EWG president Ken Cook hosted a media conference call briefing today with prominent agriculture economists and state climatologists to discuss the impact weather may have on the food and biofuel system.

The audio briefing can be downloaded by right-clicking or control-clicking HERE.

On the call was:

Keith Collins, who served for 15 years as Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Economist Bill Lapp, currently a principal with Advanced Economic Solutions and a member of USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service Advisory Board. Mr. Lapp formerly served as Chief Economist for ConAgra Foods.

Al Dutcher, state climatologist for Nebraska since 1991 and is with the School of Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska Lincoln (UNL).

S. Elwynn Taylor, a professor of Agronomy and an Extension Climatologist for Iowa State University since 1970.

AP is now reporting that the House and Senate may have to repass the entire farm bill tomorrow because someone forgot to include the 34-page trade title in the version Bush got from the Hill and vetoed today.

An extension of the current bill also will be needed to prevent a trip in time back to 1949, when the underlying permanent law was passed.

House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter:

"We will have to repass the whole thing, as will the Senate," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. "We can't let the farm bill just die."

The possibility never crossed my mind.

That would be the Trade title of the farm bill.

You know, the title not included in the bill sent the president. The title not included in the bill he vetoed today. The one missing from the version before the House when it overrode his veto earlier this evening.

Mixup throws House veto override in doubt Associated Press - May 21, 2008 9:13 PM ET WASHINGTON (AP) - The House overwhelmingly rejected President Bush's veto of a roughly $290 billion farm bill but what should have been a stinging defeat for Bush became an embarrassing episode for Democrats.

Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the 5-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. Only hours later, the House voted 316 to 108 to override the veto, and the Senate had been expected to quickly follow suit.

But action stalled after it was discovered that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the massive bill when it sent the measure to the White House. That means Bush vetoed a different bill than Congress approved, leaving leaders scrambling to figure out whether it could become law.

EWG President Ken Cook
Statement On House Passage of 2008 Farm Bill
14 May 2008

Anyone who might have wondered if this Congress would bring a "new direction" to farm policy had their final answer in today's vote in the House of Representatives.

Democrats are supposed to stand on principles of fairness and equity, not sell them. And today they sold them on the cheap.

If the House had displayed even a modicum of political courage and taken on the subsidy lobby, this farm bill could have gone far beyond the miserly spending increases it provides for nutrition assistance to the poor at home and abroad, conservation, farmers markets, organic food, minority farmers and other important priorities that have long been neglected or under-funded. And there would have been money left over to give taxpayers a break.

Apparently the Democratic caucus thought they were log rolling when the subsidy lobby tossed them some twigs.

In a period when crop prices and farm incomes are soaring to record levels, the continuation of bloated subsidies to the largest, most prosperous farms in the country can only be seen as a breathtaking cop-out on the part of congressional leaders.

Environmental Working Group will be highlighting the good and the bad in this legislation in the days ahead, but we already know how the balance will tip relative to the opportunity for reform in this farm bill cycle: on balance the special interests won, and the public interest lost.

Because enough nay votes today will give President Bush the margin he needs to sustain a veto and pursue one last effort to press for reform of the scandalously broken crop subsidy system and curb abuses by the mega-farms that dominate it.

The only thing more shameful than the income "caps" in the Conference Bill is their embrace by Democrats as "reform."

What Bush's veto, in turn, will not mean, is a simple extension of the 2002 bill and it won't mean we exhume the 1949 law. Neither one is a viable option for the administration or congress. They need a new bill, and a post-veto version will be better.

And a veto also won't mean the loss of the nutrition and conservation funding and reforms everyone's so excited about--everyone but us. We think on both areas--and on organic, fruit and vegetable programs, dealing with hunger abroad--this farm bill doesn't even measure up to being called pathetic, and we'll be writing about that a lot in the days to come.

So again, we urge a nay vote today.

UPDATE: The House approved the farm bill with an apparently veto-proof margin, 318-106.

Republican sources tell me the White House is now pushing the GOP conference to vote against the farm bill tomorrow to signal Bush's veto will be sustained.

Now that it is finally engaged, the White House is picking up support among fiscal conservatives and bolstering opposition to the bill from House Minority Leader Boehner and Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor.

But fiscal conservatives aligned with the White House are concluding that it's now House Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri who is missing in action.

