Mulch

We Need to Protect More Land, Not Less

2008-07-03T15:27:12Z

EWG Executive Director Richard Wiles penned this op-ed in today's St. Louis Post Dispatch. The piece is in response to a recent editorial calling for land to be pulled out from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and placed into production.

While the benefit to taxpayers from CRP includes critical elements like creating wildlife habitat, protecting water quality, and defending against agriculture run-off and pollution that greatly contribute to environmental disasters like the Gulf of Mexico 'Dead Zone', there is a major point in the piece that should weigh heavily with those advocating for these lands to be plowed under.

Every year, the land in the CRP provides greenhouse gas reductions equal to taking 11 million cars off the road, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates.

Read the whole op-ed after the jump.

We need to protect more land, not less
By Richard Wiles

07/03/2008

A recent Post-Dispatch editorial called for plowing up portions of the nation's premier farmland protection initiative, the Conservation Reserve Program, in hopes that planting corn on highly erodible lands will ease pressure on corn markets and lower prices of food and animal feed.

This might sound like good policy, but it will not work. Plowing up the land in the CRP will do nothing to lower food or feed prices, but it will flush billions of dollars of conservation progress down the Mississippi and very likely aggravate global warming.

There are few better investments of taxpayer dollars than the land reserve project, which has protected millions of acres of sensitive lands nationwide and significantly reduced soil erosion, all the while costing taxpayers about one tenth as much as traditional farm subsidies. And unlike most farm subsidies — which concentrate wealth in the hands of the wealthy — this program spreads the money around and creates more economic value than it costs.

The value of the Conservation Reserve Program in reduced water pollution and soil erosion alone is about $5 billion per year, according to a University of Minnesota study. On top of that, conserving these lands has generated billions in increased hunting revenues each year, not to mention resurrecting the central migratory flyway and the Prairie Pothole ecosystem and protecting at least 1.8 million acres of critical streamside habitat. Many Midwestern towns probably would be at even greater risk from flood waters without the protections of lands currently in the CRP.

We could consider sacrificing portions of the CRP if there were any evidence that it might lower food prices for the poor or help us fight global warming. But opening up these lands for argricultural use would do neither.

First, it is too late in the season to realize significant yields on any corn planted this year. And even over the long haul, there is no reason to believe that corn planted on these acres would yield enough to have any impact on food or feed prices, given surging global demand and the overzealous congressional ethanol mandate that, if unchanged, could divert up to half of all corn to ethanol production over the next several years.

On top of that, the environmental effects could extend well beyond soil erosion, habitat destruction and tons of fertilizers added to rivers and drinking-water supplies; converting land now in the Conservation Reserve Program to corn production could be a huge step backward in the effort to slow global warming.

How? Every year, the land in the CRP provides greenhouse gas reductions equal to taking 11 million cars off the road, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates. Plowing up the CRP would end that benefit. In addition, it would release carbon dioxide now stored in the soil into the atmosphere, with devastating effects.

If anything, we should make it a priority to expand and protect the CRP as a part of an energy and environmental policy that tries to maximize the economic and environmental return on every taxpayer dollar spent.

We understand that some in the food industry are concerned about the skyrocketing prices of corn. But, to take one example, the reason chicken feed prices are so high is that more than a third of this year's corn crop is destined for our fuel tanks in the form of ethanol. Add weather-induced worries about corn shortages and surging global demand, and feed prices are being pushed to record highs.

America needs a real energy policy focused on higher mileage standards, conservation and clean-energy solutions such as solar and wind, not an ill-conceived ethanol bender that pits food against fuel with few benefits for anyone.

Richard Wiles is co-founder and executive director of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based non-profit advocacy group that focuses on issues involving the environment and public health.

America's Food-to-Fuel Gamble

2008-06-17T18:47:16Z

Yesterday EWG released Biofuels and Bad Weather: America’s Food-to-Fuel Gamble.

Several media outlets have reported on the release including:

LA Times: Midwest Flood May Cover Nation In Higher Food Prices

"Our ethanol policy requires perfect weather, and not surprisingly, we aren't getting it," said Michelle Perez, senior agriculture analyst with the Environmental Working Group in Washington.

