Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa released the following statement regarding the ongoing farm and nutrition bill negotiations between the House and the Senate.
"We are coming to a critical time in the farm and nutrition bill conference committee negotiations. Current negotiations include possible changes to the actively engaged criteria and requiring the use of planted acres or base acres in commodity programs.
"There's no question that the current actively engaged law isn't working. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office wrote in a report this fall that changes needed to be made and the legislative language in the Senate passed farm bill would be an appropriate fix.
"Besides, the actively engaged provisions are the same in both the House and Senate bills. So, we have the two bills with the exact same language and a scathing report from the GAO. There is no reason for these provisions to even be a part of the discussion. We need to close loopholes that have allowed non-farmers to game the system. The longer we let this happen, the easier it will be for opponents of farm programs to argue for no farm bill. And, quite honestly, I don't understand how anyone can promote closing loopholes for food stamps if they don't also support closing the loopholes non-farmers, many of whom have other significant income, are using.
"Another issue I'm surprised is still being debated is the use of planted acres vs. base acres for the commodity title. The House bill uses extremely high target prices for some crops that are then coupled with planted acres. I assume this is to drive up acreages for certain crops. The press has reported that Ranking Member Peterson has made it no secret that was his exact intent for Barley, and the reason he insisted it have a high target price.
"Enacting the House commodity title will take us backwards to a time when farmers planted for the government instead of the market. And, if anyone thinks we're immune to World Trade Organization challenges, I would remind them that U.S. taxpayers have sent the citizens of Brazil $146 million for the last several years because our cotton program was considered too market distorting.
"Yet, even with the statement by Ranking Member Peterson, possible WTO challenges, and concerns with the government picking winners and losers in the commodity program, I'm hearing Chairman Lucas and his staff are trying to convince people that there is no reason to be troubled about any of these concerns with regard to planted acres.
"I want to get a farm bill done, but I also want to vote for a good bill that is defensible."