As today's White House statement and administration sources make clear, Bush strongly prefers a new bill, not a straight extension of current law, but is firmly insisting on more subsidy reform. A veto is seen as opening a final, post-veto round of negotiation, on a new bill, not a simple extension that is seen as DOA in the House.

Top administration sources tell me that If the veto is sustained, the Bush team will not challenge the food assistance or conservation provisions in any ensuing negotiations. Their focus is on Title I reform and commodity-related costs like the new $3.8 billion permanent disaster aid program.

That opens the door to the subsidy lobby's worst nightmare: isolation of their plush Title I and disaster aid provisions as the obstacle to a new farm bill should Bush and Pelosi find farm bill common ground.

A provision secretly tucked into the Farm Bill Conference Report (Sec. 1619, "Information Gathering") nullifies a recent, major federal appeals court decision under the Freedom of Information Act that ordered USDA to make public large amounts of data crucial to monitoring the economic and environmental impacts of multi-billion-dollar farm subsidy and conservation programs.

Language to undo the effects of the FOIA decision was not part of the bills passed by either the House or the Senate. It was inserted without public hearings or debate during the Conference Committee process.

UPDATE: Pelosi's "New Direction" vowed to "Protect the public’s right to know, strengthening the Freedom of Information Act." (Look under Restore Accountability To Washington.)

In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, overturning a district court ruling under the Federal Freedom of Information Act, ordered the release of USDA data files in which "the public has a particular and significant interest" because "USDA uses this information in the administration of its subsidy and benefit programs and there is a special need for public scrutiny of agency action that distributes extensive amounts of public funds in the form of subsidies and other financial benefits." (Multi Ag Media, LLC v. Department of Agriculture)

Regarding one set of information, the court found that USDA's so-called Compliance File "contains crop data that agricultural producers report to FSA [Farm Service Agency] to establish eligibility for the government's subsidy and benefit programs. . .USDA withheld information on irrigation practices, farm acreage, and the number and width of rows of tobacco and cotton."

The other set of data ordered for release was a geographic information system (GIS) database that helps USDA's subsidy and compliance arm, the Farm Service Agency, "verify farm features and thereby monitor compliance with regulations governing farm benefits. . .USDA released much of the GIS database. . .but withheld information on farm, tract and boundary identification, calculated acreage, and characteristics of the land such as whether it is erodible, barren, or has water or perennial snow cover."

As the court stated:

"In sum, given USDA's rather tepid showing that release of the files would allow the public to draw inferences about some farmers' financial circumstances, the interest in data that would allow the public to more easily monitor USDA's administration of its subsidy and benefit programs, and FOIA's presumption in favor of disclosure, we conclude that the public interest in disclosure of the Compliance File and GIS database outweighs the personal privacy interest. Accordingly, release of these files would not 'constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy'. . .

. . .We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the Compliance File and the GIS database and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The government did not appeal the ruling and the files were released, we presume, to Multi Ag Media, a subscription-based commercial publishing and marketing company that caters to firms doing business primarily with livestock farmers.

The key provision of Section 1619(b)(2) reads as follows:

2) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in paragraphs (3)
and (4), the Secretary, any officer or employee of the Department
of Agriculture, or any contractor or cooperator of the Department,
shall not disclose—

(A) information provided by an agricultural producer
or owner of agricultural land concerning the agricultural
operation, farming or conservation practices, or the land
itself, in order to participate in programs of the Department;
or [the Compliance File]

(B) geospatial information otherwise maintained by the
Secretary about agricultural land or operations for which
information described in subparagraph (A) is provided.[the GIS database file]

Complete Sec. 1619 in the jump.

Download the Appeals Court Decision.

Republican contacts on the Hill tell me there is no sign thus far of a White House campaign to sustain the farm bill veto the Bush administration has been talking up for months now, most recently on Friday's press call with Agriculture Secretary Shafer and Deputy Chuck Conner.

The absence of an active White House presence on the issue, up to and including indications that the president and vice president will weigh in personally, has caused Republicans to wonder how serious the White House really is about winning the farm bill veto fight.

There's not much time left for the White House to demonstrate resolve. With splits within the House Republican leadership on the farm bill--Minority Leader John Boehner in opposition to the measure and GOP Conference Chair Adam Putnam cheering for passage--it will take a full-court press by the White House lobbying apparatus to win a veto showdown. Statements from the podium of the White House press room or USDA's leaders, however clear and firm, won't be enough.

