|
September 13, 2006
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns released today a the Fifth and Final Farm Bill Analysis Paper. This paper is comprehensive analysis of key factors that will affect future growth in U.S. agriculture: international trade, research and development, protection of agriculture from pests and diseases, and challenges in preparing the next generation of farmers.
The analysis papers may be found at:
Strengthening the Foundation for Future Growth in U.S. Agriculture Executive Summary (PDF, 6 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/Farmbill07foundationssumf.pdf
Strengthening the Foundation for Future Growth in U.S. Agriculture Theme Paper (PDF, 45 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/Farmbill07foundationsf.pdf
Energy and Agriculture Executive Summary (PDF, 4 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/Farmbill07energysum.pdf
Energy and Agriculture Theme Paper (PDF, 31 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/Farmbill07energy.pdf
Rural Development Executive Summary (PDF, 4 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/Farmbill07ruraldevelopmentsum.pdf
Rural Development Theme Paper (PDF, 39 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/Farmbill07ruraldevelopment.pdf
Conservation and Environment Executive Summary (PDF, 5 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/FarmBill07consenvsum.pdf
Conservation and Environment Theme Paper (PDF, 41 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/FarmBill07consenv.pdf
Risk Management Executive Summary (PDF, 3 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/FarmBill07riskmgmtsum1.pdf
Risk Management Theme Paper (PDF, 30 pages)
www.usda.gov/documents/FarmBill07riskmgmtrev.pdf
July 27, 2006
Read the press release from Bob Stallman of the Farm Bureau after the collapse of the WTO negotiations (pdf, 1 page)
June 23, 2006
Read the letter sent to the Senate Agriculture Committee by a number of commodity groups concerning Disaster Payments for U.S. farmers (pdf, 2 pages)
May 26, 2006
Read the letter sent to the House leadership by 45 members of the lower chamber supporting the Disaster Payment provision for U.S. farmers contained in the emergency war and hurricane relief package. (pdf, 4 pages)
May 19, 2006
Read the letter sent to the House and Senate conferees concerning support for the Disaster Payment provision for U.S. farmers contained in the emergency war and hurricane relief package. (pdf, 2 pages)
May 19, 2006
Read the Statement of Principles from the Cuba Working Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (pdf, 2 pages)
May 9, 2006
Read the testimony presented to the House Ag Committee listening session in San Angelo TX by Wharton rice farmer Daniel Berglund on behalf of the U.S. rice industry (pdf, 12 pages)
April 25, 2006
USRPA Washington Counsel Fred Clark participated in a “Retreat” of the entire Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board this week to discuss the challenges facing the crop insurance industry in providing effective risk management tools to rice producers. Clark told the Board that while USRPA supports the crop insurance program, crop insurance does not generally play a significant part in the management of rice producers’ farming operations and the attendant risks. Other participants in the Retreat included the National Cotton Council, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, USA Rice federation, and several other commodity organizations. Clark’s entire prepared statement can be viewed by clicking here.
April 25, 2006
With regard to the agriculture disaster package, the White House “Statement of Administration Position” echoed Secretary Johanns’ argument last week when it stated that:
"The administration strongly opposes the Committee's agricultural assistance proposal, totaling nearly $4 billion. The 2002 Farm Bill was designed, when combined with crop insurance, to eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. In 2005, many crops had record or near-record production, and U.S. farm sector cash receipts were the second highest ever. Furthermore, the proposed level of assistance is excessive and may over-compensate certain producers for their losses."
The entire “Statement of Administration Position” can be viewed by clicking here.