Reuters: Bad Spring Shows US Ethanol Plan Dangerous

In a report, the Environmental Working Group said demand for corn was rising more rapidly than crop output. The result, it said, is higher prices for food and fuel.

Seattle PI: Record Flooding and Other Severe Weather Will Likely Send Food and Fuel Prices Even Higher This Summer.

When the Bush administration and Congress triggered the ethanol boom in 2005 with the Renewable Fuels Standard mandate and then raised the mandate five-fold in 2007, they ignored the impact this policy could have on food prices, relying entirely on good weather to make this roll-of-the dice decision a success.

The full news release for Biofuels and Bad Weather: America’s Food-Fuel Gamble is after the jump.

Biofuels and Bad Weather: America’s Food-Fuel Gamble

It’s Time for Congress to Revisit the Ethanol Mandate

Record Flooding and Possible Summer Drought Will Likely Send Food and Fuel Prices Even Higher

WASHINGTON – With relentless rains, cold temperatures, and record floods pounding the Midwest, the nation’s ill-conceived corn ethanol mandate appears headed into a perfect storm is helping to push food and feed prices to record highs, while doing nothing to put a dent in soaring prices at the pump. This was the conclusion by analysts at Environmental Working Group (EWG) after extensive interviews with top agriculture economists and climatologists.

In Iowa, 1.13 million acres of corn, nearly ten percent of the state’s total, already have been lost, and 4 million more are currently underwater. Across the Midwest millions more acres are likely to suffer significant yield loss because fields have been too wet to plant or are too wet to apply fertilizer or control weeds. Corn futures surged toward $8 per bushel in Chicago in response to what many are calling the worst flooding since 1993, when the corn crop was cut by 24 percent.

When the Bush administration and Congress triggered the ethanol boom in 2005 with the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandate and then raised the mandate five-fold in 2007, they ignored the impact this policy could have on food prices, relying entirely on good weather to make this roll-of-the dice decision a success.

“Our ethanol policy requires perfect weather, and not surprisingly, we aren’t getting it,” said EWG Senior Agriculture Analyst Michelle Perez.

In fact, EWG President Ken Cook in a speech in early April of this year at the Informa Economics Conference questioned the federal government’s ‘good weather’ policy.

“Assurances from the industry in the past months have not eased the rhetoric from the anti-ethanol lobby, however. In early April, Environmental Working Group Founder Ken Cook laid down the gauntlet and said the government’s policy to ensure an adequate food supply this year was to “hope for good weather.” Ethanol opponents, led by the EWG, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, , and livestock and poultry groups have ensured the debate is front and center in the news media this spring. The debate will likely intensify through the summer as the assessment of crop losses is realized,”
Top Producer Magazine, June 16, 2008

The rush to support corn ethanol via the ethanol mandate from Congress and the Bush Administration was so enthusiastic that even the experts were caught off guard by the size of the farm price increases this year.

Keith Collins, the former top economist at USDA for 15 years, during an EWG-sponsored call with reporters late last month, said, “We did not anticipate these soaring prices. No one forecasted $5.50 to $6.30 per bushel corn prices. We were in the $3.70 per bushel range.” Corn prices closed at $7.91 per bushel on Friday the 13th of June, 2008.

Last year, thanks to the RFS mandate, twenty percent of the U.S. corn supply was diverted into our fuel tanks. This figure is expected to rise to 30 percent for 2008. Ethanol and other food-crop based biofuels (like sugar cane, soybeans, canola oil, and palm oil) are a major new demand for cropland worldwide that would otherwise be growing food. Estimates for how much of the global rise in food prices is due to worldwide biofuels demand ranges from 10 to 30 percent.

“EWG is not saying the biofuels are the only cause of higher food prices. But our ethanol policy is a key factor in higher food prices that we can control since we can’t control the weather or global food and fuel demand,” said Perez. “Congress must immediately revisit the ethanol mandate to reduce the nightmare trifecta of feed, food and fuel prices at record highs just seven months after the mandate was put in place,” added Perez.

For climatologists and agricultural economists, the hope is that the current cold and wet weather conditions that have delayed corn planting and interfered with crop emergence do not continue. Unfortunately, comparisons between this year’s weather events and two historic weather disasters are already occurring. The 1988 drought and the 1993 Mid-West floods reduced corn production by 28 and 24 percent, respectively.