UPDATE MONDAY 2:10 PM: Boehner raises "earmark" objections to farm bill in this op-ed but doesn't even mention the impending veto.

Without a strong and visible White House push in the next three days inside the House Republican Conference, insiders warn, by the time the override vote is eventually taken Bush may already have lost.

The calculation is very simple. With the farm bill going to the House Rules Committee at COB this Tuesday, the measure may come to the floor as early as Wednesday. The sooner the better for supporters of the bill, who feel they have the momentum and want to run up the score with a big vote for passage this week.

There's no question the farm bill will pass the House. The question is whether a bloc of one-third of those present will either vote against the bill, or at least register as "not voting" and thus plausibly be deemed to be on the fence. A Republican "Nay" plus "NV" tally of one-third or more of the House, bolstered by some Democrats voting against the bill, would strongly indicate the president's veto can be sustained.

The White House would surely prefer a one-third "nay" vote. But "not voting" could emerge as an attractive outlet for GOP members who want to signal support for the president and his objections to the farm bill. That outcome would at minimum prolong the suspense about the outcome of the veto override, giving the White House more time and political room to build support.

(Not many Democrats are likely to vote no or take the "NV" option, unless they are willing to buck Speaker Pelosi and give Blue Dogs some payback for derailing last week's war supplemental vote. But a show of discord on the Democratic side could become a premise for the Speaker to pursue her wish for more subsidy reform, presuming that is indeed her wish.)

But it will be next to impossible to convince Republicans who vote for passage of the farm bill this week to turn around and sustain the president's veto of the same measure days later. A lop-sided win for the subsidy lobby on passage this week comfortably above two-thirds of the House (291 if every member votes) would make the veto override vote ceremonial only, and of questionable help in Republican efforts to unite, show strength and restore their brand. That's a "why bother" scenario for many Republicans.

However, if it is clear from this week's House vote that a veto will be or is likely to be sustained--and if in the event it is sustained--Agriculture Secretary Schafer and Deputy Secretary Conner will have the leverage they need to press for further subsidy reforms and other items on the administration's wish list.

That leverage will be substantial. Speaker Pelosi can't push a naked extension of the discredited 2002 farm bill through her own caucus much less the whole House. Even the fig leaf of phony subsidy reforms now in the bill would be gone, and there would be no increase in food assistance or conservation funds, no Pigford relief for black farmers, none of the tax blandishments Chairman Rangel secured for the Caribbean . . . and on and on.

But the game's over if the White House allows the veto override to look inevitable after this week's House vote.

True to their noble commitment to fiscal responsibility, Blue Dog Democrats helped stall their party's war supplemental spending package in the House this week. The intrepid budged hawks insisted that the cost of a major expansion of GI Bill education benefits that was added to the supplemental be offset with budget cuts elsewhere.

Veterans’ groups and liberal Democrats were irked by the Blue Dogs’ stance.

The delay caused by the Blue Dogs provoked a backlash by veterans’ groups as well as several members of the liberal Out of Iraq and Progressive caucuses Thursday, who demanded that the supplemental bill be brought to the floor in its original form.

“How can the Blue Dog Coalition possibly say that an expansion of education benefits is too costly when their votes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight in Iraq violate the same pay-as-you-go rules they claim to so deeply respect? It’s an inconsistent logic,” said Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey , D-N.Y.

Maybe House Democrats riled up about the Blue Dogs' position on education benefits for veterans should stage a revolt themselves--by signalling support for Bush's promised veto of the farm bill.

After all, Blue Dogs are mopping up billions in that legislation, which Speaker Pelosi is strong-arming her caucus to support. We know that at least $5.9 billion in "direct payment" farm subsidies will go to farmers in Blue Dog districts over the next five years, despit the sky-high crop prices and record incomes that subsidy crop farmers will be earning.

How "fiscally responsible" is that?

Earl Pomeroy's farmers will get $1.1 billion from taxpayers. Marion Berry's will get $965 million. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's will haul in over $800 million.

And Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, who has been saying the payments are "hard to defend" when farmers' incomes are at record levels, will bring home $691 million in direct payment subsidies under the bill.

Here's a complete list of the direct payments Blue Dogs are projected to haul in over the next five years.