March 27, 2006
USRPA signed on to the following testimony (click here, pdf-3 pages) submitted to the House and Senate Ag Appropriations Subcommittees on behalf of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports. The statement is to be included in the official record
March 24, 2006
USDA Relents on Rice Loan Rate Adjustment:
Thanks to the hard work of producers throughout “rice country”,USDA’s Farm Service Agency announced this week that they will NOT be making any changes in the rice loan rate differentials for the 2006 crop year. Confirmation of their decision came in a letter to USRPA Chairman Dan Gertson this week, in which FSA Administrator Teresa Lasseter said that USDA “will make only those adjustments in 2006 rice [loan rates] that reflect average milling quality, maintaining the $1 per cwt difference between long grain and medium/short grain whole kernel loan rates.” Click here to view the full text of Lasseter’s letter. “The loan program is central to the rice program safety net,” said Gary Murphy, USRPA board member and Missouri rice farmer. “The loan program’s administration is critical to producers’ income. We are pleased that USDA, working with the rice producers and our champions in Congress, has agreed not to implement such major changes this year.” Dwight Roberts said that “This has been a great team effort among USRPA, individual producers, our representatives in Congress, and folks throughout the industry. In Washington, we were able to work closely with the offices of many rice state Members of the House and Senate to defeat this proposal, as well as with representatives and producers of the USA Rice Federation, since the proposed policy change was roundly opposed by all involved. Together we have all been able to prevent the tardy implementation of a suspect policy. Thanks to everyone for their hard work and strong support!” Special thanks go out to out to those Members of Congress who spearheaded letter-writing efforts in the House and Senate to urge USDA not to implement this policy, especially after producers had already begun planting the 2006 crop. Senator Jim Talent led the letter-writing effort in the Senate, where he was joined by all 12 Senators from the six rice-producing states! In the House Representative Jo Ann Emerson worked with Marion Berry on a similar letter that was signed by a half-dozen Members, including Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Henry Bonilla. Thanks also go out to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss and House Chairman Bob Goodlatte and their capable staffs – both Committees called USDA up to the Hill for timely meetings to answer tough questions on this issue. A long list of other rice state Members weighed in with calls and e-mails to USDA as well. This issue may not go away with respect to subsequent crop years, so we will need to remain diligent and work collaboratively with USDA and our champions in Congress to make sure that any future proposed policy change does not unduly harm producers’ interests. But for a now, a hearty “Thank You” to all who helped to protect producers’ pocketbooks this year by pushing back this poorly-timed proposal. To view the US Rice Producers Association and USA Rice Federation joint press release on this issue please click here.
March 17, 2006
The Loan Rate Debacle: A Work in Progress: Many of our readers were shocked this week to learn that FSA/USDA is considering a very significant realignment of the rice loan rates by class. Despite their obligation to announce loan rate factors for the 2006 rice cropbefore the end of March, FSA convened a meeting of rice industry representatives in Washington DC last Friday,March 10 to begin "consultations" on this process of adjusting the LG and MG/SG loan factors to more closely reflect "the market" for the different classes of rice. Of course the national average loan rate has been $6.50 per cwt since 1986/87, and the $1.00 head rice discount for MG/SG has been used for almost as long. No matter, this is now a hot issue, and despite the fact that some of the 2006 rice crop has already been planted, and financing obtained for the rest, based on "traditional" loan rates and differentials, this new shock to the beleaguered rice industry must be delivered now. Bottom line, if done all at once, LG loan value would drop $0.39 beginning with the 2006 crop, and MG/SG values would increase $1.17 per cwt, based on recent cash prices as reported to NASS by class by state. Industry reaction was unanimous and resounding: NO.During the initial meeting last week, several "scenarios" were proposed that would make the shift over three years, rather than all at once. In an industry conference call with FSA this week,the possibility of a four-year phase-in was floated, and the concept of separate loan rates for California and Southern MG/SG was introduced by FSA. Industry reaction was still unanimously NO!, but FSA had clearly found a way to swing California sentiment in favor of the change, leaving the South on its own. California's major problem with the original idea is that higher MG loan rates would encourage more MG planting in the Delta, which will lead to an over-supply of that class of rice, and depress values in California. With the new idea of a higher loan rate in California and a much lower rate for the South, that objection was effectively nullified, and the industry likely split. As we go to press, the industry's major effort is focused on making sure that these new FSA ideas do not apply to the 2006 crop. Stay tuned for developments.
The PowerPoint slides presented at the meetings of March 10 ( click here, pdf 24 pages) and March 16 (click here, pdf 16 pages).