“The whole corn crop boils down to what Iowa and Illinois will do…. If you have any problem with those two states, the market will explode…It’s going to take extraordinary circumstances to get through this year without major interruptions in corn production… We’ve got a mess on our hands,” added Al Dutcher, a state climatologist for the University of Nebraska, in response to questions about the possible impacts of the excess water weather disturbances.

EWG’S complete analysis, Biofuels and Bad Weather: America’s Food-Fuel Gamble, can be found at the following link. http://www.ewg.org/report/biofuelsandbadweather

EPA Offers “Inaction” Plan to Solve ‘Dead Zone’ Disaster

2008-06-17T18:38:31Z

From yesterday's EWG news release:

WASHINGTON, June 16 – The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released today an action plan that will do little to slow the growth of the oxygen-starved ocean ‘Dead Zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico, says three members of the Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative. Recent studies place the size of this year’s Dead Zone at a record setting – 22,000 square kilometers (10,000 square miles) – an area roughly equivalent to the size of Massachusetts.

This Spring and early Summer, flooding in states along the Mississippi River has inundated farm fields and swept away others, likely increasing the amount of fertilizer nutrient pollution that will contaminate state waters and the Gulf of Mexico, expanding the size of the Dead Zone and exacerbating efforts to reduce it. According to the US Geological Society, pollution from agricultural fields in just nine states – specifically fertilizer and manure run-off from corn and soybean crops - is the leading cause of hypoxia in the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico.

“We can mitigate this environmental disaster, but the EPA’s ‘inaction plan’ ensures that we continue to muddle along for yet another five years, which is completely unacceptable,” said Matt Rota, Water Resources Program Director for the Gulf Restoration Network, based in New Orleans. “Most of the 11 “action steps” in this report do not have due dates and none of them have either nitrogen and phosphorus loading reduction goals or ‘Dead Zone’ size reduction goals. If there are no real goals or due dates, how will progress towards successful actions be measured?” Rota asked.

“EPA Task Force members acknowledge that the current voluntary, cost-share approach to solving farm pollution is failing, yet the Task Force fails to change it’s approach,” said Susan Heathcote, Water Program Director for the Iowa Environmental Council. “The Task Force should have adopted minimum environmental performance standards for agriculture in the nine critical Basin states and should have committed to targeting farm conservation funds to the highest priority locations and the practices that achieve the most cost-effective nutrient reductions,” Heathcote said.

“Without a real plan that set goals and mandates action to achieve comprehensive pollution reduction across the Basin, irreversible damage to the ecosystem will be the legacy of the EPA in the Gulf,” said Michelle Perez, senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group. “Only with a targeted action plan can the public ensure that their taxpayer subsidies for ethanol production are not causing environmental disasters and their subsidies for farm conservation practices are achieving the greatest nutrient reductions for the buck,” Perez concluded.

The EPA Task Force ignores it’s own Science Advisory Board’s recommendation that they adopt a 40-percent nutrient reduction goal for the Basin. This policy is a critical first step to ensuring the Task Force can achieve the goal of reducing the size of the Dead Zone to 5,000 square kilometers. Instead, the Task Force suggests that the states finalize separate and uncoordinated nutrient reduction strategies by the time the next Task Force convenes – in 2013.

# # #

The Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative is comprised of environmental organizations from states bordering the Mississippi River as well as regional and national groups that work on Mississippi River issues. The purpose of the Collaborative is to harness the resources and expertise of diverse organizations to reduce all types of pollution entering the river.

What Will the Weather Bring to the Food and Biofuel System?

2008-05-29T22:04:38Z

EWG president Ken Cook hosted a media conference call briefing today with prominent agriculture economists and state climatologists to discuss the impact weather may have on the food and biofuel system.

The audio briefing can be downloaded by right-clicking or control-clicking HERE.

On the call was:

Keith Collins, who served for 15 years as Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Economist Bill Lapp, currently a principal with Advanced Economic Solutions and a member of USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service Advisory Board. Mr. Lapp formerly served as Chief Economist for ConAgra Foods.