Once again, Blue Dogs are getting their way--and getting their money--while the majority of the Democratic caucus is stymied on their agenda.

Maybe with the farm economy booming, Democratic leaders could cut farm subsidies to the biggest, most prosperous operations to pay for the education benefits veterans deserve?

The AP's Mary Clare Jalonick reported this afternoon that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "a suppporter of the bill, said she wished it had gone further in limiting payments to wealthy farmers but praised increases for nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency domestic food assistance, by more than $10 billion. The measure would also expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren."

Bush's insistence on more subsidy reform, the core of the public case he is making for a veto, could end up granting Pelosi her wish. But first the administration has to muster the votes to sustain his veto. The only real shot is in the House.

The question is, how will this veto dance between Bush and Pelosi unfold. (I'm putting Harry Reid aside because a veto override appears hardest in the House and highly unlikely in the Senate.)

Will Bush just veto the bill, throw up his hands, and make another half-hearted suggestion that the 2002 bill be extended for a year or two? Unlikely. Extension would infuriate his fiscally conservative base. They hate the current bill and would harshly criticize a sequel. Nor would a simple extension be the logical finale to the two years his administration spent in nationwide farm bill listening sessions, developing its own detailed farm bill proposal, and making nonstop appeals for subsidy reform that have earned almost universal praise for the president on editorial pages across the country. Why, after all that, would Bush hand the keys back to the subsidy lobby to drive farm policy for another two years?

And for all the big talk from the subsidy lobby, as recently as 18 months ago, that they would simply muscle a 2002 extension through congress, that option was, and remains, impossible with Democrats in control. A straight extension can't pass the House, and probably couldn't pass the Senate.

Which raises the question of what counter offer, if any, Bush might present over the next week as he reaches for his veto pen? And how and to whom he will present it?

So far the president's rejection of the bill has focused on inadequate income caps for subsidies, other excesses in the commodity title, the costly new "permanent disaster assistance" program, failure to convert a portion of foreign food aid to local purchases, and sundry other issues. Add to that list, of course, what the White House terms the "bloated" cost of the bill.

For the most part, however, the administration has not raised veto-level objections to any of the provisions that advocates for sustainable food and agriculture, conservation or social justice tend to like about the bill. That list includes the increase for food assistance to the poor that Pelosi and other bill supporters are hyper-ventilating about.

Here's one way to put that food assistance increase in perspective: at $10.3 billion over 10 years, it is equivalent to the direct payments that subsidized farmers will collect in just the next two years (at $5.1 to $5.2 billion per year) under the conference agreement. That's as good a measure as any of the lousy deal Pelosi and her staff cut last summer, when the subsidy lobby took her to the cleaners and most of the Democratic caucus with her.

But those numbers also suggests how relatively easy it would be for Bush to accommodate Pelosi on food assistance, conservation and other farm bill items that matter most to her and to the majority of her caucus. It would then fall to her to nudge the House position closer to Bush on commodity policy. Then it would be up to the Senate to accept the compromise, or pack for a trip back in time to 1949.

Of course, none of this will matter unless the president can demonstrate that he has one-third of the House behind his veto--comprised of most of his party and some Democrats. The fact that he has a decent shot has the House Democratic leadership and the subsidy lobby working alongside, overtime, to override his veto, and sundry other interest groups, some queasy progressives among them, tagging along--again.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this document, which was leaked to us. But it's the only paper we've seen on the agreement. Download the image or click link below for the full document. But remember, NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION!



Download full PDF file

Hot from the USDA press office.

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ED SCHAFER ON CONGRESS' ANNOUNCEMENT OF A NEW FARM BILL WASHINGTON, May 8, 2008- In January 2007, the President put forward a farm bill proposal that represents fiscal responsibility, would improve the safety-net for farmers and move current programs toward market oriented policies. Our proposals were warranted and timely considering that 2008 net farm income is forecast to be $92 billion - 51 percent above its 10 year average.

"Today, the United States House and Senate announced the completion of a farm bill that unfortunately fails to include much needed reform and increases spending by nearly $20 billion. At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase farm subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support, and move programs toward more government control. We should not remove farm commodities from market forces and make them dependent upon government support programs.

