Ag committee rejects crop insurance cuts

Posted October 29, 2015

House Agriculture Committee members state there will be no cuts to the crop insurance program in the upcoming budget, according to an AgWeb article available here. High Plains Journal also published an article available here.

“Leadership has heeded our concerns by agreeing to completely reverse this disastrous provision in the upcoming omnibus,” said Michael Conaway in a prepared statement. “Crop insurance is working as intended, and private industry deserves to be lauded, not thrown under the bus.”

The budget proposal called for capping the rate of return on earned premiums at 8.9% for crop insurers for 2017-2016. It would have saved the federal government an estimated $3 billion, but potentially hurt the viability of the federal crop insurance program and the financial health of the crop insurance industry.

Agriculture Committee Chairmen Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, and Rep. K. Michael Conaway, R-Texas, and Ranking Members Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, and Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minnesota, stood united against reopening the 2014 farm bill to further cuts, according to High Plains Journal.

“Farmers and ranchers have done more than their fair share to reduce government spending,” said Chairman Roberts.

“To target the No. 1 priority for producers with additional cuts will undermine the delivery of this important protection for agriculture. While congressional leaders may sell this package as providing budget stability, it is anything but stable for farmers and ranchers. It took years to negotiate and pass a new farm bill. Producers have signed contracts and purchased policies. These proposals to make further cuts to the crop insurance program were not included in the House or Senate passed budgets, in any appropriations bills or in the president’s budget request. Once again, our leaders are attempting to govern by backroom deals where the devil is in the details. I will continue to oppose any attempts to cut crop insurance funding or to change crop insurance program policies.” 

After the House, the spending bill goes to the Senate, where the Senate Agriculture Committee leaders have also vowed to protect the crop insurance program, according to AgWeb.

"We hope Senate Leadership finds a path forward soon to ensure these cuts are not realized," said the Crop Insurance Reinsurance Bureau, National Crop Insurance Service and American Association of Crop Insurers said in a joint statement.

"Today's action shows that crop insurance is truly the centerpiece of agricultural risk management and rural America is willing to fight to maintain the crop insurance program. Crop insurers remain committed to providing superior service to our customers--America's farmers--who desperately need risk management tools to deal with today's extreme weather and falling crop prices."

For more information on crop insurance programs, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WOTUS Concerns Addressed at House Panel

Posted March 20, 2015

Farmers and leaders from agriculture and government agencies expressed their concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule at a House Agriculture Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee, according to an Agri-Pulse article available here. Brownfield Ag News also published an article here and Hoosier Ag Today here.

Members on one panel spoke on behalf of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Association of Counties, National Association of State Foresters and Association of Clean Water Administrators.

A second panel included representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Waters Advocacy Coalition, and the Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association, and farmers raising crops and livestock in Mississippi and Illinois.

Steve Foglesong, an Illinois livestock and crop farmer, said his main concern is the rule’s lack of clarity, according to Brownfield Ag News.

“We hear about exemptions that are there but until we’ve seen it in print—and probably more importantly, seen it in action—we’re not going to understand exactly how it’s supposed to affect us,” said Foglesong.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the National Farmers Union that she is renaming the Waters of the U.S. rule the Clean Water Rule, according to Hoosier Ag Today.

McCarthy said that she wishes EPA would have done a better job with its Clean Water Rule by calling it WOTUS instead of the Clean Water Rule, being more clear about what EPA was and was not proposing, and talking to farmers and others before EPA put out the interpretive rule.

For more information on the Clean Water Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

ND Voted to Lift Corporate Dairy Farming Ban

-->

Posted March 19, 2015

House lawmakers voted to relax North Dakota’s anti-corporate farming law, which could set the precedent for non-family corporations to own dairy and swine operations for the first time in 83 years, according to a Prairie Business article available here. Inforum also published the article here and Grand Forks Herald here.

North Dakota Farmers Union President Mark Watne condemned the vote and issued a statement that accused legislators of “ignoring the majority of North Dakotans who want farmland ownership and agricultural production to be in the hands of families making a living off the land.”

Rep. Dennis Johnson, R-Devils Lake, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, stressed that North Dakota is one of nine states with anti-corporate farming laws and the only state without a livestock exemption.

Johnson said the bill would encourage investment in the state’s struggling swine and dairy industries while also benefiting grain farmers by providing fertilizer and additional markets for their crops.

“We could do nothing and watch them fade away. But I think we have an opportunity here to try and help them.”

The House voted 56-37 to approve amended Senate Bill 2351, after the Senate first passed the bill 27-18 last month.

