Ag Policy Soup, the FarmPolicy.com podcast has been updated.

Some very informative audio files relating to various aspects of the Senate Farm Bill debate have been posted in the past few days, and due to their aggregate length, it appeared that manyreaders would not have time to listen to the files.

I have compiled excerpts from some of these audio files that I thought were particularly interesting and have put them together in one audio file, which runs about seven minutes.

To listen to this seven-minute update, just click here. (MP3).

Keith

Julie Harker of Brownfield reported yesterday that, “Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin says he’s concerned about changes to the Average Crop Revenue program in the farm bill passed out of committee last week.

“‘I was not prepared for Senator Roberts’ proposals on that. But I wanted to get the bill moved and I thought, you know, maybe you can live to fight another day and perhaps we can address some of this on the floor.’”

The article added that, “Harkin says he’s been in touch, almost daily, with Senate Majority Leader Reid and the farm bill will likely come up for debate on the Senate floor early next week, Monday or Tuesday. He says his focus is maintaining ‘the strong bill that emerged from the committee moving it forward in a way that benefits rural areas and the country as a whole.’ Harkin says points of order will be raised if there are efforts to ‘try and go over the budget.’”

The Brownfield item included a link to the complete audio of a press conference Sen. Harkin held with reporters yesterday, to listen, just click here (MP3- about 20 minutes).

DTN writer Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Farmers should expect more challenges to direct payments during Senate floor debate next week, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin said Tuesday.

“‘It’s on the table,’ Harkin said. ‘It’s on the table. As you know, I’ve never been a big fan of direct payments and I will have more to say about that when we get on the floor and I present the bill.’”

Mr. Clayton added that, “Harkin said he expects amendments on the floor similar to one that Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., offered in committee that would take money from direct payments to increase spending on nutrition programs.

“‘We may have a coalition of forces who want to do that on the floor of the Senate,’ he said.”

Later, Mr. Clayton pointed out that, “The ACR [Average Crop Revenue Program], which was controversial in the committee, will also likely face amendments on the floor. The program allows farmers the option, starting in 2010, to choose the ACR over the current commodity programs. Harkin said budget figures on the ACR also now would allow the program’s $15 per-acre fixed payment to be used for 100 percent of acres planted rather than the current 85 percent of base acres used for calculating direct payments. That would have the effect of increasing the fixed payments for farmers who enroll in the ACR.”

Along these Dan Looker, writing yesterday at AgricultureOnline, reported that, “And Harkin said he may have some amendments as well. One could be an attempt to strengthen the bill’s new revenue-based safety net, Average Crop Revenue (ACR), which Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) and other ag committee members may have weakened with a last minute change in committee. The National Corn Growers Association said last week that the committee’s action makes the ACR much less attractive.

“‘I’m a little concerned about the final result of what happened to ACR in committee,’ Harkin said today. He said he thought the committee had agreed to support the ACR until Roberts unveiled a last-minute change. It was aimed partly at lessening the impact of ACR on the crop insurance industry.

“Harkin said today that the Congressional Budget Office, which determines the cost of the program to the government, hasn’t finished its work completely.

“The ACR originally was estimated to save $3 to $3.5 billion over five years. It would start in 2010. Farmers will have the chance to choose to stay in the current safety net program of direct payments, marketing loans and counter-cyclicalpayments. Or they could opt for ACR, which will include a $15 an acre direct payment regardless of the crop grown, ACR will pay farmers when revenue drops below a state-level trigger.

“Farmers enrolled in the ACR would give up marketing loans but Harkin said he believes those with good market and yield prospects will like ACR. ‘They’re protecting themselves on the downside,’ he said.”

Later, Mr. Looker explained that, “Harkin said there will be amendments on the floor to reduce direct payments for the old safety net in the farm bill in order to use that money for rural economic development, energy programs and nutrition programs.

“‘It’s on the table,’ he said. ‘As you know, I’ve never been a fan of direct payments.’

“On that issue, Harkin’s Iowa colleague on the agriculture committee, Republican Chuck Grassley, disagrees.

“Because direct payments go to landowners regardless of the crop grown, they are not considered trade distorting under World Trade Organization rules, Grassley said Tuesday.

“‘I think it’s wrong to obliterate direct payments,’ he said.”