In addition, Congress decided to include a new permanent disaster program. This program represents a return to outdated farm policy and questions the government's investment in crop insurance which was designed to protect farmers against low commodity prices and crop failures. This action will discredit farm programs and jeopardize public support for future farm bills.

Americans appreciate our farmers and ranchers and understand the uncertainties and risks that farming presents. However, they do not understand why their taxes should be used to provide payments to individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $500,000 and higher, some of the wealthiest people in America.

We are also concerned about a lengthy list of extraneous provisions that are not related to farm programs and have no place in this legislation.

For a year and a half, the Administration has been consistently clear that Congress needs to move forward with a good farm bill that the President can sign. They have failed to do so. This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government. I have visited face to face with our President and he was direct and plain. The President will veto this bill."

Not a subscriber to DTNag.com? Good. Maybe you'll think I came up with this description of the "income caps" farm bill conference principals have hammered out, when in fact it was Chris Clayton at the DTN Ag Policy Blog ("It's Done, Except for the Voting, Veto, etc.")

One of the final hangups was how to deal with adjusted gross income eligibility. Lawmakers agreed to cut off people from commodity payments if they receive more than $500,000 non-farm income. However, farmers can receive up to $750,000 in net farm income before direct payments are cut off. In theory, a person could have $499,000 in stock sales and $749,000 in net farm income and still collect direct payments.

Hmmm. How many tax returns have an adjusted gross income (income after most expenses and decductions) on them of $1,248,000? Let's consult the latest published IRS table on tax returns sorted by AGI:

Source: Internal Revenue Service, 2005.

Looks like about three-tenths of one percent (0.3 percent) of all tax returns would exceed that amount. And what fraction of that fraction would be wrapped up in farm programs? I'd tell you but my microscope is on the blink.

Surely the conference committee leaders will be asked at their press conference later today how many people will be caught up in this subsidy crackdown? And how much money these historic "reforms" save taxpayers?

When I testified last year before the House Agriculture Committee's conservation subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Tim Holden, I was asked what I thought about means testing for conservation programs. The back story was the administration's proposal to means-test commodity programs (cutting off subsidies for adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more) which the subsidy lobby hated not just because it threatened the unlimited supply of taxpayer money to the biggest, wealthiest subsidy farms in the country, but because it was the camel's nose under the tent, and the camel was George W. Bush. The back story's sub-story was that EWG very publicly supported the idea, along with Dorgan-Grassley style payment limits.

Some of the subcommittee members seemed to surprised to hear that I thought means testing for conservation should be on the table. I told members of the Texas Farm Bureau the same thing when I met with them here in town recently. It was Earth Day, come to think of it.

So when Jerry Hagstrom of Congress Daily sought our views on the matter Monday, here's the response we emailed him:

Means testing is clearly appropriate for commodity subsidies. Taxpayers should not be accelerating farm consolidation by bankrolling big, wealthy farm operations, which is what commodity subsidies do. But with tight funding and such a large unmet need for conservation programs, we should also take a hard look at means testing for all farm bill programs, even conservation.

Our view is that if policymakers have ideas in this department, they should present them for discussion and debate.

But the subsidy lobby is crassly and transparently calculating that at least some conservation groups will be scared away from Title I reforms, and perhaps enlisted to the cause of resisting them, if means testing for conservation programs is put on the table. Some groups clearly would be scared off, and by much lesser threats than this.

While EWG may differ from them in emphasis or nuance on this issue, we think EDF and other groups make a strong and principled case for treating conservation programs differently than commodity programs when it comes to income caps and payment limits.

Other conservation groups covered their eyes, ears, mouths--and especially their noses--on any issues pertaining to Title I during the past year's debate, hoping that conservation programs would somehow be sustained or expanded with money that fell from the sky. EDF was different. EDF never shrank from making the case for broader subsidy reforms as part of their impressive effort to secure substantial increases in conservation investments.

Bully for them. EDF has had the courage of their convictions to suggest where to find the money for conservation--in Title I, crop insurance, and by eschewing the 'permanent disaster' fund--while other conservation groups have cowered in the modest comforts of committee accommodation, in silence or in press releases. That's one reason we're down to $4 billion above baseline for conservation at this point, an amount that doesn't even replace the funding cuts to conservation since 2002.

Of course, in farm bill politics EDF's reform stance is a prescription for retribution by subsidy interests and the politicians in their thrall, if they can arrange it, no matter what impact the revenge may have on conservation.