If the Senate agrees to the House amendments, the bill will go to Gov. Jack Dalrymple for his signature.

For more information on corporate farming laws, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Bigger Subsidies Projected Under Farm Bill Program

Posted March 10, 2015

The new farm programs for grain and oilseed farmers will pay them up to $7 billion annually over the next few years, according to an Agri-Pulse available here. Politico also published an article available here.

The Congressional Budget Office and the University of Missouri's Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) that provides analysis to the congressional agriculture committees prepared the forecasts.

Corn growers will receive the lion's share of payments, due to the sharp decline in market prices over the past two years.

CBO projects that total payments to corn and soybean producers from Agricultural Risk Coverage alone will be $3.37 billion in fiscal 2017, according to Politico.

With corn and soybeans enjoying record prices while the rest of the country struggled under the Great Recession, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees developed two substitute programs more sensitive to real needs and market changes.

ARC had an early-in, early-out approach, intended to buy time for a farmer to adjust to markets falling. The second program, Price Loss Coverage or PLC, followed the more traditional target price approach, slower to trigger but then defining a more permanent floor for producers.

Farmers have until the end of this month to sign up for one of the programs, according to Agri-Pulse.

Sixty percent of wheat growers nationwide are expected to choose PLC, while most soybean growers will choose ARC.

After 2018, ARC payments will decline dramatically as the five-year moving average begins to reflect the drop in commodity prices. FAPRI economists estimate that ARC payments will drop from $3.1 billion in fiscal 2018 to $1.8 billion in 2019 and then to $1.2 billion the following year.

For more information on commodity programs, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Anti-Corporate Farming Bill Reaches ND Ag Committee

Posted March 4, 2015

The North Dakota House Agriculture Committee will vote on the proposed changes to the state’s anti-corporate farming law, according to a Grand Forks Herald article available here. AgWeek also published an article available here.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Dennis Johnson, R-Devils Lake, said that SB 2351 is scheduled at 8 a.m. March 5 in the Brynhild Haugland Room. Johnson expects the committee to work toward a vote on March 6 and that it will go to the floor as early as March 9 or 10.

The bill is probably the most contentious of any agriculture bills remaining and both sides are likely to “double down” in the House debate, according to Johnson.

SB 2351 would allow non-family corporations to own and operate dairy and swine farms, and would allow each farm to own or control up to 640 acres of farmland, according to AgWeek.

The North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU) have released a poll that revealed 75 percent of North Dakotans would vote against the bill, if given a chance.

The NDFU sponsored the poll, and DFM Research of St. Paul conducted phone interviews of 400 North Dakotans.

Approximately 86 percent of respondents said they thought the state’s agriculture economy is best left in the hands of farmers. The poll has a 5 percent margin of error.

Mark Watne, NDFU president, said the poll reflects his organization’s “long-held belief that when it comes to production agriculture, family farmers and ranchers should be the ones who farm and own the land in North Dakota, not corporations.”

The poll also identified respondents by political party with 39 percent Republican, 26 percent Democrat, and 34 percent Independent.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Joe Miller, R-Park River, predicts the bill will pass and will be signed by the governor, according to Grand Forks Herald.

“It’s logical to make this move because it’s the only notable barrier, in the law anyway,” said Miller. “I don’t look at it as discriminatory legally because these two operations are similar in how they care for animals, in enclosed situations, where a (cattle) feedlot is much more open.”

For more information on corporate farming laws, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WOTUS Joint Committee Hearing Set for Feb 4

Posted January 26, 2015

The House and Senate committees have set a joint Feb. 4 hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Water Act rule, according to an Agri-Pulse article available here. WNAX also published an article available here.

The joint hearing involves the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Senate Ag Committee Chairman Pat Roberts is also conferring with Environment Chairman James Inhofe on the issue, according to WNAX.

Administration officials hope the rule finalizes this spring, would re-define what streams, ponds, ditches and other areas fall under the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction as waters of the United States (WOTUS), according to Agri-Pulse.

Last fall the House voted 262-152 to approve a bill that would have killed the rule, but the legislation never advanced in the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats.

For more information on the Clean Water Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Conaway Selected New House Ag Committee

Photo credit: Mike Conaway

Posted November 20, 2014

Rep. Michael Conaway, R-Texas has been name Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, according to a Southwest Farm Press article available here. Farm Futures also published an article available here and Feedstuffs here.

After Conaway was selected as the 50th chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, he issued the following statement.