To listen to Sen. Grassley’s press conference from yesterday on this and a variety of other agricultural issues, just click here (MP3- about 20 minutes).

Also yesterday, Reuters writer Charles Abbott reported that, “The new U.S. farm law could bring ‘a lot of WTO challenges’ because of higher crop support rates, said the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee on Tuesday.”

(Note: target prices- view current versus proposed here; loan rates- view current versus proposed here).

Mr. Abbott added that, “Chairman Tom Harkin, who has touted green payments as a wiser investment, also said amendments may be offered during Senate debate next week to increase food stamp benefits. ‘That costs a lot of money,’ said the Iowa Democrat, but it is overdue.

“‘There may be some amendment, I know it’s being worked on right now,’ he said, to cut the $5.2 billion a year in so-called direct payments and put the money into land stewardship, rural development, energy and public nutrition.”

Mr. Abbott indicated that, “Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner says the Senate bill wrongly boosts some crop supports, such as wheat, barley and canola, at peril of complaints to the World Trade Organization. ‘This loan rate situation is a problem for us,’ Conner said on Monday.

“‘I think we’regoing to have a lot of WTO challenges on this. I agree with Chuck Conner on that,’ said Harkin during a telephone news conference.

“A better approach, he said, would be to expand green payments that reward soil, water and wildlife stewardship. ‘But there’s just not the support in committee to do that.’”

With respect to potential amendments regarding direct payments, an update posted yesterday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog stated that, “That wily old fellow, Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., will have a news conference on Thursday to criticize direct payments. His non-profit partner in this media event will be Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.”

The update noted that, “Lugar and EWG are both raising a lot of questions about paying farmers $5.2 billion a year in direct payments even though commodity prices are strong.” [Note: corn prices- graph here; soybean prices- graph here; wheat prices- graph here] “Lugar, as mentioned repeatedly in the past few weeks, has a bill he plans to introduceto completely reform the commodity title next week on the Senate floor.”

Concluding, the DTN Blog post noted that, “While Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, doesn’t want to see Lugar totally overhaul his farm bill, Harkin also said Tuesday he too is willing to look at direct payment cuts and has no problem seeing that money go to other titles.”

DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom flushed out more detail on this issue in an article from yesterday (link requires subscription); “The tensions became public last week when Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., offered an amendment to boost the nutrition budget by cutting $1.7 billion of the $26 billion budgeted for the direct payments that farmers get over 5 years whether prices are high or low. Lugar said he wanted a roll call vote that would be publicized so that constituents would ask senators about it. Senators, Lugar said, will say, ‘I have corn growers in my state that are counting on those payments and they count more for me than food stamp recipients.’”

Mr. Hagstrom also explained that, “Lugar has pledged to offer his amendment again, but he won’t have the support of the Bush administration. Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner is a former Lugar aide, but he said at a news conference last week that, while the Bush administration favors increasing food stamp benefits, it does not favor cutting the direct payments.

“‘We believe direct payments are predictable for the producers,’ Conner said. ‘It’s something they can count on, they are green box so they’re not under challenge from the international side of the equation.’”

Regarding Farm Bill financing, and potential issues that could be of concern in an eventual House-Senate conference on the 2007 Farm Bill, Philip Brasher noted yesterday at the Des Moines Register’s Cash Crops Blog that, “The Bush administration has been silent to this point about the tax measure the Senate is using to fund its farm bill.”

Mr. Brasher stated that, “The administration threatened to veto the House-passed farm bill because of a provision intended to raise tax revenue from foreign-owned corporations.

“[President] Bush this morning, as reported by The Associated Press, said Democratic congressional leaders haven’t ‘seen a bill they could not solve without shoving a tax hike into it.’

“Just having the tax measures in the farm bill means that Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, is likely to be a major player in the final negotiations.”

Biofuels

A press release issued yesterday by the Renewable Fuels Association contained updated ethanol production and demand estimates.

In part, the news item stated that, “Currently, 131 ethanol biorefineries nationwide have a capacity to produce more than 7 billion gallons annually.

“Additionally, 73 biorefineries are under construction and 10 are expanding which will add more than 6.5 billion gallons of new production capacity by 2010.”

The news release also included this summary chart.

Nancy Gaarder reported in today’s Omaha World-Herald that, “U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the federal government is working with the private sector to make it possible for consumers to use blends of gasoline with a higher percentage of ethanol.