March 10, 2006
Senate Budget Committee Approves Budget with NO Agriculture Cuts: The Senate Budget Committee approved a $2.8 trillion FY07 budget blueprint this week with NO cuts in mandatory agriculture program spending called for in the Resolution. The Resolution is scheduled to be considered by the Full Senate next week. Last year the Budget Resolution required about $3 billion in mandatory agriculture program reductions over 5 years. USRPA fought hard to minimize the effects of those cuts on producers, and has continued to oppose any further cuts this year. Producer leaders drove that point home to members of Congress during their Washington visit last month. Last week, USRPA joined with dozens of other organizations to reiterate that point in a letter urging the House and Senate Budget Committees to reject any further safety net cuts (text of letter can be viewed by clicking here). We are gratified that the Senate has gotten the message that farmers cannot withstand further cuts in the farm safety net. USRPA will continue to work to drive that point home in the weeks and months ahead.
March 7, 2006
Click here for the letter signed by USRPA along with 22 other agricultural organizations supporting agricultural disaster assistance to deal with natural disasters and spiking input costs. The letter was sent to both the House and Senate Agriculture and Appropriations Committees.
March 3, 2006
To view the Chambliss-Harkin letter sent to the Budget Committee please click here.
March 2, 2006
Brazil Applies a New Law Clogging the Importation of Uruguayan Rice - For the article from the Uruguay Newspaper El Pais please click here.
February 17, 2006
The President’s Council of Economic Advisors released a report this week. You can read the agriculture chapter of the report by clicking here (PDF - 21 pages).
February 17, 2006
Uruguay Newspaper El Pais Reports the U.S. to Present Rice Proposal in Five Weeks. To view the El Pais article (in Spanish) please click here.
February 15, 2006
Please click here for a copy of the leave-behind on rice research and the President's budget titled: OPPOSE EFFORTS TO SLASH RICE RESEARCH FUNDING.
February 14, 2006
Producers and landowners who are holding 2004 and older EQIP contracts have a narrow opportunity to get an extra 15% from the NRCS on the contracted amounts for certain practices completed and certified between March 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006. Unfortunately precision leveling will not be one that qualifies for this additional funding. Please click here for the PDF attachment for details. Multiple inlets and irrigation pipelines are practices that should qualify, so if you have contracts that include these you may wish to make a special effort at getting them finished and certified within the prescribed timeframe. For those of you on the Gulf Coast of Texas who are LCRA irrigation customers, it may be of interest to you that LCRA staff is putting the finishing touches on paperwork to implement the HB 1437 water conservation practice cost sharing. This will be offered as an additional 30% cost share incentive on top of the EQIP 50% incentive to LCRA customers only. There is limited funding, so it is possible that there will not be sufficient funding to cover all potentialcontracts. The method for determining which contracts will be funded is still in flux, however you will have to make application at your local LCRA office by May 15, 2006 to be considered. Applications are not yet available, but should be available by the end of February. LCRA will be sending notification by mail to its customers with the finalized information and application. This cost share computation will likely vary somewhat from the computation for your EQIP contract. As of now, it is to be based on actual cost (with certain maximums) as opposed to the estimates that EQIP contracts contain, so it is essential that you maintain proper documentation to demonstrate actual costs. LCRA will pay its cost share only after the practice is certified as complete by the NRCS. Even projects that have already been completed may qualify for this cost share so long as they have not been used in crop production prior to the 2006 crop year.
Ronald Gertson
ronaldg@elc.net, Texas State Technical Committee, NRCS
February 9, 2006
FSA has issued new regulations governing Direct and Counter Cyclical Payments, effective February 9th. A copy of the regulations can be found by clicking here.
December 15, 2005
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (GA) continues to push for a reconciliation bill that spreads commodity cuts across several years and preserves the long-term commodity program budget baseline by extending farm program authorizations through 2011, consistent with the treatment afforded other major programs cut in both the House and Senate bills. To view the letter in support of this Senate proposal please click here.
November 15, 2005
To read the Op-ed piece written by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, please click here.
November 9, 2005
To view the letter endorsed by more than 50 organizations and sent to Congressional members supporting the Emerson-Dorgan language, pleaseclick here.
November 7, 2005
To view the letter signed by 42 House Members urging retention of the OFAC-Treasury language in the Treasury Appropriations conference pleaseclick here.