"I am humbled and honored to be selected as the 50th chairman of the storied House Committee on Agriculture. The work that farmers and ranchers do is part of our country's foundation. They feed, fuel, and clothe our nation. I look forward to building on the bipartisan work of the chairmen who have led this committee for the past two centuries.”

Ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., congratulated Conaway on his new position, according to Farm Futures.

"As a fellow CPA, I think we can find common ground as the Committee oversees farm bill implementation and reauthorizing the CFTC during the next Congress," Peterson said in a released statement. "The Agriculture Committee has a strong bipartisan tradition, which I look forward to continuing under Chairman Conaway.

Earlier this year Conaway voted in support of the 2014 Farm Bill.

American Soybean Association (ASA) first vice president Wade Cowan congratulated Conaway on behalf of the ASA, according to Feedstuffs.

"Rep. Conaway has a proven track record of representing farmers not only in West Central Texas, but across the country, and he will make a fine chairman," said Cowan. "As chair of the Agricultural Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, Rep. Conaway exhibited fluent understanding of the complex issues that shape the nation's farm program, and how those issues can impact soybean farmers in the field. With this understanding, we are confident that soybean farmer issues will continue to be well represented within the Committee, and we look forward to working with him and his able staff."

Senators Requesting Immediate Withdrawal of New CWA Regulations

-->

Posted October 24, 2014

U.S. Senator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Republican members of the Senate Agriculture Committee have requested that the newly released agriculture rule released in conjunction with the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) proposal be immediately withdrawn, according to a press release available here. Agri-Pulse also published an article available here.

Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Cochran, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-S.D.) have written a letter asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide an “update on implementation of the agriculture Interpretive Rule and requested its immediate withdrawal.”

“We have heard from farmers, ranchers, and other rural constituents about the Interpretive Rule and are deeply concerned it has created great confusion about what agriculture activities are exempt from regulation under the Clean Water Act,” the Senators wrote in a letter.

The senators said that the WOTUS regulations would bring more waters including, streams, creeks, wetlands, ponds, and ditches under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) subjecting them to EPA permitting requirements. The agriculture Interpretive Rule outlines only 56 activities out of more than 160 conservation practices that previously qualified for the normal farming and ranching exemption, according to Agri-Pulse.

“Beyond adding confusion and uncertainty, the Interpretive Rule would fundamentally change the relationship between the Department of Agriculture and farm families. Over decades of farm policy, USDA has established an unprecedented relationship of trust with farmers, ranchers, and rural stakeholders. This unique relationship is built on voluntary conservation programs and a mutual commitment to protecting natural resources and keeping land in agriculture. Bringing USDA into the Clean Water Act permitting process would profoundly shift the nature of this successful approach by dismantling a longstanding partnership between the Federal government and agriculture community,” the Senators wrote.

Now, the Senators are calling for more “transparency and stakeholder involvement.”

“As the administration continues to extend the timeframe for finalization of the flawed WOTUS proposal, any further discussion of how agricultural activities may fit into this framework must allow for a transparent and public process in which the voice of American agriculture can be heard,” the Senators' letter concluded.

For more information, a copy of the Senators’ letter is available here.

For more information on the Clean Water Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WSDA Seeking to Enforce New Food Safety Law

Posted September 19, 2014

The Washington Department of Agriculture (WSDA) is trying to enforce a new federal food safety law, according to a Capital Press article by Don Jenkins available here.

Kirk Robinson, WSDA assistant director, said the department thinks farmers and food processors would prefer to be checked by federal inspectors as opposed to state.

“We have a good relationship with our farmers and processors,” Robinson said. “I think we have a good history of being a regulator and partner of our industry.”

The law is intended to prevent food-borne illnesses, which affect more than 48 million Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The law will also prevent businesses from being linked to “economically devastating” public health and public relations disasters, and the law could help safety-conscious food handlers compete with other competitors.

Robinson also stated he believes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will have to rely on states to oversee most of the law’s implementation. The FDA has estimated the law will cost up to $450 million a year. Congress has yet to raise money through user fees.

Several House ag committee members have said they feared the rules will be “unreasonable.” Members are also concerned farmers will be required to test water quality when they irrigate, even if crops have no history of being contaminated by waterborne bacterial diseases.

“I’m worried not only about food prices going up, but that a lot of the cost actually is going to be absorbed by the farmer,” said Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Kalama.

For more information on food safety, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

House and Senate Negotiators Announce Agreement on Final Farm Bill

Posted January 27, 2014

This evening, negotiators from the U.S. House and Senate announced a bipartisan agreement on a five-year farm bill and released the conference report, according to a press release from the House Agriculture Committee available here.  The conference report is available here.  Agri-Pulse reported on the story here.

