We hope so. Because their cause just got a major bi-partisan, bi-cameral boost.

To say the very least, it's long overdue.

Though largely unnoticed by the media (here's an exception), legislation was introduced last week in both the House and the Senate to reopen the landmark Pigford discrimination settlement involving tens of thousands of black farmers and USDA.

The need to reopen the settlement was documented in a headline-making 2003 report by EWG's then general counsel, Arianne Callender, and published in collaboration with our friends at the National Black Farmers Association, led by the unstoppable John Boyd.

As EWG and NBFA took our report around the Hill, making the case for a fresh look at a settlement that had unfairly excluded tens of thousands of black farmers through no fault of their own, we found strong interest in the House from the Congressional Black Caucus and from Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio. Last week Chabot teamed up with Democrat Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, a tireless, resourceful champion of black farmers, to introduce the House bill.

The man who listened and responded immediately in the Senate when we first presented the study's disturbing findings was Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.

Sen. Grassley was joined last week by presidential aspirant Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL as the original co-sponsor of the companion bill in the Senate.

The measures will be referred to the Judiciary Committees in the respective chambers.

We're optimistic that this bill can make progress. Why? Beyond the strong bi-partisan support, there's this from the Senate Judiciary Committee's Chairman...

And on the House side we have in Sen. Kennedy's counterpart as chairman a congressman who has fought long and hard to gain justice for black farmers--Rep. John Conyers of Michigan.

So we think this bill will move. No one deserves more credit then John Boyd.

And not the kids' table, either.

Reporters Les Blumenthal (The Bellingham Herald) and Anna King (The Tri-City Herald/The Bellingham Herald) deftly capture the revolt of fruit and vegetable growers in Washington State who have decided to stop being farm bill losers ("Farm bill debate grows: Competing interests fight for precious dollars in Congress").

Washington state ranks behind only California and Florida when it comes to the production of fruits and vegetables, so-called specialty crops that include everything from apples and potatoes to hops, sweet cherries and wine grapes. Specialty-crop growers have never received direct federal subsidies and little in the way of research, market promotion or other federal assistance.

Of course, bridging this divide means unwanted pressure on official agriculture and political leaders. They prefer no hard choices. Blumenthal and King again:

Valoria Loveland, director of the Washington state Department of Agriculture, is well aware of the rift between the state’s subsidized farmers and specialty crop growers. But Loveland says she doesn’t want money yanked from wheat and corn growers to increase funding for fruit and vegetable farmers.

“Why would I trade off my Palouse wheat farmers for my apple orchards?” Loveland said. “They all need support and understanding to stay on the farm.”

One possible rationale for a trade off might be that Palouse wheat farmers have received subsidies for several generations, whereas the rest of the state's producers have gotten zip. But it doesn't sound as if the state's director of agriculture is going to do anything to right the imbalance. Avoiding the issue would seem to be easier.

Which raises the question: is assistance for subsidy crops required in perpetuity? Are they entitled to almost every dollar of taxpayer support as an income subsidy, forever, at the expense of modest aid (not income subsidies) to farmers producing other crops who may want conservation assistance to deal with environmental issues, or a boost in research funding and marketing assistance to deal with an increasingly competitive global market?

Those are the questions, but the only thing that's certain is that fruit and vegetable growers in Washington state and elsewhere will continue to be farm bill losers unless they insist on a different outcome. Politicians will say "we tried", fruit and vegetable growers will get a few more bucks for their priorities, and subsidy crops will come away--again--with all the money.

One thing's for sure. Washington State's "specialty crop" farmers won't get what they want out of this farm bill if they don't do what subsidy crop farmers have always done: insist that their political leaders listen--and act--even if it does force trade-offs.

We've noted zillions of "usda.gov" URLs over the years logging into the EWG Farm Subsidy Database and looking up names of subsidy recipients.

Now EWG finds our name on USDA's Web site, along with other nonprofit organizations like Ducks Unlimited.