November 4, 2005
The US Rice Producers Association joined with several other commodity and farm groups to oppose the Grassley amendment, many of whom signed on to a letter authored by USRPA urging Senators to oppose such major changes to the current farm bill. You can view the letter by clicking here. To view a copy of Grassley's amendment, please click here.
October 14, 2005
Goodlatte & Chambliss Send Letter to Ambassador Portman Outlining Expectations:
Chairman Bob Goodlatte, together with Senator Saxby Chambliss, sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman this week outlining their expectations for the outcome of the WTO agriculture negotiations in Doha, Qatar. In meetings with Ambassador Portman and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, Chairman Goodlatte has expressed frustration that U.S. products don’t enjoy open access to foreign markets, putting U.S. producers at a significant disadvantage. U.S. producers rely significantly on trade. In the U.S., one in three acres is planted for export while 25 percent of gross farm income comes directly from exports. Producers already face significant tariff distortion with worldwide competitors. Tariffs in the U.S. average 12 percent, while tariffs in the rest of the world average 62 percent. Additionally, U.S. producers face unscientific trade barriers with trading partners such as the EU. The chairmen identify four principles will guide support for any final agreement including: 1)Improvements in real market access, 2)Greater harmonization in trade-distorting domestic support, 3)Elimination of export subsidies, & 4)Greater certainty & predictability regarding WTO litigation. Without adoption of these principles in any trade agreement, USTR may have trouble garnering Congressional support for such agreement.
To view a copy of the letter please click here.
October 6, 2005
Washington Post Editorial - This Is A Cut?
October 5, 2005
The Senate Ag Committee mark up for budget reconciliation. Pleaseclick here.
September 27, 2005
In response to Presidential Major Disaster Determinations M1606 and M1607, the Farm Service Agency has named five Louisiana parishes and nine Texas counties as major disaster areas, making "eligible family farmers" eligible for FSA EM loan assistance for physical and production losses" pursuant to section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. Louisiana parishes include Beauregard, Calcasieu, Cameron, Jefferson Davis, and Vermillion. Texas counties include Chambers, Galveston, Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Newton, Orange, and Tyler. Copies of the two notices issued by the Texas State FSA Office are available here: TXFLP449 andTXFLP450.
September 22, 2005
To read the letter to Senator Cochran and Bennett concerning ag appropriations, please click here.
September 22, 2005
To read the complete Republican Study Committee list of potential budget savings, including many ag programs, please click here.
September 14, 2005
Congressman Ted Poe (Texas) speaks on the: GREAT AMERICAN RICE TRADE IN TROUBLE. For a copy of his entire speech please click here.
August 19, 2005
Feeding More for Less in Niger
By SOPHIA MURPHY
(For the NY Times Article in pdf format please click here)The famine unfolding today in Niger has too many familiar characteristics. One of the poorest countries in the world is in a deadly crisis - one foreseen and ignored until the cost of intervention had jumped from $1 per child to $80, according to the United Nations. Many people have died and more will die in the coming weeks and months because rich countries failed to respond in time. United Nations agencies first appealed for money and food in November, but governments have only started to respond seriously in the last few weeks. It does not have to be this way. Swift and smart reforms to outdated American food-aid programs can move us toward preventing such crises rather than cleaning up after them. In a study I did this year with Kathleen McAfee, a geographer at the University of California, Berkeley, we concluded that the United States' food-aid system has two main problems - ones that other major donor countries have already taken steps to solve. First, almost all the aid is in the form of food produced in the United States. The government buys food from American commodity traders. The food is fortified, bagged and shipped by American firms. This approach usually results in costs well over market rate for food, handling and transport. The emphasis on using American commodities and firms is grossly inefficient and means that food is slow to arrive where it is needed. It also prevents the establishment of local food systems. Most other major donors, particularly those in the European Union, give money instead of food. This frees agencies like the United Nations World Food Program to buy food from farmers near the affected country - farmers who are often very poor - and to send the food quickly where it is most needed. To its credit, the Bush administration proposed designating an additional $300 million for food to be bought from local or regional sources this year, but Congress rejected the proposal. The second major problem is that the United States sells some of its food aid. It is the only country other than South Korea to sell food aid (albeit for less than commercial prices) or give it to intermediaries that then sell it. Private American aid organizations receive American food aid and sometimes sell the food at