Congress to rekindle farm bill debate next year

WASHINGTON — The collapse of a congressional debt reduction committee has thrown fresh doubt into the future of U.S. farm programs, including the safety net that protects Northern New York dairy farmers from steep declines in milk prices.

With the panel now history, lawmakers are promising a more traditional rewrite next year of farm and nutrition policies, which may spell trouble for a key element of dairy policy proposed by farmer-owned cooperatives — a government-sponsored system to tamp down milk production.

The supply management proposal was part of a plan drafted by the House Agriculture Committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn., with help from the National Milk Producers Federation. The debt reduction panel was to consider it along with other dairy provisions, as part of an overall farm policy package taking the place of the usual five-year farm bill.

Opponents of the supply management provision — primarily operators of dairy manufacturing plants — see the committee’s failure as an opportunity to defeat Mr. Peterson’s proposal, which may be easier now that the debt panel’s quick-track rules for passing legislation are out of the way.

A more traditional farm bill will involve long sessions in the House and Senate agriculture committees, as well as open rules on the House and Senate floor that allow for changes. A House-Senate conference committee would then adopt a compromise measure, also with likely alterations.

“Mr. Peterson will not only need to convince the Agriculture Committee to accept his bill but will also need to convince 217 of his colleagues to vote in favor of a program that will insert the federal government into the business of limiting milk supplies, stunting industry exports and expansion if he succeeds,” said Jerry Slominski, vice president of government affairs for the International Dairy Foods Association, representing dairy processors such as Kraft Foods and Great Lakes Cheese, which have plants in the north country.

Supply management has never had broad support in Congress, even among those lawmakers with an understanding of the dairy industry. This time, the NMPF has coupled it with a margin insurance program that would pay farmers when high feed prices and low milk prices cut deeply into profit margins.

The government would cover part of the cost of the insurance program, and farmers could buy supplemental coverage. Farmers enrolled in the margin insurance program — which would be voluntary — would have to be enrolled in supply management as well.

The supply management system would dictate that, depending on market conditions, farmers are paid on only a certain amount of milk, discouraging them from expanding when prices are low.

Although a more thorough debate is likely with the supercommittee out of the picture, some lawmakers and interest groups are counting on the work done so far to form the foundation of the farm bill. That would give the margin insurance program momentum and likely rule out an extension of subsidies paid to farmers when milk prices fall below a federal target.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, suggested in a speech earlier this week that the provisions already drafted should be a starting point, given that they followed a series of public hearings. More hearings will follow next year, she told a Farm Foundation forum.

“These hearings, and the bipartisan, bicameral effort to provide recommendations to the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction have helped us identify ways to streamline and strengthen programs to reduce the deficit and create agriculture jobs,” Sen. Stabenow said. “These responsible recommendations provide a strong framework on which we can continue to build.”

Mr. Peterson said last month, as the supercommittee neared its end, that he expected few big changes to the policy proposals already crafted.

The NMPF hopes lawmakers do not try to steer in a sharply different direction, said Christopher Galen, the group’s spokesman. “Congress needs to build on what it’s already done, particularly given the time constraints it will face in a presidential election year,” he said.

Unlike the debt reduction panel, the House and Senate agriculture committees have representation from New York. Reps. William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, and Christopher P. Gibson, R-Kinderhook, serve on the House committee, and Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is on the Senate committee.

Mrs. Gillibrand has been active on dairy policy, expressing reservations about the supply management proposal and contending that the margin insurance program proposed by Mr. Peterson does not do enough to help smaller farms.