(Farm and Ranch Guide) – An extension of the current Farm Bill was swept along in the last minute legislation that kept the nation from going over the ‘fiscal cliff’ and a wide variety of groups associated with agriculture voiced their displeasure on that turn of events.
The decision to include the extension was spurred on by the threat of farm program policies reverting back to the permanent law established in 1949. This would have had little immediate impact on most segments of agriculture, with the exception of dairy support prices, which would have gone to $36 per hundredweight, or almost double the current support level. This could have boosted the price of a gallon of milk on the store shelves to around $8 a gallon.
The dairy industry was especially disappointed with the extension of the current farm legislation. Not because they were denied support prices that more than doubled, but rather because both versions of the 2012 Farm Bill crafted in the House and passed in the Senate contained provisions for the Dairy Security Act, legislation for policy reform the dairy industry has been supporting for several years.
In a news release from the Dairy Farmers of America, one of the largest cooperative of dairy farmers in the nation, officials said Congress had turned its back on dairy farmers and they were “extremely disappointed” after years of work to bring dairy policy reform to fruition.
“Although passing the American Tax Relief Act of 2012 averted a ‘dairy cliff’ that would have devastated the industry, we are increasingly frustrated that legislators have again stalled the Dairy Security Act.”
That news release also mentioned the broader negative element of extending the current Farm Bill, making it more difficult for farmers to plan, operate and make business decisions in a competitive marketplace.
In his reaction to the extension of the Food, Farm and Jobs Bill, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack praised Congress by taking the nation back from the fiscal cliff, but expressed disappointment that the extension was included in the legislation.
“I am pleased that Congress passed needed middle class tax relief and continued unemployment insurance protection for 2 million unemployed Americans,” Vilsack said. “However, while I am relieved that the agreement reached prevents a spike in the price of dairy and other commodities, I am disappointed Congress has been unable to pass a multi-year reauthorization of the Food, Farm and Jobs bill to give rural America the long-term certainty they need and deserve.”
Vilsack said he would continue to work with Congress to encourage passage of a reauthorized bill that includes “a strong and defensible safety net for producers, expanded rural economic opportunity in the new bio-based economy, significant support for conserving our natural resources, increased commitment to important research, and support for safe and nutritious food for all Americans.”
Several commodity groups also expressed their displeasure with the inability of the 112th Congress to pass a five-year Farm Bill. Erik Younggren, a farmer from Hallock, Minn., and president of the National Association of Wheat Growers said, said the organization was pleased there was some agreement on fiscal and tax policy that includes an extension of farm policy through the 2013 wheat growing season which will allow farmers to know the parameters of tax policy and the farm safety net for spring planting decisions and allow continued operations of critical foreign market development programs.
“However, the extension of the 2008 farm bill is not ideal and we are concerned about unknown implications of automatic spending cuts, known as sequester, which are now postponed,” Younggren said. “It is of the utmost urgency to our farmer-members that members of the 113th Congress reauthorize a new farm bill expeditiously. We call on policymakers to come to the table, compromise and send a five-year farm bill to the President for signature this year.”
Pam Johnson, National Corn Growers Association president, expressed a greater degree of frustration.
“America’s farmers have clearly made known the importance and need of a new farm bill in 2012,” she said. “Once again Congress’ failure to act pushes agriculture aside hampering farmers’ ability to make sound business decisions for the next five years. The National Corn Growers Association is tired of the endless excuses and lack of accountability. The system is clearly broken.
“We hope the 113th Congress proves to be more fruitful and that the leaders in Congress can place petty partisanship aside to create a bill that benefits all of America,” she added.
National Farmers Union president Roger Johnson also weighed in.
“Once again, Congress has left rural America out in the cold. An extension represents a short sighted, temporary fix that ultimately provides inadequate solutions that will leave our farmers and ranchers crippled by uncertainty,” he said. “Farmers, ranchers, rural communities and all Americans deserve better and would have been better served with a new five-year farm bill. It is truly a shame that the bipartisan work of both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees has been summarily and entirely discarded. Not only was that work far better than what has passed, it also provided meaningful deficit reduction.”
The nation’s other major farm organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation, had a similar reaction to the extension legislation. Their president Bob Stallman said, “Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill is little more than a stop gap measure. We are glad that a measure is in place for most of this year, but we are disappointed that Congress was unable or unwilling to roll a comprehensive five-year bill proposal into the fiscal cliff package.
“It is our hope that the new Congress will exercise the leadership needed to put our nation on a path toward fiscal responsibility and agricultural innovation and prosperity,” he added.
In his comments on the Farm Bill extension, Montana Farmers Union president Alan Merrill said the provisions included in the fiscal cliff deal were not a straight extension of the 2008 Farm Bill, since numerous programs are authorized but not funded.
“Specifically, the legislation fails to provide disaster aid for farmers or livestock producers and the legislation provides no mandatory funding for the energy title, specialty crop and organic provisions, beginning farmer and rancher programs and numerous conservation measures, among others,” Merrill said. “We believe that Montana agriculture producers would have been better served by the passage of a new five-year bill, such as was crafted by the U.S. Senate and the House Agriculture Committee.”
Finally, ND Farmers Union president Elwood “Woody” Barth summed up the feelings of many associated with agriculture with his comment, “It is disappointing. It is sad when Congress plays politics at the expense of family farmers and ranchers throughout the country.”