The Washington Times reports that the legislation may be up for a vote in the House on Wednesday.

The five-year deal ends direct payments and cuts $8 billion from food stamps.  According to a preliminary 10-year Congressional Budget Office score, the bill will reduce the deficit by about $23 billion.

The legislation also leaves in place the country of origin labeling rule, which some in the meat and poultry industry have criticized. 

Leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees commented on the deal in the press release:

“I am proud of our efforts to finish a farm bill conference report with significant savings and reforms,” said Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.  “We are putting in place sound policy that is good for farmers, ranchers, consumers, and those who have hit difficult times.  I appreciate the work of everyone who helped in this process…I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.”

“Today’s bipartisan agreement puts us on the verge of enacting a five-year Farm Bill that saves taxpayers billions, eliminates unnecessary subsidies, creates a more effective farm safety-net and helps farmers and businesses create jobs,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

For more information on farm bills, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Looking Forward to a Farm Bill

Posted January 8, 2014

While Congress has been on break for the holidays, key members of the farm bill conference have been working on a compromise farm bill proposal, according to an Agri-Pulse article available here.

While a conference meeting has not been scheduled, sources and reports indicate that conferees are likely to meet this week.  Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said “he expects the farm bill to be completed by the end of the month.” 

Senate Agricultural Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said that the negotiators are “just tying up loose ends” and “feeling very good about things” going into a full meeting of the House-Senate conference later this week, according to a Politico article available here.

Stabenow said she “fully” expects a formal session to be scheduled in the next few days and hoped that a conference report could be signed, “clearing the way for floor consideration as early as next week.”

Stabenow said, “We just have to get through that conference committee, get the report signed…There’s a desire to get this done by everybody.”

For more information on farm bills, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Farm Bill Framework May be Announced This Week

Posted December 10, 2013

After months of negotiations, farm bill conferees are close to a deal that would clear the way for passing a farm bill in January, according to Kyle Potter of the Forum News Service in an article available here.

Minnesota Representative Collin Peterson, one of four top House and Senate negotiators, said the framework of a farm bill deal could be finished before the House adjourns for the year on Friday, making a full vote possible sometime in January.

Peterson said negotiators have agreed on a major issue -- how much to cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as “food stamps.”

The deal would need to be passed by the farm bill’s conference committee before heading to a full vote in the House and Senate. 

On November 5, the Obama administration encouraged House and Senate leaders of the agriculture committees to continue working to finish a farm bill, according to an article by AgWeek available here.  “Negotiations on Capitol Hill about the farm bill should continue until House and Senate leaders reach agreement on a comprehensive bill.  Numerous members of both sides have indicated progress, and the country deserved continued work on this critical legislation,” said Matt Paul, communications director for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) said that finishing a conference report before the House leaves Washington would be “Herculean” but he hoped Congress would not need to approve a one month extension.  Lucas said, “If the members known with certainty, if the U.S. Department of Agriculture knows with certainty that a finished product will be on the floor the first few days in January, I think that probably would reassure everyone involved.”

Peterson also told reporters that an agreement had been reached on the dairy title, but did not reveal any details. 

For more information on farm bills, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Today: First Meeting for 2013 Farm Bill Conference Committee

Posted October 30, 2013

The long-awaited first meeting of the 2013 farm bill conference committee will take place today, October 30 at 2:30 p.m. ET in the Ways and Means Committee Room of the Longworth House Office Building. 

The agenda for the meeting of conferees will include opening statements and discussion of H.R. 2642, The Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, according to the House Agriculture Committee Press Office. 

The meeting will be streamed live on the House Agriculture Committee website here.

For more information on the 2013 farm bill conference, recent posts from this blog are available here and here.  The National Agricultural Law Center also provides an excellent farm bills resource available here.

House Nutrition Bill Introduced, CBO Releases Cost Estimate

Posted September 17, 2013

H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday, September 16, by House Agricultural Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK).  The text of the bill is available here.  The Committee on Rules will meet on this bill on Wednesday, September 18 at 3:00 PM, according to the Rules Committee announcement, available here.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan agency that provides economic data to Congress, has released a cost estimate for the bill, available here.  According to the CBO, H.R. 3102 would reduce direct spending by $39 billion over the 2014-2023 period.  CBO also estimates that participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would be reduced from 48 million people “in an average month in fiscal year 2014 to 34 million in 2023.” 