Al Dutcher, state climatologist for Nebraska since 1991 and is with the School of Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska Lincoln (UNL).

S. Elwynn Taylor, a professor of Agronomy and an Extension Climatologist for Iowa State University since 1970.

Farm Bill Update: Their Dog Ate The Trade Title

2008-05-22T03:13:27Z

AP is now reporting that the House and Senate may have to repass the entire farm bill tomorrow because someone forgot to include the 34-page trade title in the version Bush got from the Hill and vetoed today.

An extension of the current bill also will be needed to prevent a trip in time back to 1949, when the underlying permanent law was passed.

House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter:

"We will have to repass the whole thing, as will the Senate," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. "We can't let the farm bill just die."

The possibility never crossed my mind.

Farm Bill: Doh! Does Anyone See Title III?

2008-05-22T02:14:31Z

That would be the Trade title of the farm bill.

You know, the title not included in the bill sent the president. The title not included in the bill he vetoed today. The one missing from the version before the House when it overrode his veto earlier this evening.

Mixup throws House veto override in doubt Associated Press - May 21, 2008 9:13 PM ET WASHINGTON (AP) - The House overwhelmingly rejected President Bush's veto of a roughly $290 billion farm bill but what should have been a stinging defeat for Bush became an embarrassing episode for Democrats.
Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the 5-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. Only hours later, the House voted 316 to 108 to override the veto, and the Senate had been expected to quickly follow suit.

But action stalled after it was discovered that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the massive bill when it sent the measure to the White House. That means Bush vetoed a different bill than Congress approved, leaving leaders scrambling to figure out whether it could become law.

Farm Bill: EWG Statement On House Passage

2008-05-14T23:37:05Z

EWG President Ken Cook
Statement On House Passage of 2008 Farm Bill
14 May 2008

Anyone who might have wondered if this Congress would bring a "new direction" to farm policy had their final answer in today's vote in the House of Representatives.

Democrats are supposed to stand on principles of fairness and equity, not sell them. And today they sold them on the cheap.

If the House had displayed even a modicum of political courage and taken on the subsidy lobby, this farm bill could have gone far beyond the miserly spending increases it provides for nutrition assistance to the poor at home and abroad, conservation, farmers markets, organic food, minority farmers and other important priorities that have long been neglected or under-funded. And there would have been money left over to give taxpayers a break.

Apparently the Democratic caucus thought they were log rolling when the subsidy lobby tossed them some twigs.

In a period when crop prices and farm incomes are soaring to record levels, the continuation of bloated subsidies to the largest, most prosperous farms in the country can only be seen as a breathtaking cop-out on the part of congressional leaders.

Environmental Working Group will be highlighting the good and the bad in this legislation in the days ahead, but we already know how the balance will tip relative to the opportunity for reform in this farm bill cycle: on balance the special interests won, and the public interest lost.

Farm Bill: Vote Nay

2008-05-14T14:24:58Z

Because enough nay votes today will give President Bush the margin he needs to sustain a veto and pursue one last effort to press for reform of the scandalously broken crop subsidy system and curb abuses by the mega-farms that dominate it.

The only thing more shameful than the income "caps" in the Conference Bill is their embrace by Democrats as "reform."

What Bush's veto, in turn, will not mean, is a simple extension of the 2002 bill and it won't mean we exhume the 1949 law. Neither one is a viable option for the administration or congress. They need a new bill, and a post-veto version will be better.

And a veto also won't mean the loss of the nutrition and conservation funding and reforms everyone's so excited about--everyone but us. We think on both areas--and on organic, fruit and vegetable programs, dealing with hunger abroad--this farm bill doesn't even measure up to being called pathetic, and we'll be writing about that a lot in the days to come.

So again, we urge a nay vote today.

UPDATE: The House approved the farm bill with an apparently veto-proof margin, 318-106.

White House, USDA Now Whipping "No" On Farm Bill "But Where's Blunt?"

2008-05-13T23:29:05Z

Republican sources tell me the White House is now pushing the GOP conference to vote against the farm bill tomorrow to signal Bush's veto will be sustained.

Now that it is finally engaged, the White House is picking up support among fiscal conservatives and bolstering opposition to the bill from House Minority Leader Boehner and Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor.