“Such blends are necessary if the nation is to replace significant amounts of imported oil with the plant-based renewable fuel.

“Based on current blends, the market cannot meet President Bush’s goal of using about 35 billion gallons of biofuels annually. If all gasoline sold were a 10 percent blend of ethanol, the market could use only about 15 billion gallons of ethanol a year.”

The article noted that,“Concentrations that have been discussed fall in the 12 percent to 20 percent range. Bodman said it’s not clear what the amount will be.

“The Department of Energy is working with the Environmental Protection Agency, automotive companies and gas retailers to make higher-ethanol blends possible.”

Reuters writer Matt Daily reported yesterday that, “Slumping ethanol prices have tarnished the stock prices of biofuel producers, but with oil prices hovering near record highs, the alternative fuel has turned attractive to gasoline suppliers.

“Ethanol prices had tumbled by about $1 per gallon over the past seven months — hitting a low of about $1.65 in mid-October and pushing margins for producers near break-even or worse, although prices have since rebounded to about $1.75.

“Still, the weak prices have benefited the refiners and fuel blenders that mix the corn-based fuel with gasoline, and who also get the added incentive of the 51 cent per gallon federal tax break, putting the price of ethanol well below that of gasoline.”

Recall that Saturday’s FarmPolicy update included a link to an Associated Press article which reported that, “A U.N. expert on Friday called the growing practice of converting food crops into biofuel ‘a crime against humanity,’ saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry.

“Jean Ziegler, who has been the United Nations’ independent expert on the right to food since the position was established in 2000, called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to halt what he called a growing ‘catastrophe’ for the poor.”

For a one-minute audio clip on this issue from the UN, just click here.

Philip Brasher, writing in today’s Des Moines Register, reported that, “The ethanol industry has been taking heat for months over higher food prices. But is it a ‘crime against humanity’ to make fuel from food crops?

“A United Nations official said it is, and that’s too much for the National Corn Growers Association.

“‘Genocide is a crime against humanity. War crimes are a crime against humanity. Any act of persecution to a large scale of people is a crime against humanity. Finding solutions to a global energy problem while continuing to provide food to the world is not a crime against humanity,’ Rick Tolman, the farm group’s chief executive, said in a statement Tuesday.”

Keith Good

Philip Brasher, writing on Friday at the Des Moines Register’s Cash Crops Blog, stated that, “There’s no doubt who some of the winners and losers are in the Senate farm bill.

“For the winners, you have to start with farmers in the drought-prone Plains states.

“The bill,once it is merged with a tax package on the Senate floor, will create a permanent agricultural disaster program that was designed in North Dakota. The bill also makes the traditional subsidy programs a little richer by raising the loan rate and target price for wheat.

“Then, Kansas Republican Pat Roberts and North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, succeeded in rewriting the optional new average crop revenue (ACR) plan to make it more attractive to wheat growers and a lot less appealing to corn growers, the plan’s chief promoters.

“The key change removed the link between the ACR program and crop insurance.

“By doing so, farmers won’t get a cut in insurance premiums, a high priority for corn growers. On the other hand, farmers would get to collect both ACR payments and insurance benefits. That’s big for wheat growers, because they’re much more likely to have crop losses and insurance claims than corn growers.”

Mr. Brasher added that, “Another big winner: The crop insurance industry. The ACR plan would have cut revenue to companies and agents had the corn growers gotten their premium cut.”

Interestingly, recall that back on May 3 of this year, in an update posted at The Des Moines Register Online, Philip Brasher reported that, “The growing profits that crop insurance companies are making from selling their federally subsidized policies is catching the eye of Congress.

“Profits from crop insurance are three times as high as the rate of turn that insurance companies normally get from property and casualty insurance, government investigators told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.” [Committee press release available here; Chairman Waxman’s opening statement; witness list and opening statements.]

Mr. Brasher added that, “Forty cents of every dollar the government pays for the program goes to insurance companies, not farmers, said Lisa Shames, an official with the Government Accountability Office [GAO], the investigative arm of Congress [one page GAO summary; full statement via GAO].

“The chairman of the House committee, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., called the program a ‘textbook example of waste, fraud and abuse in federal spending.’”