The reprisal dynamic was on display last summer in the legislative intimidation of Ducks Unlimited by Rep. Marion Berry of Arkansas. He threatened DU during House consideration of the farm bill with an amendment that would have defunded the organization's crucial role of providing technical assistance to farmers under conservation programs like the Wetlands Reserve Program. Berry's amendment was in retaliation for DU's support in 2002 of the Boehlert-Kind-Dingell-Gilchrest reform amendment, which outraged the subsidy lobby (Berry's rice and cotton constituents in particular) because it would have shifted some money away from top crop subsidy recipients to pay for dramatically increased conservation investments.

Conservation groups who take stands like that are bound to become targets of recrimination by the subsidy lobby and their friends in congress.

The message is always the same: play nice, keep your great big save-the-world pie hole shut about Title I reform, and maybe you'll get some money. A lot less money than is needed, a lot less money than you want, a lot less money than you've told your supporters you'll be fighting for in the farm bill, of course.

But if you do play along the commodity boys will throw you a few bucks that are mandatory (and many more bucks that are merely authorized) for programs you consider central to your mission, whether it is holding the nation's migratory bird flyways together, protecting farmland from sprawl, preserving ecological gems or helping family farms protect their land and everyone's water, air and wildlife. Big Ag will even consider "protecting conservation through conference" if you bend sufficiently to their wishes, though of course you never know what the House (or Senate) might do. . .some things are beyond their control. . . Blah, blah, blah.

The standard bonus in these deals is that the subsidy lobby will do their level best to resist their powerful impulse to warp or destroy conservation program function and effectiveness through hatchet jobs on policy. Like collapsing all conservation easement programs into one--or dropping their demand for income caps or payment limits, if that's what twists your shorts.

Food assistance advocates are treated to their own version of these bullying tactics in every farm bill cycle.

I disagree with Chairman Peterson's characterization of EDF's position (as reported by Hagstrom in CongressDaily) as "hypocritical." But I certainly understand why he might misread as inconsistency EDF's thoughtful case for treating conservation subsidies differently than commodity subsidies.

The chairman's difficulty in distinguishing false virtue from the genuine article surely is symptomatic of his constant, acute occupational exposure to high doses of hypocrisy from the subsidy lobby. I'm worried for him.

How can a person not become confused and disoriented about what is and is not hypocritical when:

. . .Subsidy-addicted farmers continually express their powerful yearning to earn their living from the market, instead of the detestable Big Government, just as soon as higher prices permit. . .

. . .Politicians declaim that direct payments made without regard to prices or income are "hard to defend" in this overheated farm economy, then increase those payments selectively for the very largest subsidized farms. . .

. . .Commodity groups dependent on export markets warn that without direct payments for cotton plantations, America may become dependent on other countries for our food--as we are for our oil. . .

. . .Farm organizations pine for the day when market prices and incomes suffice to render "market-oriented" subsidy checks unnecessary, so that conservation programs and rural development can at long last be fully funded. . .

. . .Political leaders assert that Congress has no business dictating farm size through subsidy limits, with the exception of dictating that 10 acres or less is not a farm at all. . .

. . .Proponents of "production agriculture"--code for plantation-scale subsidy operations--brag about feeding the world, then express heartfelt regret at not being able to feed some of the world's poorest and hungriest kids by coming through with the $840 million promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Ag Committee Chairman Peterson for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program. . .

Even the sturdiest farm policymaker is bound to be impaired over time by prolonged exposure to so much howling hypocrisy. No one should hold it against him.

The Washington Post was a triple threat today on the farm bill, with Dan Morgan's story, the op-ed from George McGovern and Bob Dole, and this rippin' good editorial page rant on the sugar giveaways in the farm bill.

THE DEADLINE for completion of a new farm bill has been pushed back to May 16. But the endless wrangling over a piece of legislation that Congress once hoped to finish in 2007 has not induced a significant change in the thinking of those who regard it as an opportunity to lock in lush new benefits for American agricultural producers. President Bush has reportedly relaxed his position on means-testing for farm subsidies, offering to permit individuals earning up to $500,000 to continue receiving direct payments. Yet farm-state lawmakers are holding out for a level nearly twice that.

Among the least defensible provisions under discussion is a plan by those lawmakers to prop up U.S. sugar cane and sugar beet farmers.