But fiscal conservatives aligned with the White House are concluding that it's now House Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri who is missing in action.

As today's White House statement and administration sources make clear, Bush strongly prefers a new bill, not a straight extension of current law, but is firmly insisting on more subsidy reform. A veto is seen as opening a final, post-veto round of negotiation, on a new bill, not a simple extension that is seen as DOA in the House.

Top administration sources tell me that If the veto is sustained, the Bush team will not challenge the food assistance or conservation provisions in any ensuing negotiations. Their focus is on Title I reform and commodity-related costs like the new $3.8 billion permanent disaster aid program.

That opens the door to the subsidy lobby's worst nightmare: isolation of their plush Title I and disaster aid provisions as the obstacle to a new farm bill should Bush and Pelosi find farm bill common ground.

Farm Bill Blocks Court-Ordered Release Of Subsidy Program Data Under FOIA

2008-05-13T18:48:13Z

A provision secretly tucked into the Farm Bill Conference Report (Sec. 1619, "Information Gathering") nullifies a recent, major federal appeals court decision under the Freedom of Information Act that ordered USDA to make public large amounts of data crucial to monitoring the economic and environmental impacts of multi-billion-dollar farm subsidy and conservation programs.

Language to undo the effects of the FOIA decision was not part of the bills passed by either the House or the Senate. It was inserted without public hearings or debate during the Conference Committee process.

UPDATE: Pelosi's "New Direction" vowed to "Protect the public’s right to know, strengthening the Freedom of Information Act." (Look under Restore Accountability To Washington.)

In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, overturning a district court ruling under the Federal Freedom of Information Act, ordered the release of USDA data files in which "the public has a particular and significant interest" because "USDA uses this information in the administration of its subsidy and benefit programs and there is a special need for public scrutiny of agency action that distributes extensive amounts of public funds in the form of subsidies and other financial benefits." (Multi Ag Media, LLC v. Department of Agriculture)

Regarding one set of information, the court found that USDA's so-called Compliance File "contains crop data that agricultural producers report to FSA [Farm Service Agency] to establish eligibility for the government's subsidy and benefit programs. . .USDA withheld information on irrigation practices, farm acreage, and the number and width of rows of tobacco and cotton."

The other set of data ordered for release was a geographic information system (GIS) database that helps USDA's subsidy and compliance arm, the Farm Service Agency, "verify farm features and thereby monitor compliance with regulations governing farm benefits. . .USDA released much of the GIS database. . .but withheld information on farm, tract and boundary identification, calculated acreage, and characteristics of the land such as whether it is erodible, barren, or has water or perennial snow cover."

As the court stated:

"In sum, given USDA's rather tepid showing that release of the files would allow the public to draw inferences about some farmers' financial circumstances, the interest in data that would allow the public to more easily monitor USDA's administration of its subsidy and benefit programs, and FOIA's presumption in favor of disclosure, we conclude that the public interest in disclosure of the Compliance File and GIS database outweighs the personal privacy interest. Accordingly, release of these files would not 'constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'. . .
. . .We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the Compliance File and the GIS database and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The government did not appeal the ruling and the files were released, we presume, to Multi Ag Media, a subscription-based commercial publishing and marketing company that caters to firms doing business primarily with livestock farmers.

The key provision of Section 1619(b)(2) reads as follows:
2) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in paragraphs (3)
and (4), the Secretary, any officer or employee of the Department
of Agriculture, or any contractor or cooperator of the Department,
shall not disclose—

(A) information provided by an agricultural producer
or owner of agricultural land concerning the agricultural
operation, farming or conservation practices, or the land
itself, in order to participate in programs of the Department;
or [the Compliance File]

(B) geospatial information otherwise maintained by the
Secretary about agricultural land or operations for which
information described in subparagraph (A) is provided.[the GIS database file]

Complete Sec. 1619 in the jump.

Download the Appeals Court Decision.

From the Farm Bill Conference Report.