Also, a Washington Post article from May 4 stated that, “Private companies are taking advantage of a poorly designed crop insurance program for farmers to reap ‘excessive’ profits while taxpayers absorb most of thecosts and risks, investigators told a House committee yesterday.

“Republican and Democratic members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reacted with calls for major changes in the insurance program, which has paid out $26 billion over the past 10 years. It is rare for a panel other than the Agriculture Committee to take on a major farm program in an investigative hearing.

“Oversight Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the crop insurance system is ‘a textbook example of waste, fraud and abuse in federal spending.’ Citing testimony from the Agriculture Department’s inspector general and a report from the Government Accountability Office, Waxman said that ‘over $8 billion in taxpayer funds have been squandered in excess payments to insurers and other middlemen’ since 2000.”

A separate Post article from last year (October 15, 2006), “‘Farming Your Insurance,’” also highlighted issues associated with federal crop insurance.

And with respect to other winners in the Senate Ag Committee process that were identified in Philip Brasher’s update from Friday, “farmers in the drought-prone Plains states,” The Washington Post editorial board noted on Sunday that, “Every so often, nature turns its wrath on American agriculture. Even for very efficient farmers on prime land, drought, floods and frost are occupational hazards. And when extreme, unforeseeable weather conditions destroy crops and livestock, it’s appropriate for the nation to provide financial aid to the folks who produce our food and fiber.

“But what about farmers and ranchers who plant grain where unfavorable weather is the norm rather than an exception? Not much rain falls on Oklahoma, the Dakotas or the Texas panhandle. That’s just the way it is. Between 1985 and 2005, more than 12,000 purportedly drought-stricken agricultural producers in those states claimed federal disaster payments at least every other year. This group collected $1.4 billion in all, about 60 percent of total federal farm disaster relief aid during those two decades, according to a database compiled by the Environmental Working Group.

“You’d think that Congress would have concluded that there are better uses for federal tax money than propping up the same relative handful of semi-arid farms year after year. Perhaps Washington could provide some modest assistance to convert marginal cropland to environmentally sustainable grassland. Instead, the Senate Finance Committee has voted to create a five-year, $5.1 billion permanent disaster relief trust fund. The logic of the bill, championed by Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana — a state that is also one of the top 10 recipients of disaster payments — is that farmers are entitled to a secure source of disaster relief, rather than having to ask Congress for it every year.”

The Post concluded by noting that, “The bill originated in the Senate’s tax-writing Finance Committee, because the Agriculture Committee needed extra money for other farm programs, and the only way to get it was either through spending cuts or additional revenue. Mr. Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman, came up with some tighter rules on alleged tax-avoidance schemes by business, and, with the backing of his committee, dedicated part of the resulting money to the disaster fund. Not even the House, which has already passed its own subsidy-rich farm bill, dared to do the same. Congress seems bound and determined to adopt a bloated farm bill this year. But it should at least stop this attempt to package agricultural welfare as disaster aid.”

In other coverage of Senate Farm Bill activity, Whitney Boyd reported on Friday at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Online that, “While the House included a $50 million incentive program for Georgiapeanut farmers in its version of the bill, this provision was not included in the Senate version that passed this week. Facing this possible void, Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop has been working to include the program in the compromise bill that lawmakers are negotiating. But prospects for its passage appear dim, Chambliss [Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)] said.

“Bishop, who has the largest peanut district in the U.S., said that without receiving long standing federal payments that peanut farmers are used to getting, many farmers might be forced out of business.

“His subsidies program would reward farmers for planting peanuts in a crop mix rotation, while limiting the acreage that could be planted by producers to optimize this rotation of the land. Chambliss said that he is also working to include a provision that would encourage optimal rotation for all crops. No funding has been set aside for associated with this proposed provision yet, but many lobbyist and farmers think the crop rotation may benefit peanut farmers in the long run.”

Meanwhile, Diana Marrero reported on Friday at the USA Today Online that, “Some students at Union County Middle School in Liberty, Ind., had never seen a pear until the school joined a federal pilot program five years ago that offers students fresh fruits and vegetables as snacks.

“Now in 14 states, the program could be expanded across the country under a $290 billion farm bill that sets the nation’s agriculture policy for the next five years.”

The article added that, “The expansion of the snack program could have significant benefits for students who typically don’t eat the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables a day, health experts say.”