. . .the [sugar] lobby and its Capitol Hill supporters have come up with an ingenious new way to protect the industry: raising the support price for U.S. sugar, already above the world price, for the first time in 23 years, while requiring the federal government to set aside a certain quantity of imported sugar for conversion to ethanol.

From James Fallows blog at The Atlantic:

Hundreds of entries later, the results are clear. An absolute majority of contestants spoke in favor of ... mandates and subsidies for ethanol use as the stupidest manifestation of bipartisan public policy in the last 50 years.

The two former senators and presidential nominees come out roaring today in an op-ed in The Washington Post ("A Slap at Schoolchildren"). It should have said "the poorest schoolchildren."

How can the world's hungriest schoolchildren be denied meals while the farm bill being debated in a House-Senate conference provides millions in subsidies for wealthy farmers? That's what Congress proposes. In all fairness, it should not become law.

We are puzzled that Congress wants to increase overall farm bill spending by billions of dollars yet reduce by more than 90 percent the mandatory funding to feed hungry children. The program at issue saves lives and has a proven ability to break the cycle of poverty and hopelessness in poor countries.

I expect the subsidy lobby would just as soon chalk these sentiments up to another example of liberal East coast elitist ignorance about "production agriculture," and such as that. Except of course McGovern hails from South Dakota and Dole from Kansas, and both hail from the trenches of the agriculture committee in many farm bills past. And both remember well the tragedy of the last global food crisis, in the mid-1970s, which gave rise to the first World Food Conference in Rome in November, 1974. McGovern attended that historic conference.

So did the Post's Dan Morgan. He was already then, and remains today, one of the very best journalists ever to cover food and agriculture. Morgan reports on the controversial hatchet job on McGovern-Dole in this morning's paper ("Farm Bill Negotiators Cut Funds for Overseas School Lunch Program").

Under a deal worked out in the last few days, required spending on the Dole-McGovern International Food for Education program was set at $60 million. That is $780 million less than proposed by the House, and $40 million less than was allocated in the expiring farm bill. . .

. . .The congressional action comes against a backdrop of sporadic violence related to soaring food prices in some impoverished nations. Troops in Mogadishu, Somalia, opened fire amid tens of thousands of rioters yesterday, killing two people, news agencies reported. . .

. . .The program results in more children enrolled in school, improved student performance, and greater parental and community involvement in education, according to a USDA summary.

"I can't figure why [the international school feeding program] was tossed aside," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a leading advocate for the program. He is not related to George McGovern.

House lawmakers blamed the Senate. "There was no support for it there. We ran into a brick wall," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), one of those representing the House in the talks.

No question DeLauro fought, and fought hard. It's her default position when it comes to issues like this.

But for my money, this problem is not Tom Harkin's to fix. It falls to House Speaker Pelosi and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson to make this right.

They, not Harkin or anyone else in the senate, promised Rep. Jim McGovern and other House advocates the full $840 million in funding for McGovern-Dole through conference.

And in return, Jim McGovern swallowed hard and supported the status quo farm bill for which the subsidy lobby subsequently praised Pelosi and and for which newspapers nationwide have excoriated her.

Two must reads today on the farm bill, from Carolyn Lochhead and Dan Morgan.

In the SF Chronicle ("Farm bill upends normal political order"), Lochhead highlights the irony hanging over the final act of the 2008 farm bill:

It is the rarest of moments: President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are on a collision course over a giant farm bill, but it is Bush who is broadly aligned with liberal Bay Area activists pushing for reform, while the San Francisco Democrat is protecting billions of dollars in subsidies to the richest farmers.

And she anticipates the case Democrats will make for veto override:

Lawmakers are betting that Bush will not dare kill a $10.3 billion increase in nutrition spending such as food stamps, which make up the bulk of the bill, or anger farm-state Republicans in an election year. If he does, they plan to override him.

Congress has its bases covered. Each interest group represented in the sprawling legislation - from tiny Santa Cruz organic vegetable growers to Georgia cotton magnates, from conservationists to prairie-plowers - gets enough money that it would prefer this bill rather than start over with a new president . . .

. . . Pelosi threatened to blast Bush for killing the food-stamp increase if he vetoes the bill, issuing a statement urging Bush to sign the legislation to "ensure that 38 million Americans - especially children - have improved access to basic nutrition."