SEC. 1619. INFORMATION GATHERING. (a) GEOSPATIAL SYSTEMS.—The Secretary shall ensure that all the geospatial data of the agencies of the Department of Agriculture are portable and standardized. (b) LIMITATION ON DISCLOSURES.— (1) DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘agricultural operation’’ includes the production and marketing of agricultural commodities and livestock. (2) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), the Secretary, any officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture, or any contractor or cooperator of the Department, shall not disclose— (A) information provided by an agricultural producer or owner of agricultural land concerning the agricultural operation, farming or conservation practices, or the land itself, in order to participate in programs of the Department; or (B) geospatial information otherwise maintained by the Secretary about agricultural land or operations for which information described in subparagraph (A) is provided. (3) AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES.— (A) LIMITED RELEASE OF INFORMATION.—If the Secretary determines that the information described in paragraph (2) will not be subsequently disclosed except in accordance with paragraph (4), the Secretary may release or disclose the information to a person or Federal, State, local, or tribal agency working in cooperation with the Secretary in any Department program— (i) when providing technical or financial assistance with respect to the agricultural operation, agricultural land, or farming or conservation practices; or (ii) when responding to a disease or pest threat to agricultural operations, if the Secretary determines that a threat to agricultural operations exists and the disclosure of information to a person or cooperating government entity is necessary to assist the Secretary in responding to the disease or pest threat as authorized by law. (4) EXCEPTIONS.—Nothing in this subsection affects— (A) the disclosure of payment information (including payment information and the names and addresses of recipients of payments) under any Department program that is otherwise authorized by law; (B) the disclosure of information described in paragraph (2) if the information has been transformed into a statistical or aggregate form without naming any— (i) individual owner, operator, or producer; or (ii) specific data gathering site; or (C) the disclosure of information described in paragraph (2) pursuant to the consent of the agricultural producer or owner of agricultural land. (5) CONDITION OF OTHER PROGRAMS.—The participation of the agricultural producer or owner of agricultural land in, or receipt of any benefit under, any program administered by the Secretary may not be conditioned on the consent of the agricultural producer or owner of agricultural land under paragraph (4)(C). (6) WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE OR PROTECTION.—The disclosure of information under paragraph (2) shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or protection under Federal law, including trade secret protection.

Farm Bill: White House MIA In Veto Push

2008-05-11T15:49:17Z

Republican contacts on the Hill tell me there is no sign thus far of a White House campaign to sustain the farm bill veto the Bush administration has been talking up for months now, most recently on Friday's press call with Agriculture Secretary Shafer and Deputy Chuck Conner.

The absence of an active White House presence on the issue, up to and including indications that the president and vice president will weigh in personally, has caused Republicans to wonder how serious the White House really is about winning the farm bill veto fight.

There's not much time left for the White House to demonstrate resolve. With splits within the House Republican leadership on the farm bill--Minority Leader John Boehner in opposition to the measure and GOP Conference Chair Adam Putnam cheering for passage--it will take a full-court press by the White House lobbying apparatus to win a veto showdown. Statements from the podium of the White House press room or USDA's leaders, however clear and firm, won't be enough.

UPDATE MONDAY 2:10 PM: Boehner raises "earmark" objections to farm bill in this op-ed but doesn't even mention the impending veto.

Without a strong and visible White House push in the next three days inside the House Republican Conference, insiders warn, by the time the override vote is eventually taken Bush may already have lost.

The calculation is very simple. With the farm bill going to the House Rules Committee at COB this Tuesday, the measure may come to the floor as early as Wednesday. The sooner the better for supporters of the bill, who feel they have the momentum and want to run up the score with a big vote for passage this week.

There's no question the farm bill will pass the House. The question is whether a bloc of one-third of those present will either vote against the bill, or at least register as "not voting" and thus plausibly be deemed to be on the fence. A Republican "Nay" plus "NV" tally of one-third or more of the House, bolstered by some Democrats voting against the bill, would strongly indicate the president's veto can be sustained.

The White House would surely prefer a one-third "nay" vote. But "not voting" could emerge as an attractive outlet for GOP members who want to signal support for the president and his objections to the farm bill. That outcome would at minimum prolong the suspense about the outcome of the veto override, giving the White House more time and political room to build support.

