The next three weeks are the crucial period in the 2007 farm bill cycle, the best chance for the public to make a difference. We've been extremely busy with farm policy matters here at EWG, but our posting will pick up again now. We'll do our best to keep you up to date on key developments, and opportunities to weigh in.

The House agriculture committee is scheduled to begin its markup a week from tomorrow (July 17) and take its bill to the House floor the very next week, with an eye to completing action before the August recess. Chairman Harkin indicated last week that the Senate committee might start its markup this month.

Over the weekend, the content of House Chairman Peterson's "two bill" approach was posted on the committee's website. Bill #1, the one assuming no extra money is made available through the $20 billion "reserve fund" for agriculture, is set forth title by title, with accompanying fact sheets. Bill #2 imagines that reserve fund does money become available; its provisions are found in the "En Bloc Amendment."

Translated from the French, "En bloc" literally means "Powerball".

The House agriculture committee's 46 members (of 435 in the House) represent congressional districts that accounted for fully 42.4 percent of crop subsidy payments between 2003 and 2005 (program years)--$14.7 billion out of $34.75 billion spent by taxpayers over that period. We break it down here.

Six committee members represent districts that collected over $1 billion in crop subsidies in just three years; nine collected over $700 million, including Chairman Peterson, whose Minnesota district brought in more than $873 million. To state the obvious, these are large districts in area (two are at-large, encompassing entire states) and they are major producers of the five crops that account for over 90 percent of the Title I subsidies (corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybeans).

But within the committee, some members may have a much bigger stake in perpetuating the current distribution of funding than others.

Only 24 of the committee’s members, all of whom represent districts that received more than $124 million over the three years, accounted for 40 percent ($13.9 billion) of total commodity subsidies between 2003 and 2005.

Many of the other members might well wonder what’s in it for their constituents if the full committee simply rubber stamps an extension of current crop subsidy programs, a position the subcommittee with jurisdiction over those programs approved just last month.

Fourteen (14) members--a third of the full committee--saw $30 million or less come into their districts through crop subsidies, less than $10 million per year on average.

That group's farm and ranch constituents might well fare better under reform scenarios that invest more money in fruit and vegetable programs, and conservation. Among its members is ranking Republican Bob Goodlatte of Virginia (who comes in 42nd among committee members for crop subsidies over that period).

Title I in both versions would extend the fixed direct payments, made regardless of prices or incomes, to the tune of $5.2 billion per year for five years. The mark also increases target prices for a number of crops, of most consequence for wheat, barley and soybeans.