|
|
|
|
|
|
| Iowa producers divided on ’07 House farm bill |
|
|
|
By DOUG SCHMITZ
Iowa Correspondent
JOHNSTON, Iowa — As some of the original architects of the 2002 farm bill, Iowa farmers are somewhat divided over the July 27 passage of the House version of the 2007 farm bill, which won approval by a margin of 231-191.
“We at Iowa Corn are encouraged that there are possibilities other than a continuation of the 2002 farm bill,” said Bob Bowman, Iowa Corn Growers Assoc. (ICGA) president and a Dewitt grower.
“The passage of the House of Representatives’ Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007 is a step in the right direction for production agriculture.
“We understand that passing a farm bill takes time and debate, but the House bill is a starting point for discussion as the bill heads toward the Senate.”
But while most state farm groups support the 2007 bill, some are concerned about the ban on federal subsidies to United States farmers making $1 million or more gross income, while the ICGA is now proposing a change to the bill that would make it county-based.
The 2007 bill, which embodies the $286 billion, five-year Food, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act – H.R. 2419 – would continue the family farmers’ food production safety net, and allow for increased funding for conservation and renewable energy. Under the 2007 bill, the renewable energy funding would pump an additional $2.5 billion into energy initiatives, which would be of particular interest to all Iowans, Bowman said, since Iowa is the nation’s leader in corn, soybean, pork and renewable fuels production.
Both ICGA and the National Corn Growers Assoc. have advocated a farm bill with a county-based revenue counter- cyclical program that would trigger payments based on a farm’s revenue rather than crop price. “We are determined to push toward a revenue assurance counter-cyclical, county-based farm bill,” Bowman said.
“There are Senate proposals for a state-triggered revenue assurance system. But we don’t think this accomplishes our safety net goals as well as a county trigger would. We think our proposal is fair to the producer and responsible to our taxpayers.”
According to the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF), however, the 2007 House version of the farm bill would balance the needs of U.S. farmers and rural communities, while “providing food assistance to our nation’s less affluent.”
“We were particularly pleased with the Iowa delegation’s unanimous opposition to Congressman (Ron) Kind’s (D-Wis.) farm bill alternative,” said Mark Salvador, IFBF national policy advisor.
“Mr. Kind’s amendment would have weakened the food security that our farmers provide this country.”
The 2007 bill would also provide some new conservation spending by reauthorizing the Conservation Security Program and increasing Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funding.
In addition, the bill would offer a $1.5 billion Commodity Credit Corp. bioenergy program and reauthorize the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program, which would double the funding to $10 million over five years for the program.
Ray Gaesser, Iowa Soybean Assoc. (ISA) president and a Corning grower, said the ISA had been working on the 2007 bill for a long time and is pleased the House bill passed with such beneficial soybean safety net provisions.
In the end, he said, the target price increase for soybeans from $5.80 to $6.10 and the continuation of the $5 marketing loan and $.44 direct payment were victories for Iowa soybean farmers.
“New funding and programs for conservation, renewable energy and rural development give the bill a good deal of momentum moving forward,” he said. “It’s a great bill for Iowa soybean farmers.”
Since the Iowa Cattlemen’s Assoc. (ICA)’s priorities in the 2007 bill focused largely on conservation provisions and country-of-origin labeling (COOL), ICA officials said they were also pleased that increased funding for programs such as EQIP are included.
“Our association favors country-of-origin labeling and has long been concerned about the delays in its implementation,” said ICA Executive Vice President Bruce Berven. “We are very pleased that the issue was dealt with in the farm bill and that the resolve was one that we feel is beneficial.
“Most cattle fed in Iowa are born, raised and processed in the United States, and will be labeled as U.S. product, in contrast with products from many other feeding areas where a lot of calves from Mexico and some other countries are fed and then processed.”
Berven said the ICA anticipated that the “Product of U.S.” label would stimulate demand for the high-quality type of beef traditionally produced in the Corn Belt. “Primarily, because of these two issues, we can support the House version of the bill and await the Senate version to see what other concepts may be introduced and passed,” he said.
But despite the bill including EQIP and COOL provisions, Berven said the ICA was also concerned about the House bill’s $1 million gross income limitation for eligibility to obtain funding which, he added, may backfire if left unchanged.
“In today’s marketplace, $1 million of gross income is very limiting and will preclude many producers from participating,” he said. “We hope the Senate version will address this issue and that it will be favorably resolved in conference.”
The Iowa Farmers Union (IFU), which has long campaigned against the growth of factory farms and other forms of corporate agriculture, was adamantly for a full-fledged competition title in the 2007 farm bill. “Without that, the concentration and monopolies will get worse, resulting in farmers and rural America getting less and less of the pie,” said IFU President Chris Petersen. “Our two U.S. senators support it.”
But Petersen said the direct payments needed to be reduced, or done away with over time, “as it is senseless support in many instances to people/entities (that) do not need it. We need stricter payment limits, period.” |
| 8/8/2007 |
|
|