(Not many Democrats are likely to vote no or take the "NV" option, unless they are willing to buck Speaker Pelosi and give Blue Dogs some payback for derailing last week's war supplemental vote. But a show of discord on the Democratic side could become a premise for the Speaker to pursue her wish for more subsidy reform, presuming that is indeed her wish.)

But it will be next to impossible to convince Republicans who vote for passage of the farm bill this week to turn around and sustain the president's veto of the same measure days later. A lop-sided win for the subsidy lobby on passage this week comfortably above two-thirds of the House (291 if every member votes) would make the veto override vote ceremonial only, and of questionable help in Republican efforts to unite, show strength and restore their brand. That's a "why bother" scenario for many Republicans.

However, if it is clear from this week's House vote that a veto will be or is likely to be sustained--and if in the event it is sustained--Agriculture Secretary Schafer and Deputy Secretary Conner will have the leverage they need to press for further subsidy reforms and other items on the administration's wish list.

That leverage will be substantial. Speaker Pelosi can't push a naked extension of the discredited 2002 farm bill through her own caucus much less the whole House. Even the fig leaf of phony subsidy reforms now in the bill would be gone, and there would be no increase in food assistance or conservation funds, no Pigford relief for black farmers, none of the tax blandishments Chairman Rangel secured for the Caribbean . . . and on and on.

But the game's over if the White House allows the veto override to look inevitable after this week's House vote.

Blue Dogs Are Big Winners In Subsidy-Laden Farm Bill While They Threaten Education For Vets With Offset Demand

2008-05-09T20:08:03Z

True to their noble commitment to fiscal responsibility, Blue Dog Democrats helped stall their party's war supplemental spending package in the House this week. The intrepid budged hawks insisted that the cost of a major expansion of GI Bill education benefits that was added to the supplemental be offset with budget cuts elsewhere.

Veterans’ groups and liberal Democrats were irked by the Blue Dogs’ stance.
The delay caused by the Blue Dogs provoked a backlash by veterans’ groups as well as several members of the liberal Out of Iraq and Progressive caucuses Thursday, who demanded that the supplemental bill be brought to the floor in its original form.

“How can the Blue Dog Coalition possibly say that an expansion of education benefits is too costly when their votes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight in Iraq violate the same pay-as-you-go rules they claim to so deeply respect? It’s an inconsistent logic,” said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey , D-N.Y.

Maybe House Democrats riled up about the Blue Dogs' position on education benefits for veterans should stage a revolt themselves--by signalling support for Bush's promised veto of the farm bill.

After all, Blue Dogs are mopping up billions in that legislation, which Speaker Pelosi is strong-arming her caucus to support. We know that at least $5.9 billion in "direct payment" farm subsidies will go to farmers in Blue Dog districts over the next five years, despit the sky-high crop prices and record incomes that subsidy crop farmers will be earning.

How "fiscally responsible" is that?

Earl Pomeroy's farmers will get $1.1 billion from taxpayers. Marion Berry's will get $965 million. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's will haul in over $800 million.

And Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, who has been saying the payments are "hard to defend" when farmers' incomes are at record levels, will bring home $691 million in direct payment subsidies under the bill.

Here's a complete list of the direct payments Blue Dogs are projected to haul in over the next five years.

Once again, Blue Dogs are getting their way--and getting their money--while the majority of the Democratic caucus is stymied on their agenda.

Maybe with the farm economy booming, Democratic leaders could cut farm subsidies to the biggest, most prosperous operations to pay for the education benefits veterans deserve?

Farm Bill: Pelosi's Wish For More Reform Can Bush Grant It?

2008-05-09T04:49:24Z

The AP's Mary Clare Jalonick reported this afternoon that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "a suppporter of the bill, said she wished it had gone further in limiting payments to wealthy farmers but praised increases for nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency domestic food assistance, by more than $10 billion. The measure would also expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren."

Bush's insistence on more subsidy reform, the core of the public case he is making for a veto, could end up granting Pelosi her wish. But first the administration has to muster the votes to sustain his veto. The only real shot is in the House.

The question is, how will this veto dance between Bush and Pelosi unfold. (I'm putting Harry Reid aside because a veto override appears hardest in the House and highly unlikely in the Senate.)

