit beginning with the 2010 crop
year.
“In
both cases, there is no AGI limit for people who get most of their money from
agriculture.
“Klobuchar proposed a
$750,000 limit for ‘full time’ farmers and a $250,000 limit for ‘part-time’
farmers who get less than 66 percent of their income from
farming.”
The
Reuters article also stated that, “Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss
said Klobuchar was promoting ‘an unreasonable AGI
test’
that does not reflect modern agriculture, which relies on high-cost equipment
and land but has small profit margins.”
Senator
Chambliss issued a press release on Friday, which stated that,
“U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, today took to the Senate floor in opposition of an
amendment offered by U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) to the Food and
Energy Security Act of 2007. The amendment would address changes to the
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) test and ultimately jeopardize the agriculture
safety net. Sen. Chambliss noted in his floor speech the pending farm
bill already includes a provision that reduces the income level for determining
program eligibility by 70 percent over a period of two
years.
“‘I
have worked diligently with members of the Agriculture Committee over the last
several months to try to make additional reforms to the payment limit issue from
the 2002 farm bill to this farm bill,’ said Sen. Chambliss. ‘We
have made significant reforms by reducing the $2.5 million AGI limit down to $1
million in 2009 and $750,000 by 2010.’
“‘The committee reported farm
bill currently before the Senate also eliminates the so-called ‘three-entity
rule’ whereby individuals could also be members of a trust, corporation,
limited partnership or other similar entity and each of those entities were also
eligible for a separate limitation. Additionally, this bill includes
provisions that would requires the Secretary to directly attribute farm program
benefits paid to an individual or legal entity back to a natural person
regardless of the nature of the farming operation earning those
payments.’”
The
podcast includes audio from Sen. Klobuchar explaining her amendment in detail,
and also includes audio of her arguments for why the amendment should be
supported. The podcast also
features rebuttal arguments from Sen. Chambliss, who made a case that the
amendment should not be passed. To
listen to these back and forth comments from the two Senators, just click here.
| AASCOE
Board Member District II |
National Association of FSA County Office
Employees | |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|