Steven R. Weisman reported in today’s New York Times that, “A trip on Air Force One and a talk between President Bush and Representative Charles B. Rangel as they traveled to Mr. Rangel’s home district in Harlem this week has suddenly lifted prospects for bipartisan agreement on trade legislation in Congress, officials on both sides said Thursday…The officials said that negotiations had resumed between teams led by Susan C. Schwab, the United States trade representative, and Mr. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and that a deal was in sight, clearing the way for approval of the trade legislation.”

I. Farm Bill Hearings
II. War Supplemental – Disaster Aid
III. Doha
IV. Food Safety

I. Farm Bill Hearings

Yesterday, the House Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management held a hearing to review proposals to amend the program crop provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill.

A news release issued yesterday by the House Ag Committee stated that, “‘Today, we heard in detail from agricultural processors and major farm groups about what kind of commodity title provisions they would like to see in the next Farm Bill and what their members think about the current farm safety net structure,’ said Representative David Scott of Georgia, who chaired the hearing in placeof Representative Bob Etheridge. ‘Given the tight budget baseline we are facing for farm programs, their testimony and insight will be helpful to us as we write a Farm Bill that works for all sectors of American agriculture.’

“‘Much of what we do in Congress directly impacts the actual commodity producer, but it also has a profound affect on the agricultural processing industry,’ said Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerry Moran of Kansas. ‘We must be cognizant that as we develop a farm safety net for the next five years, we do not implement policy that curtails growth and investment in the agricultural processing industry because this is where many farmers and ranchers turn to market their crops.’

“The Subcommittee heard testimony from two panels of witnesses representing commodity users and processors, as well as the heads of two major farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union.”

A complete list of witnesses and their opening statements can be viewed by clicking here.

Yesterday, FarmPolicy.com highlighted the Senate Ag Committee’s commodity title hearing that took place on Wednesday.

In an update posted at one of the Cato Institute’s blogs earlier this week, Sallie James, a trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute, noted that, “The Senate Agriculture Committee continues their hearings today with a focus on Title I — that’s the part of the farm bill that deals with farm subsidies. In the list of witnesses (available here), you will see significant representation from the main commodity groups (corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and a few others) and farmer groups (American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union). From what I can see, only two witnesses (out of the list of sixteen due to appear) could be expected to give a different take on farm programs: the North American Millers Association, as a user of commodities, might speak up about the damage commodity programs do to markets, and Bread for the World are rightly concerned about the effect of American farm subsidies on poor people around the world.”

With respect to testimony from Bread for the World, Rev. David Beckmann indicated in his opening statement at the Senate hearing on Wednesday that, “This year, Bread for the World members are asking Congress to modify the farm bill in ways that would provide more help and opportunity to poor and hungry people. A large and growingshare of the religious community is working with us. Many people in this room have worked and lived U.S. farm policy for many years. I’m a preacher – and I am grateful for your attention to the perspective I bring to your work. I only hope that the churches where I preach don’t pick up on this system of green and red lights. Bread for the World has worked for many years on the nutrition and food aid titles of the farm bill. They are obviously important to hungry people. For this farm bill, too, Bread for the World urges an expanded nutrition title and an expanded and reformed food aid title. But after the 2002 farm bill went into effect, we started hearing from church leaders in Africa that it was causing problems for many poor and hungry families in their countries. We spent the next four years studying the farm bill, and we came to the conclusion that the current farm bill is not working very well for farm and rural families of modest means in our country either. We think it is possible for you to modify the farm bill in ways that would be better for rural America, better for hungry people throughout our country, and better for hungry and poor people in the developing world.”

And DTN’s Chris Clayton picked up on the theme of different voices in the Farm Bill debate in an update from yesterday, where he noted that, “It’s a little hard to go against a group announcing that its farm-bill proposal is ‘inspired by Jesus.’ More than a dozen major U.S. churches and faith-based organizations have come together as the Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill to urge major changes in agricultural policy aimed at reducing hunger and poverty, and promoting the livelihood of farmers and rural communities in the U.S. and around the world.

“The group, which includes Christian denominations, major faith-based organizations and the National Council of Churches USA, has developed a statement of legislative principles for farm-bill reform. Members of the group currently are in the process of visiting congressional offices and sharing those principles.