Will Bush just veto the bill, throw up his hands, and make another half-hearted suggestion that the 2002 bill be extended for a year or two? Unlikely. Extension would infuriate his fiscally conservative base. They hate the current bill and would harshly criticize a sequel. Nor would a simple extension be the logical finale to the two years his administration spent in nationwide farm bill listening sessions, developing its own detailed farm bill proposal, and making nonstop appeals for subsidy reform that have earned almost universal praise for the president on editorial pages across the country. Why, after all that, would Bush hand the keys back to the subsidy lobby to drive farm policy for another two years?

And for all the big talk from the subsidy lobby, as recently as 18 months ago, that they would simply muscle a 2002 extension through congress, that option was, and remains, impossible with Democrats in control. A straight extension can't pass the House, and probably couldn't pass the Senate.

Which raises the question of what counter offer, if any, Bush might present over the next week as he reaches for his veto pen? And how and to whom he will present it?

So far the president's rejection of the bill has focused on inadequate income caps for subsidies, other excesses in the commodity title, the costly new "permanent disaster assistance" program, failure to convert a portion of foreign food aid to local purchases, and sundry other issues. Add to that list, of course, what the White House terms the "bloated" cost of the bill.

For the most part, however, the administration has not raised veto-level objections to any of the provisions that advocates for sustainable food and agriculture, conservation or social justice tend to like about the bill. That list includes the increase for food assistance to the poor that Pelosi and other bill supporters are hyper-ventilating about.

Here's one way to put that food assistance increase in perspective: at $10.3 billion over 10 years, it is equivalent to the direct payments that subsidized farmers will collect in just the next two years (at $5.1 to $5.2 billion per year) under the conference agreement. That's as good a measure as any of the lousy deal Pelosi and her staff cut last summer, when the subsidy lobby took her to the cleaners and most of the Democratic caucus with her.

But those numbers also suggests how relatively easy it would be for Bush to accommodate Pelosi on food assistance, conservation and other farm bill items that matter most to her and to the majority of her caucus. It would then fall to her to nudge the House position closer to Bush on commodity policy. Then it would be up to the Senate to accept the compromise, or pack for a trip back in time to 1949.

Of course, none of this will matter unless the president can demonstrate that he has one-third of the House behind his veto--comprised of most of his party and some Democrats. The fact that he has a decent shot has the House Democratic leadership and the subsidy lobby working alongside, overtime, to override his veto, and sundry other interest groups, some queasy progressives among them, tagging along--again.

Farm Bill: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Bootlegged Summary of Conference Committee Agreement

2008-05-08T22:54:56Z

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this document, which was leaked to us. But it's the only paper we've seen on the agreement. Download the image or click link below for the full document. But remember, NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION!

Download full PDF file

Wasting Away, In Farm Bill Vetoville

2008-05-08T22:45:28Z

Hot from the USDA press office.

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ED SCHAFER ON CONGRESS' ANNOUNCEMENT OF A NEW FARM BILL WASHINGTON, May 8, 2008- In January 2007, the President put forward a farm bill proposal that represents fiscal responsibility, would improve the safety-net for farmers and move current programs toward market oriented policies. Our proposals were warranted and timely considering that 2008 net farm income is forecast to be $92 billion - 51 percent above its 10 year average.
"Today, the United States House and Senate announced the completion of a farm bill that unfortunately fails to include much needed reform and increases spending by nearly $20 billion. At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase farm subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support, and move programs toward more government control. We should not remove farm commodities from market forces and make them dependent upon government support programs.

In addition, Congress decided to include a new permanent disaster program. This program represents a return to outdated farm policy and questions the government's investment in crop insurance which was designed to protect farmers against low commodity prices and crop failures. This action will discredit farm programs and jeopardize public support for future farm bills.

Americans appreciate our farmers and ranchers and understand the uncertainties and risks that farming presents. However, they do not understand why their taxes should be used to provide payments to individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $500,000 and higher, some of the wealthiest people in America.

We are also concerned about a lengthy list of extraneous provisions that are not related to farm programs and have no place in this legislation.

For a year and a half, the Administration has been consistently clear that Congress needs to move forward with a good farm bill that the President can sign. They have failed to do so. This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government. I have visited face to face with our President and he was direct and plain. The President will veto this bill."