Capital Press: Ag leaders differ on farm bill needs

If comments made this week are any indication, it will be a long, hot summer in Washington, D.C., as Congress and the administration try to hammer out a new farm bill.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and U.S. House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson both exercised their best brand of diplomacy in speaking before American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting in Salt Lake City, but with a few exceptions, they appear to be on a collision course as Congress writes a new farm bill.

First, it should be said that there is some common ground between the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Republican administration. The one area of greatest agreement is renewable fuels, the new buzzword in the nation's capital. Both Johanns and Peterson support the continued development of ethanol facilities in an attempt to cut the umbilical cord between the U.S. and oil-producing foreigners.

But here's a number to ponder: 21.93 million. That's the number of barrels of crude oil the U.S. uses each day. With 60 percent of that oil coming from overseas, we'll need a lot of ethanol production plants built and corn and other feedstock crops grown to replace it.

Peterson even goes so far as to advocate a program similar to the Conservation Reserve Program that would help farmers who grow feedstock crops for ethanol. He also supports more research into cellulosic ethanol production, which would use switchgrass, wheat and rice straw and even wood chips.

Both officials also support conservation programs, which help farmers afford the cost of setting aside land in an effort to help the environment.

Beyond that, the common ground - and the specifics - are few.

Peterson envisions a farm bill similar to the current law. It would include a provision for weather-caused disaster relief, but other than that and the renewable energy provision, he does not plan to make significant changes.

On the other hand, Johanns cites ongoing World Trade Organization challenges to U.S. programs as the basis for his support of different types of farm programs.

Exactly what those programs are, he didn't specify, which is going to make the negotiations between the administration and Congress even more interesting.

He does, however, have a point. Canada this week said it is seeking consultations through the WTO regarding the U.S. subsidy program on corn. That program has been the bread and butter for many U.S. farmers.

"We will aggressively defend these programs, but there is no denying the fact we are being challenged on the world stage," Johanns said.

Since 80 percent of the U.S. cotton crop, 50 percent of U.S. rice crop and 75 percent of cattle hides are exported, Johanns said farmers cannot afford to lose their foothold abroad.

He also said 60 percent of U.S. farmers receive no help in the form of subsidies, implying a certain unfairness to the system.

The main weakness of Johanns' position is the lack of specifics that leaves one wondering what his alternative to the current farm bill might look like. Without specifics, he's just heating up the air.

Give Peterson credit.

At least he knows what kind of farm bill he wants.