In a related article on health and the Farm Bill, Rob Hotakainen reported on Saturday at the Kansas City Star Online that, “If you’re feeling fat these days, blame Congress.

“That’s just what the nation’s doctors are doing, saying that federal lawmakers are responsible for the fact that a salad costs so much more than a Big Mac.

“Hoping to produce thinner waistlines, many doctors — including the American Medical Association — want Congress to stop subsidizing the production of foods that are high in fat and cholesterol and spend more to promote fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains that are not.

“Farm Belt lawmakers are on the defensive.

“‘I agree that obesity and health are serious issues in America today,’ said Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, who is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. ‘However, blaming the cause on the crops that we grow in Kansas and/or the U.S. farm program is overlooking the personal responsibility we all have in our daily lives and diets.’”

Stephen J. Hedges reported on Friday at the Chicago Tribune Online that, “The legislation [passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee] also includes an average crop revenue, or ACR, program that committee Chairman Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said might shift farmers away from dependence on subsidies.

“But that new program, which would pay farmers if a crop price drops below a price-and-yield formula calculated at the state level, would be voluntary for three years beginning in 2010.

“‘With the ACR, I think we can move in a new direction,’ Harkin said. ‘It’s a major shift toward a new type of program with farmers.’” (For more analysis on the ACR, see yesterday’s FarmPolicy update, which was written by Dan Morgan).

The Tribune article also stated that, “The bill, though approved by the committee on a unanimous voice vote, is hardly a done deal.

“Several senators have promised to oppose the proposed subsidy program on the Senate floor. And once the Senate adopts its version of the bill, Senate and House members will meet in a conference to hammer out differences in the legislation.”

For more on the differences between the House and Senate Ag Committee versions of the Farm Bill, see this discussion I had yesterday with DTN staff writer Chris Clayton.

In an article from Friday (link requires subscription) entitled, “Farm Bill Keeps Programs Intact,” Mr. Clayton outlined some significant differences between the House version of the 2007 Farm Bill and the Senate Agriculture Committee version passed last week.

In part, Mr. Clayton noted that, “The House and Senate will have to hash out differences between their two ‘optional’ counter-cyclical changes.”

We discussed this aspect of his article in great detail on Monday afternoon.

Click here for complete audio details

In addition, Congressional Quarterly writer Catharine Richert reported yesterday that, “The committee approved the draft measure by voice vote Oct. 25 after two days of debate that focused mainly on the proposal for a new subsidy to be called the Average Crop Revenue program.

“Under the plan, farmers would be able to choose either the traditional federal farm subsidy programs based on crop prices or the new program, which would link some payments to farm revenue targets set for each state and would trim other payments. The idea was developed by Democrats Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, with help from some farm groups.”

The CQ article explained that, “But the plan drew fire from some farm groups and the crop insurance industry, which said it would be prohibitive for some farmers and would take business from insurers.

“To mollify opponents, the committee adopted by voice vote an amendment by Pat Roberts, R-Kan., that would reduce the number of acres on which farmers could collect payments and would keep insurance premium rates where they are today, meaning crop insurers would preserve their bottom lines. It also would require farmers opting into the new program to continue participating for the life of the farm bill and would reduce reimbursement responsibilities for the crop insurance industry.”

With respect to Senate floor activity and the ACR, Ms. Richert indicated that, “But, just as it did in committee, the new revenue-based subsidy program may dominate floor debate.

“Some of the most vocal opponents to Roberts’ amendment are corn growers, who helped Harkin design the program and who are facing increasingly expensive insurance policies as more acres of corn are planted. They say the amendment would nullify the new subsidy’s benefits.

“‘We have serious concerns about this,’ said Sam Willett, senior director of public policy for the National Corn Growers Association. That group is doing a last-minute analysis of Roberts’ amendment to see how it would affect the industry.”

Note also that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) expressed concerns about how the Roberts amendment changed the original ACR proposal in a conversation last week with Todd Gleason of the University of Illinois Extension Service.

In part, Sen. Durbin noted that, “I go into this debate believing that my good friend Senator Roberts has taken a roller brush to a Rembrandt. We had a pretty good piece of legislation and the crop insurance industry didn’t like it and made some changes in it.”