“The religious groups want broad reform of U.S. food and farm policy, including adjustments to the commodity payment programs, which they see as important to progress against hunger and poverty in this country and around the world. The current system should be changed in ways that would strengthen communities in rural America, ensure all Americans an adequate, nutritious diet, provide better and more targeted support for U.S. farm families of modest means, and conserve the land for present and future generations. In addition, such changes are necessary to unlock the ability of small-holder farmers in developing countries, who comprise the majority of the world’s hungry people, to improve their livelihoods and escape poverty.”

Meanwhile, Dan Looker, writing yesterday at AgricultureOnline, reported on Farm Bill perspectives offered recently by House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN).

Mr. Looker noted that, “If there was any doubt before today, it’s becoming clearer that the next farm bill is unlikely to have more money for commodity programs. Several commodity groups have asked Congress for changes in the 2002 farm bill safety net that would all cost a little above or below $1 billion in extra funds each year.

“On Thursday, House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson said bluntly that it’s not going to happen. ‘I’ve told them no,’ Peterson said, referring to his response to meetings he’s had with commodity group lobbyists recently.”

The article pointed out that, “The Congressional Budget Office baseline would allow 43% less spending on commodity programs for the 2007 farm bill than was available in 2002, he said.

“‘There really is, in my judgment, there is no money in the commodity title to shift to some other programs,’ Peterson told reporters.

“He also said that the projections for less moneyneeded for commodities could turn out to be wrong if current high crop prices don’t continue. That’s another reason he’s reluctant to shift funds out of the commodity title of the next farm bill. Congress cut spending on commodity programs in the 1996 farm bill, then had to pass annual emergency spending bills when crop prices fell.”

The AgricultureOnline article continued: “That doesn’t mean Peterson won’t work to change the commodity title. He said he’s interested in using funds from direct payments to help pay for a new permanent disaster program in the farm bill. And he said that his staff is also looking at an American Farm Bureau Federation proposal for a revenue protection program [pages 18-25].

“Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Tom Harkin suggested that he may be interested in using funds from the direct payment program for other programs, including rural development and green payments that reward farmers for how they grow crops, not what they grow.

“Harkin made the point that direct payments are getting harder to defend when his committee held a hearing on commodity programs Wednesday.”

II. War Supplemental – Disaster Aid

Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday that, “The tussle between congressional Democrats and President Bush over the direction of the Iraq war intensified today as the Senate voted 51-46 to clear a war spending measure that seeks to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of March 2008.

“The $124.2 billion conference report (HR 1591, H Rept 110-107 ), which would fund the war and assorted other priorities, such as hurricane recovery, agriculture disaster relief and a children’s health insurance program, was adopted Wednesday by the House.

“Bush opposes the bill a for variety of reasons — mostly for the timetable for Iraq troop withdrawal, but also because billions of dollars in spending was added beyond his initial request. He has repeatedly vowed to veto the measure.”

On Wednesday, the Republican Caucus of the House Budget Committee released a paper, which stated that, “The supplemental spending bill for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan adds $21.1 billion in spending not requested by the President, not needed for U.S. troops overseas, and not required for other urgent demands. The added spending has been designated as an ‘emergency’ to exempt it from budget limits – thought hardly any of the additions qualify under the emergency definition in the current budget resolution. The measure – the conference report on H.R. 1591 – violates House budget rules governing emergency spending, and breaches the limit on overall appropriations for the current year.”

On page three, the document stated that, “The conference report adds $3.5 billion in agriculture disaster assistance for crop years 2005, 2006, and part of 2007. These crops already receive Federal production subsidies through the 2002 farm bill. In addition, disaster assistance for the losses is subsidized through Federal crop insurance and related programs. Because this spending is mandatory, eligible producers have already received disaster assistance for these losses. This funding requirement is neither sudden nor unforeseen, and therefore does not qualify as true emergency spending under criteria established in the budget resolution currently in force.”

In an item from today, Congressional Quarterly noted that, “In addition to $2.4 billion over 10 years that would result from a one-month extension of the MILC program (thereby restoring it to the farm bill budget baseline), the bill includes $1.4 billion in livestock aid and $1.85 billion in crop disaster aid.”

However, Peter Shinn reported on Wednesday at Brownfield that, “An emergency war spending bill with nearly $4 billion in droughtaid is expected to land on President Bush’s desk by early next week, and he’s expected to veto it. The main issue is that Congress wants to include a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But including drought aid and other domestic spending in the measure has also raised the President’s ire. U.S. Ag Secretary Mike Johanns last week told Brownfield President Bush ‘wants a clean bill.’