Embedded in Pelosi's argument is the very point that gives Bush the upper hand this coming week: a mere extension of current farm law is unacceptable, because without the new spending on food assistance Pelosi can't pass a farm bill through the House. Whereas she could easily pass a bill that included more subsidy reform plus the other goodies, which is what her caucus really wants.

Which suggests the checkmating veto message Bush needs to telegraph this week: a counter-offer that retains spending increases for food assistance, conservation, support for minority farmers and specialty crops and pays for them through cuts in subsidies to wealthy farmers and other reforms.

Dan Morgan starts his Washington Post story ("As Farm Bill Nears Vote, Bush Presses for Fewer Subsidies") where Bush started this farm bill: feeling burned by the last one and resolved to stand on conservative principles as the 2007 debate unfolded.

President Bush's decision in 2002 to sign a farm bill loaded with billions of dollars of new agricultural subsidies triggered considerable criticism from GOP conservatives true to the party's anti-spending philosophy.

Now, as Congress nears final agreement on a new five-year farm bill that will cost nearly $300 billion, the president has taken a harder line. Emboldened by soaring food prices and record farm profits, he has pressed Congress to cut farm subsidies sharply and has made clear that he will veto the popular bill if lawmakers do not meet his demands.

Were the Bush administration to embrace the core investments that have been added to satisfy the vast majority of the House and Senate, who have no taste for another round of subsidy handouts, the White House would be in a strong position to sustain its veto and finish with much of its agenda in the final bill, for the reasons spelled out by Morgan.

Top priorities for the White House include tightening limits on federal farm payments to wealthy individuals; closing a loophole that allows farmers to sell crops above the support price and still collect a subsidy; modifying a plan that would guarantee U.S. sugar growers 85 percent of the domestic sugar market through government purchases of excess imported sugar; and adjusting U.S. farm policy to bring it into compliance with international trade treaties.

Insistence on change by an administration often seen as siding with the wealthy is allowing Bush to display a populist side and to emphasize the GOP's commitment to fiscal restraint heading into this year's election.

As I wrote the other day, the politics of rising food prices are waking Washington up to the downside of the corn ethanol boom. There's some awfully compelling evidence today in the Wall Street Journal:

Rising food prices are prodding lawmakers in Washington to rethink support for corn ethanol.

Two dozen Republican senators on Friday -- including Republican presidential candidate John McCain (R., Ariz.) -- asked the Environmental Protection Agency to ease requirements mandated by Congress in 2007 to blend more ethanol and other renewable fuels into the gasoline supply.

The lawmakers said the mandates are contributing to a sharp increase in food prices. Sen. McCain has been a critic of ethanol subsidies.

"With the price of everyday meat, chicken, bread and eggs rapidly increasing, we are asking the EPA to use the flexibility that Congress gave them, because so many families cannot afford the increasing prices at the grocery store," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., Texas). An EPA spokesman couldn't be reached to comment.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said the agency "will review waiver requests and respond according to the law."

Now If two dozen senate Democrats wake up, we'll have the debate we should have had before Congress started driving drunk on the stuff.

Friends of the World Food Program just sent a release around (in full in the jump):

Statement from Senator McGovern On Senator Harkin’s Funding Cut For the McGovern-Dole School Feeding Program

WASHINGTON, DC – Former U.S. Senator George McGovern released the following statement today regarding the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, which provides meals to hungry schoolchildren who attend primary school in some of the world’s poorest countries:

“I am deeply saddened by the current farm bill proposal offered by Senator Tom Harkin to cut mandatory funding for the McGovern-Dole Program from $840 million to $60 million. The $840 million in funding represents less than one percent of total farm bill spending. At a time when record high food prices are pushing millions of families across the globe deeper into poverty, we must step up our efforts to feed hungry school children, not cut funding for school meals. . .

. . .How can we deny the world’s hungriest schoolchildren a meal while at the same time provide tax breaks to owners of race horses and the timber industry, and permit farmers with incomes of nearly $1 million per year to receive domestic farm support payments?"

Prominent champions of the program, like Rep. Jim McGovern (no relation) of Massachusetts, were persuaded to support the House Agriculture Committee's version of the farm bill last summer after this $840 million was added to the House bill. But now it has been all but eliminated by the conferees.