To listen to more of the discussion with Sen. Durbin, just click here (MP3- 4:30)

And Larry Lipman, writing on Saturday at the Palm Beach Post Online, stated that, “The final bill will be hammered out in a conference between the two houses.

“President Bush has threatened to veto the House version because he said it would not adequately shift the system of crop supports away from wealthy farmers.

“Further fights may break out in the Senate regarding an alternative crop-support payment system.”

In more specific indications of the executive branch position on the Farm Bill, Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner stated in a speech yesterday that, “The Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version of the Farm Bill, as you know, last week and I am pleased to say it does contains some very good things, some very good things. But we believe it also needs to go further to achieve the kind of real reforms we need to make this year.

“The Committee’s version of the bill addressed several of the issues we raised in our USDA farm bill proposals.”

Sec. Conner added that, “The House version of the Farm Bill also included a revenue-based counter-cyclical program.

“And while the Senate and House versions differ from each other—and from our proposal, I want you to know that we are prepared to work with the Congress to make sure that whatever version of a counter-cyclical program is ultimately adopted will work as effectively as possible.

“The Senate’s decision to require, at least in 2008 crop, that farmers give up ownership of a crop when they lock in a loan deficiency payment,is an important step forward.

“The so-called ‘pick-your-price’ loophole in the current law adds significantly to farm program expenses.”

In addition, Sec. Conner stated that, “Finally, the provision in the bill that raises loan rates and target prices on crops such as wheat, barely, soybeans, sunflowers and canola, simply amounts to a step backwards.

“Quite frankly, we’ve talked so much about trade, this provision does paint a bulls-eye on the back of the American farmer.”

Along these lines, Bloomberg writers Alan Bjerga and Shruti Date Singh reported yesterday that, “Soro [Suleymane Soro, a farmer from the Ivory Coast] and Merritt [Kelli Merritt, a farmer from West Texas] are two faces of the more-than $280 billion farm bill the Senate may vote on next week. The legislation, similar to a House-passed measure President George W. Bush threatened to veto, would continue subsidy programs that totaled $3.1 billion in the 2005-2006 fiscal year.

“U.S. farmers like Merritt say the payments are vital. The World Trade Organization says they distort trade and lower prices, hurting farmers like Soro.”

The article added that, “Trade threats are having little impact on the U.S. farm bill debate in Congress. U.S. Senator Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, says U.S. growers seem willing to keep their subsidies and take their chances before the WTO.

“‘The votes aren’t there to change cotton programs,’ says Harkin, whose committee approved its farm bill last week. The committee expects the measure would cost about $288 billion over five years.

“Like the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July, it would create a program to subsidize cotton bought by domestic textile mills, attempting to shore up demand hurt by a shift of the global garment industry to China. It would make only minor adjustments to existing subsidy programs.

“President Bush, seeking to avoid further trade conflicts, threatened to veto the House bill, which will ultimately have to be reconciled with the Senate’s package.”

Additional editorial comment on the Farm Bill also appeared today:

The New York Times editorial board. “Sugar’s Sweetheart Deal” (today)- “Of all the government’s farm-support programs, there are few as egregious as the tangle of loans, quotas and import tariffs set up to protect the well-connected club of American sugar producers at the expense of American consumers and farmers in the developing world. This year’s farm bill will add American taxpayers to the list of casualties…[B]oth the House bill, which was passed in July, and the Senate version, which could be voted on as early as this week, guarantee that the government will buy from American farmers an amount of sugar equivalent to 85 percent of domestic consumption — regardless of how much comes in from abroad. To add insult to injury, both also increase the longstanding price guarantee for sugar.”

The Washington Times editorial board. “A FRESH and better farm bill” (today)- “At the very moment that the mutually back-scratching, special-interest-dominated agriculture committees in both congressional chambers have reported terrible, business-as-usual, five-year agriculture-reauthorization measures, the Lugar-Lautenberg FRESH alternative is truly a breath of fresh air. Its common-sense priorities are so striking that the only sharp elbows exchanged between liberal and conservative interest groups are the ones necessary to get to the front of the line to be the first to embrace Lugar-Lautenberg. When left-of-center Environmental Defense, Environmental Working Group and the National Urban League join right-of-center Club for Growth, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers Union to hail Lugar-Lautenberg, you realize just how special the FRESH Act must be.”

Keith Good