Correction: Lonoke farmer Dow Brantley is chairman of the Arkansas Rice Federation. This story incorrectly identified the organization and Brantley’s position.
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Wednesday said it’s essential that the farm bill remain tied to federal food and nutrition programs to ensure that the legislation can get the needed backing of big-city, as well as small-town and rural, lawmakers.
Vilsack, a former Iowa governor, offered insight Wednesday into the stalled farm bill during a meeting with nearly two dozen farmers and agricultural industry representatives in Little Rock.
“It’s a food bill because it gives farmers peace of mind to put a crop in the ground,” Vilsack said.
Farmers make up less than 1 percent of the nation’s population, he said, and many urban dwellers don’t “fully appreciate the risks, costs and hazards” associated with agriculture.
Since urban constituencies outnumber rural ones, “You’d better have something in the bill they do understand,” Vilsack said, referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as SNAP or food stamps) that’s included in the farm bill.
Vilsack was in Little Rock to give the keynote speech at a conference titled “Rooting Wealth That Sticks,” sponsored by the Delta Regional Authority and the Aspen Institute Community Strategies Group.
The event, which attracted more than 300 people from 27 states and the District of Columbia, focused on helping small, rural communities use existing resources to create jobs and encourage economic growth. Officials are hoping for better collaboration among small farmers and development of alternative crops, among other things. Vilsack’s talk focused on the importance of rural America.
The U.S. House and Senate have crafted separate farm bills and have been unable to reach a compromise on them. The previous farm bill expired at the end of September.
Now, a conference committee of congressmen and senators is meeting to forge a plan that is acceptable to both sides.
After his address, Vilsack said about 90 issues need to be resolved between the House and Senate versions.
A key issue is whether to remove the food-stamp program from the rest of the farm bill - something House Republicans support. The House version of the bill would also cut about $40 billion, or 5 percent, from the food-stamp program over the next 10 years. Democrats in the Senate oppose that plan and instead propose cutting about $4.5 billion over the next decade.
In Washington, the 41-member congressional committee responsible for reconciling the House and Senate versions met for the first time Wednesday afternoon.
Sen. John Boozman and Rep. Rick Crawford, both R-Ark., are members.
Boozman said he hopes that the committee can approve a five-year farm bill by the end of December.
“The path has not been easy, and we still have some differences to work out,” he said. “We are much closer to our goal.”
Crawford said he wants the final bill to look like the House version, adding that his constituents have weighed in on it during meetings in the state’s 1st Congressional District.
The chairmen and vice chairmen of the conference committee plan to work on the compromise measures over the break next week. There is no date set for the next meeting of the full committee.
“We all agree there will be some reforms,” House Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said after Wednesday’s two-hour meeting. “We just aren’t quite sure what those reforms will be.”
In Little Rock, Vilsack warned that pushing for big cuts in the food-stamp program could be a deal-breaker.
“If folks are insistent on a $40 billion reduction in SNAP, then we’re not going to have a farm bill,” Vilsack told the gathering.
Other farm bill issues that must be addressed include commodity/crop insurance, conservation compliance, help for the nation’s dairy farmers, investments in biofuel production and overall agricultural research.
In the absence of a farm bill, pricing reverts to what was in a law passed in the 1940s. So, for example, milk price supports would likely double what they were under the most recent farm bill.
Vilsack warned that delaying action on a farm bill will create uncertainty for farmers around the country as they try to sort out what crops to plant for next year. At the same time, key issues like trade promotion and unfair trade practices will remain unresolved.
Lonoke farmer Dow Brantley - who grows rice, cotton, corn and soybeans, and is president of the Arkansas Rice Foundation - expressed concern that the farm bill will be long delayed, and that Washington will be even slower to adopt the rules and regulations needed to implement it.
“If we get into March, April, May and June, as a row crop farmer, we’re already into our crops,” Brantley told Vilsack. He said an extension of the existing five-year 2008 farm bill (which had already been extended until Sept. 30) would provide some short term relief.
Greg Cole, president and chief executive officer of AgHeritage Farm Credit Services in Little Rock, pointed out that farmers are beginning to determine their financing needs for the 2014 growing season and need a farm bill to properly assess the risk.
“We need stable farm policy in an industry that’s unstable,” Cole said.
Before Wednesday’s session, Arkansas Agriculture Secretary Butch Calhoun said he agreed that if nothing else can be done, the existing farm bill should be extended for at least two years. He agreed that the food-stamp program needs to be tied to other farm programs.
He, too, noted that farmers are starting to put their financing packages together for the growing season but are stymied by uncertainty, and he said he hopes federal lawmakers will move swiftly.
“They need to get us something,” Calhoun said.
Vilsack told the group that for there to be a farm bill extension, funding would have to be found in the federal budget for the direct subsidy program for farmers - which, he said, would be difficult, given the overall budget debate.
He said if Congress were to push through a two-year farm bill extension, it wouldn’t include the direct payments. “You won’t have a farm bill,” adding that he had no idea what, if anything, might take its place.
If a farm bill does get through Congress and is signed into law by the president, it will take time to implement it, Vilsack acknowledged. He said he has directed Agriculture Department division heads to begin prioritizing rule-making so that high-priority programs can go into effect as early as possible.
Several times Wednesday, Vilsack said ideology can’t be allowed to halt passage of a farm bill. He said the food stamp program is just one issue. The dairy industry is another that needs to be stabilized, for example.
Vilsack said the Obama administration, members of the conference committee, congressional leaders and many other members of Congress are pushing for passage of a bill.
A comprehensive solution must be reached quickly, and partisanship could complicate things, he said.
“While you may want to have the luxury of making ideological points,” Vilsack said, “At the end of the day, there are benefits to be gained and serious consequences to be had if we don’t get it done in the next couple of months.”
Front Section, Pages 1 on 10/31/2013