local markets to raise moneyfor their other aid programs in the country. Governments of recipient countries also sell food aid at local markets to raise money. The result is a subsidized sale that creates unfair competition for local farmers and commercial traders. The current system ensures that the United States' food aid falls far short of its potential. While our food aid saves lives, it could save many more. And most important, the system fails to strengthen food production and systems of food distribution in vulnerable countries. If we want our contributions to tackle the root causes of hunger, then the United States government needs to make immediate hanges to the food-aid system. It should transition to cash-based aid and phase out sales of food aid. The United States also needs to work with other donors and local governments to establish regional reserves in the most vulnerable parts of the world so that local authorities and private agencies can respond to crises quickly. The government should make multi-year guaranteed donations to the World Food Program so that the agency has the financial reserves to allow it plan its responses to emerging crises. The United States should also simplify its food aid system, which consists of six different programs administered by two agencies. The best food aid is flexible, timely, responsive and provides a buffer for tragic food shortfalls caused by devastation from disease, war or nature, while strengthening the systems of food production and distribution in the countries and regions it is trying to help. Food-aid donations from the United States to Niger, recently doubled with a pledge to reach $13 million in 2005 could save many more lives if we change the way we spend the money. We shouldwork not only to prevent every death we can in Niger today, but also to ensure that the children and grandchildren of those affected by this crisis can look back on it as an exception rather than a norm.
Sophia Murphy is the director of the Trade Program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis.
August 5, 2005
Kiplinger Ag Letter on Johanns and 2007 Farm Bill
Today's issue of the Kiplinger Agricultural Newsletter (www.KiplingerAgriculture.com/start) devotes the entire first page to an analysis of Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns' Farm Bill Forums, currently being held across the nation, and what this implies for the 2007 farm bill process. Read the newsletterhere.
July 22, 2005
Rice Producers Praise Senators Baucus, Grassley for Cuba Export Clarification
Dwight Roberts, CEO of the US Rice Producers Association praised Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) for their continuing efforts to force the Treasury Department to carry out the 2000 Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act to facilitate agricultural exports to Cuba as Congress intended. “Until the unwarranted action by our Treasury Department this February, Cuba was the fastest growing market for U.S. rice. Since the Treasury Department Rule was issued, U.S. rice exports to Cuba have plummeted by more than 60 percent. We are grateful to Senators Baucus and Grassley for wrestling from the Treasury Department an alternative procedure under which U.S. exporters may make cash sales of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba.” The Treasury Department sent a letter to the Senators today (http://www.finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2005press/prb072905Treasury%20letter.pdf) that provides that the current Treasury Department “payment of cash in advance” regulations will be satisfied in cases where a Cuban buyer sends payment in advance to a seller's agent in a 3rd country bank. The funds may be held in 3rd country banks until the goods are delivered under the terms of the sales contract. Roberts said “This hopefully will address concerns about any legal risk associated with possible seizure of advance payments held in U.S. banks. We are hopeful that our friends in the exporting community and our neighbors in Cuba will take a very close look at whether sales can be creatively structured to be successful under this procedure.”Roberts concluded “This is NOT a solution to OFAC's unwarranted narrowing of cash sales in their February 2005 "clarification". We will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Senators Baucus and Grassley to overturn this trade restriction, along with other champions like Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO), Chairman Bob Goodlatte (D-VA), Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and Representative Jerry Moran (R-KS) and the broad majorities of Members of Congress and among the American people who support our providing food to our Cuban neighbors.” For a copy of Senator Baucus' Press Release please visit: http://www.finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2005press/prb072905.pdf.
July 22, 2005
Uruguayan Government Announces Decision to File WTO Case Against U.S. Rice According to the newspaper El Pais in Montevideo, Uruguay this week, the Uruguayan government has decided to file suit against the U.S. rice industry with the WTO for damages caused by the production and export of subsidized U.S. rice. Pedro Queheile, a director with the Uruguayan Rice Association (ACA) stated, "the U.S. subsidies prevent our entering markets since they sell at non-competitive prices that are below the cost of production". For a copy of the article (in Spanish) click here.
|
