The collegial Congressional process that promised a farm bill by last fall’s World Series now is so contentious that farmers and ranchers will be lucky to see the 2007 law completed by baseball’s opening day 2008. Moreover, if the logjam between key Senate, House and White House Farm Bill players continues through Feb. 24 or so, warned House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) in a teleconference with reporters Feb. 13, “the Department (of Agriculture) will have to begin working to put the 1949 act into place.”<br>


That means, clarified a clearly frustrated Peterson, “from our point of view” – his, Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who shared the teleconference with him, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) – “there will not be an extension” of the 2002 legislation.
In short, it’s either of new law by April 1 or it’s a Joe DiMaggio-era law by April 1.<br>


The Peterson-Goodlatte chat came the day after farm bill hens on Capitol Hill were sent clucking over rumors the House tandem had reached an understanding with the White House on how to move the stuck talks forward. The understanding, confirmed by Peterson late Feb. 12, was as simple as it was hard to swallow by both Republican and Democratic aggies in Congress: President Bush won’t veto a farm bill that costs $6 billion more than the current baseline if the House doesn’t get the extra $6 billion through higher taxes.<br>


With that yellow light to proceed, Peterson explained, he and Goodlatte—with help from other House gatekeepers – “sat down to see if we could write a bill with $6 billion more than the baseline, but no tax increases. And we did.”<br>


How they did it, though, angered every farm group and farm lobbyist with a chicken in the fight: they trimmed the wings – some severely – of nearly every farm program. “We’ve distributed the pain across all areas of the farm bill; we’ve disappointed everyone equally,” conceded Peterson.<br>


The deep cuts, both he and Goodlatte stressed time and again in the teleconference, are meant only to show how “a bipartisan” House can get to “a number” the White House says it could accept. Not one, however, “is cast in granite,” noted Peterson, a metaphor-challenged accountant by trade.<br>


As deep as the working House cuts appear, they are mere scratches compared to what the Senate must lop off if it’s to be in the same time zone where House-White House  negotiators are now flirting. The House-approved bill was $14 billion over baseline; the Senate-passed bill weighed in at more than $20 billion over baseline.<br>


But now it’s up to the Senate to “give us a number,” Peterson challenged Feb. 13, repeating the House’s is “not less than $6 billion over; what’s theirs?” Responding later that day, Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, thanked Peterson and Goodlatte for their “spending outline,” but pushed their push for a hasty end to the year-long fight – and a number – back on the White House.<br>


“We cannot enact this critically important legislation,” Harkin noted in a statement, “… without the help of President Bush (who) is still withholding the cooperation – particularly on obtaining funding – that we must have …”<br>


If the Senate maintains its “must have” spending – $14 billion or so more than the White House has signaled it would accept – then this first step toward any movement will stall before it starts. Should that happen, bet Grandma’s good china that the next month will be spent finger pointing rather than negotiating. After that we’ll have the answer to Paul Simon’s musical question, “Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?” He’s on the farm – with the rest of 1949.<br>

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Alan Guebert may write to him in care of this publication.