The two provisions with the largest budgetary impact would change SNAP benefit eligibility requirements are Section 109 and Section 105.  Section 109 would “reduce the number of waivers available for certain childless adults who would otherwise be subject to work requirements or time limits.”  CBO estimates that about 1 million people would lose eligibility for SNAP benefits under this provision.  Section 105 “would restrict categorical eligibility, a current policy that allows states to determine eligibility for SNAP based on receipt of benefits in other low-income programs.”  CBO estimates that 1.8 million people would lose eligibility for SNAP benefits under this provision.  CBO also estimates that Section 107, which changes the treatment of payments for energy assistance, would reduce benefits by approximately $90 per household per month for 850,000 households.

The bill and the cuts to SNAP benefits have been a major effort of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), according to a Politico article available here.  Whip counts “suggest it will be a closely-fought contest given the strength of the Democratic opposition.”  In addition, the “severity of the cuts is also causing concern among rank-and-file Republicans with low-income rural communities in their districts.”

The “stated goal” of the bill “is to toughen existing work requirements for food stamps while also preserving the core program for the very poor.”  Cantor consulted with conservatives and the Heritage Foundation, “with close ties to Cantor’s policy staff,” before crafting the bill.

States like Washington and New York “which are already using federal funds to teach job skills to food stamp recipients” could “lose millions in aid if they were to fail to comply with the new direction set by the bill.”

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said, “Instead of appointing farm bill conferees, the Republican leadership has decided to move forward with an unnecessary and divisive nutrition bill…The majority is again catering to the extremes of their party, pushing messaging bills to nowhere.  It’s time to get serious.” 

Ag Groups Request Estate Tax Update

With current tax relief expected to expire the end of this year, agriculture groups have been requesting that the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate permanently relieve farmers and ranchers of the estate tax. Some of the groups encouraging the change include the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep Industry Association and National Cattleman’s Beef Association.

After Jan. 1, exemption levels drop to $1 million per individual and the tax rate increases to 55 percent.

NCBA President J.D. Alexander says, “The fate of American agriculture and our economic recovery rests on there being certainty in the tax code and continued relief from the burdensome death tax.”

According to Western Farm Press, 31 farm organizations support permanently increasing the exemption level to no less than $5 million per persons and reducing the top rate to no more than 35 percent.

AFBF President Bob Stallman stated earlier this year, “With the average age of a farmer being 58 years old, the estate tax creates even a steeper barrier for young farmers and ranchers to take up the profession at a time when farming is already difficult to enter.”

According to Farm Futures, the NCBA also noted that a large number of ranching families are often “land rich and cash poor,” with the estimated value of rural land being largely inflated considering its agricultural value.

As stated by the Coalition for Agricultural Estate Tax Reform, “The biggest blow is when farm families are forced to re-live estate tax problems in future generations.”

A letter was written and sent to President Obama on Nov. 19, by these organizations. The letter noted that it is “imperative that the exemption be indexed to inflation; provide for spousal transfers; and include the stepped-up basis.”

“The current state of our economy, coupled with the uncertain nature of estate tax liabilities, makes it difficult for family-owned farm and ranches to make sound business decisions."

11/28/2012

Farm Bureau Supports USDA Action

Hoosier Ag Today reports that the "American Farm Bureau Federation welcomes the emergency actions U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Monday to provide assistance to the farm and ranch families suffering from the drought."

According to the article, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is asking the crop insurance industry not to charge farmers interest on delayed premium payments as a result of the ongoing drought.

"Vilsack says crop insurance premiums are normally due on August 15th – and companies have been providing a grace period until September 30th."

The article continues that if the 2012 Farm Bill is stopped, "a group of Senators is looking for a way to pay for emergency drought relief...If the legislation remains blocked, it’s expected a disaster relief companion will be introduced in the House soon."

To read the full article, click here.

This article posted July 25, 2012.

Peterson Protects Previous Farm Bill Legislation

Freshman members in the House Agriculture Committee as well as the full House may be "unaware of the history of farm programs' mishaps and missed opportunities," but Farm Futures reports, "House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson made sure to insert history lessons throughout" the marking up of the committee's farm bill.

The report continues that, "in his words, he would 'throw into a room' those who needed to find a solution to the tough issues."

"Now many of those same agreements carefully crafted in the 2008 Farm Bill were challenged in the House Ag Committee's debate."

During the committee's debate, a total of 109 amendments were filed, 97 were considered (the others being withdrawn) and a total of 44 were adopted. Click here to view a full list of approved amendments.

To read the full Farm Futures report, click here.

This article posted July 18, 2012.