Another sign, however small, that Mike Johanns' team doesn't think of USDA as a wholly owned subsidiary of the subsidy lobby, and doesn't think of the 2007 farm bill as an upcoming episode of agri-business as usual.

Yes.

Brazil is now making the case before yet another WTO panel for the right to retaliate against the United States for our cotton subsidies. At issue: an earlier panel's finding that counter-cyclical payments, marketing loans and commodity certificates/loan forfeitures for U.S. cotton caused serious prejudice to cotton growers in Brazil and Africa.

The U.S. government is fighting this phase of the process with everything they've got.

So only the threat of retaliation--not a specific action--will be in play during the farm bill debate this year, because the new WTO panel is unlikely to complete its work before U.S. legislation is largely formulated, and perhaps enacted.

Brazil has already said they don't like the Johanns farm bill proposal. They must especially dislike the increased money for cotton, even if more of it is in "decoupled" fixed payment form. Why? Because as EWG's research has shown, the vast majority farmers who get "decoupled" cotton payments grow cotton nonetheless. Only the biofuels boom might change that pattern...but probably not enough to satisfy Brazil.

The Mulch has gotten pretty thin since Wednesday.

It has been a hectic few days for us in the wake of Ag Secretary Johanns' announcement of the administration's farm bill proposal, mostly talking to the media and conferring with our colleagues who are pushing for reform, Hill staff, farm organizations and others for their reactions.

But we might as well start adding Mulch on the topic with which--significantly, I think--Sec. Johanns kicked off his entire briefing: a proposal to consider means testing as part of a new approach to "strengthen payment and eligibility limits."

Why was it significant? Because the administration clearly wants to talk about fairness and farm assistance in ways that non-aggies in Congress, and 97.7 percent of American taxpayers, can relate to. To say nothing of the vast majority of farmers and ranchers who inhabit an income world far, far south of $200K.

USDA proposes to...

Decrease the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) eligibility cap for all farm commodity program payments from the current $2.5 million to $200,000 annually. Continue current law AGI requirements and payment limits on all conservation title payments.

Repeal the current provision in law that waives the AGI cap if 75 percent or more of the AGI is derived from farming, ranching, or forestry activities. Thus, if a producer has an annual adjusted gross income of $200,000 or more, regardless of the source of the income, the producer would not be eligible for commodity program payments.

Here's part of the rationale USDA cited in making the case for this reform (you can download the full proposal and background materials here):

Payment limits and the Adjusted Gross Income cap have affected few producers. Only nine percent of all farms collect 54 percent of all government commodity payments. The complexity of the law allows virtually unlimited payments to the nation’s largest and most wealthy farms. During Farm Bill Forums, producers spoke often about these wealthier farms inflating cash rental rates and outbidding their neighbors for farm real estate. The nation’s tax policy coupled with these unlimited government payments have contributed to the surge in high land values and high rental rates. As a result, it is more difficult for beginning farmers to get started and for small- and medium-sized farmers to compete.

Much more from USDA's background document for this proposal in the jump. But for now, it's worth noting that when the IRS says Adjusted Gross Income, here is what it means:

AGI is defined as your taxable income from all sources including wages, salaries, tips, taxable interest, ordinary dividends, taxable refunds, credits, or offsets of state and local income taxes, alimony received, business income or loss, capital gains or losses, other gains or losses, taxable IRA distributions, taxable pensions and annuities, rental real estate, royalties, farm income or losses, unemployment compensation, taxable social security benefits, and other income minus specific deductions including educator expenses, the IRA deduction, student loan interest deduction, tuition and fees deduction, Archer MSA deduction, moving expenses, one-half of self-employment tax, self-employed health insurance deduction, self-employed SEP, SIMPLE, and qualified plans, penalty on early withdrawal of savings, and alimony paid by you. Do not deduct your standard or itemized deductions.