The New Year is here, and Congress is back in town. With the 2002 planting season just around the corner, the Senate has yet to come to completion on a Farm Bill. Working to the wire before the holidays, the Senate was unable to agree on a unified vision for the Bill. While a majority of senators support the Agriculture Committee bill with modifications, a number of holdouts prevented Senate leaders from getting the 60 votes needed to end debate and pass the bill. Meanwhile, efforts to pass the House farm bill and an alternate bill offered by Cochran and Roberts also failed, leaving the Committee bill as the most viable option.

Dozens of amendments remain to be offered, however, so if senators can’t agree to end debate, a lengthy process could still be ahead. The Farm Bill could come up on the Senate floor as early as the week of January 28 or as late as March. Stay tuned to Rural Updates for more information. Meanwhile, please continue to contact your Senators on the following amendments, which we expect to be offered. The Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-2121.

Wellstone Amendment-- This amendment institutes safeguards to ensure that the EQIP program doesn't allow taxpayer funds to be used for the expansion of CAFOs, and doesn't become a massive giveaway to the Nation’s largest industrial animal factories. The amendment prevents EQIP money from going to new and expanding CAFOs, operations located on 100-year floodplains, and the largest multi-operation livestock companies. It also requires a nutrient management plan and sets the payment limitation lower than the Senate EQIP proposal.

Durbin Amendment– This amendment would protect native prairie and other grasslands by denying farm commodity program and crop insurance subsidies on non-cropland converted to crop production. Current farm support programs encourage the placing of more land into production, destroying habitat and driving down commodity prices. This amendment would simultaneously discourage conversion of native prairie and rangeland to row crops, place a limit on overproduction and save taxpayer dollars.

Dorgan-Grassley-Johnson-Hagel-Nelson-Lugar-Torricelli-Wellstone Amendment– This amendment would set the following limitations on farm subsidy payments: 'fixed' and 'counter cyclical' payments would be capped at $75,000 and 'marketing loan gains' and 'loan deficiency payments' at $150,000. Furthermore, the most that could be collected by a spouse in a family operation would be an additional $50,000. This would be a real limitation with no loopholes – unlike the Huse-passed version, whose $550,000 cap translates into no real limitation. The proposed would also tighten the "actively engaged in farming" rules to ensure that farm programs participants are truly involved n farming, not absentee owners with other sources of income. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this amendment will save over $1 billion. The amendment sponsors propose to reinvest the savings in additional farm safety net provisions and nutrition program enhancements.

Gordon Smith Amendment - This amendment would would modify Sec. 10 of the Crop Insurance and Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program to provide for unlimited payments to the agriculture industry for a new and undefined concept: "disaster caused by direct federal regulatory implementation or resource management decision, action, or water allocation." The bill would essentially turn the crop disaster relief program into "takings" amendment that would pay producers to comply with federal natural resource regulations and water law.

Hutchinson/ Lincoln Amendment – This amendment would exempt the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (specifically, Wildlife Services) from the requirements of NEPA with respect to management of migratory birds, and would allow APHIS to issue its own Migratory Bird Treaty Act Permits (usurping the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service) with respect to bird control. As currently drafted, the exemption would apply to all migratory birds, although the final version might apply only to double-crested cormorants (we would still oppose this).

Burns Amendments- Senator Burns is offering two amendments that would restrict the Conservation Reserve Program. The first would prohibit more than 50 percent of the eligible land on any farm from being enrolled in CRP. Restrictions are already in place that prohibit more than 25 percent of the farmland in a county from being enrolled, so there is no compelling reason why this amendment should be enacted. The Senator’s other amendment would place a higher CRP value on lands that are not suitable for production. This would negate part of the point of CRP, which is to enroll in conservation lands that are highly erodible but still suitable for production.

Crapo Amendment -- Senator Crapo has introduced an amendment that would weaken the water conservation provisions of the bill, which allow farms to install more efficient water use equipment or shift to more water-efficient crops and lease their surplus water to protect endangered species. Senator Crapo’s amendment would weaken the water conservation program by converting it into 1.1 million acres of CRP land retirement.

Roberts Amendment – Senator Roberts has introduced an amendment that would weaken and threaten the quality of technical assistance needed to administer agricultural conservation programs to achieve true environmental results. The amendment excludes state and local governments from the category of organizations able to offer technical assistance to help implement agricultural conservation programs. The amendment would also force the Natural Resources Conservation Service to shift funds to outside technical providers even if it meant laying off agency employees.

Finally, please ask your senator to oppose any attempt to revoke the victories we have gained thus far! 

• Farm Bill Archive: Senate Agriculture Committee
• Farm Bill Archive: House Farm Bill