“But Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (D) told Brownfield Wednesday that President Bush will likely have to accept drought aid as the price of getting an emergency war spending bill without targets for U.S. troop redeployment. Nelson, who left Wednesday on a Congressional fact-finding mission to Kuwait and Iraq, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is part of the House-Senate Conference Committee on the emergency war supplemental.

“‘Well, look - I can consider a clean bill one that considers other disasters,’ Nelson said. ‘As long as the White House is going to continue to have emergency spending bills, they’re going to have to put up with the Congress having other emergencies as well.’”

III. Doha

Reuters writer Doug Palmer reported on Wednesday that, “Key U.S. lawmakers appear willing to do their part to keep world trade talks alive if negotiators can achieve a long-awaited breakthrough soon, the head of the World Trade Organization said on Wednesday.

“‘I delivered to them a message which is roughly the following one: We’re nearing crunch time in the Doha round’ after more than five years of talks, WTO Director General Pascal Lamy said near the end of three days of meetings with business groups, lawmakers and Bush administration officials.

“At this critical stage in the negotiations, some countries are waiting for a signal from the United States that it will remain engaged in the talks, Lamy said.

“They have doubts because the White House’s trade promotion authority (TPA) expires at the end of June, he said.

“They ‘interpret the expiry of TPA as a possibility for the U.S. to sort of move from riding gear to parking gear’ in the Doha negotiations, Lamy said.”

In a related item, Steven R. Weisman reported in today’s New York Times that, “A trip on Air Force One and a talk between President Bush and Representative Charles B. Rangel as they traveled to Mr. Rangel’s home district in Harlem this week has suddenly lifted prospects for bipartisan agreement on trade legislation in Congress, officials on both sides said Thursday.

“The officials said that negotiations had resumed between teams led by Susan C. Schwab, the United States trade representative, and Mr. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and that a deal was in sight, clearing the way for approval of the trade legislation.

“‘They are talking, they are making progress, and they are hopeful of wrapping this up,’ a Rangel aide said. But he said the talks could spill into next week.”

Ian Swanson reported yesterday at The Hill webpage that, “U.S. trade officials are coming under pressure from the U.S. financial services industry and agriculture groups dueling for influence over the multinational trade talks that the administration hopes to close by the end of the year.

“‘For too long we’ve played second fiddle to agriculture,’ said Ekrem Sarper, director of financial services for the Coalition of Service Industries. ‘We’re trying to show we’re a sector that matters and that needs attention paid to it.’

“The complaint from financial services, and to an extent from some manufacturing groups, is that the stalemated farm talks put at risk a negotiation that could provide huge benefits to U.S. banks, insurance companies and securities firms, as well as U.S. exporters of goods.”

Interestingly, Reuters news reported yesterday that, “A group of developing world charities, unions and nonprofit groups urged U.S. Democratic lawmakers on Thursday to withdraw their support for world trade talks, which they say could deepen global poverty.

“Congressional action on trade ‘must include rejection of the current attempts to expand the failed World Trade Organization through the Doha round,’ a coalition of more than 200 groups said in a letter to Congress’ Democratic majority.

“The letter, sent earlier this week to Democrats in both houses, was signed by more than 200 groups ranging from the Africa Trade Network to ActionAid International, a South Africa-based aid and advocacy organization, to smaller national or local groups in countries like Peru, Angola and Sri Lanka.”

The Reuters article added that, “It is also unclear how much support Democrats will give the round and whether they’ll renew the Bush administration’s trade negotiating powers, which expire this summer. Those powers, called fast track, are seen as crucial for a world trade deal.”

IV. Food Safety

Rick Weiss reported in today’s Washington Post that, “Federal and stateauthorities have identified 6,000 hogs in seven states that may have consumed contaminated pet food or pet food byproducts, the Food and Drug Administration said yesterday.

“A maximum of about 300 of the animals may have already entered the human food supply, but the rest of the hogs have been quarantined and are slated to be euthanized, Agriculture Department officials said.

“Officials said they are also looking into the possibility that some chickens may have eaten chow contaminated by the pet food, which they believe was tainted with chemicals imported from China.

“The disclosures are the latest in a string of recent surprises that have brought home to many Americans how complex and interconnected are the supply chains linking imported pet food ingredients, farm animal chow and food for human consumption.”

To view a USDA news release from yesterday regarding this issue, just click here. To view a transcript of a tele-conference with USDA and FDA officials on this development, just click here.

-Keith Good