Farm Bill: Staff, and Crop Insurance Issues

A news release Friday from Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R., Miss.) stated that, “[Sen. Cochran] today announced staff changes related to committee and personal staff, including the appointment of his chief of staff T.A. Hawks as Republican staff director for the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

“In appointing Hawks, Cochran also named as his new personal office chief of staff Bruce Evans, the Republican staff director for the Senate Appropriations Committee since 2006.”

Friday’s update added that, “Cochran also indicated today that Steven Wall, his legislative director and counsel, has been named general counsel for the Republican staff of the Agriculture Committee.”

House Agriculture Committee Member Rick Crawford (R., Ark.) noted in a news release Friday that, “Today, Congressman [Rep. Crawford] and Congressman Sanford Bishop, (D-GA), announced members of the bipartisan Congressional Chicken Caucus in the 113th Congress. Crawford and Bishop founded the Chicken Caucus in 2012 and will continue serving as co-chairs of the caucus in the 113th Congress.”

And Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Mo.) indicated in an update Friday at the Marshall Democrat-News (Mo. ) Online that, “I am very disappointed that Congress could not come together to reauthorize the Farm Bill in 2012. I am hopeful, with the passage of H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, that the scene is set for more productive efforts on this issue.

“Hardworking families in Missouri’s Fifth District deserve this — and I will continue to fight for it. Right now, for instance, disaster assistance programs continue to be unfunded, as we enter the second year of an already devastating drought. And farmers continue to face uncertainty about programs in the coming years.”

Amanda Fries reported late last week at the Observer-Dispatch (Utica, N.Y.) Online that, “‘As far as I’m concerned, all the government did was kick the can down the road,’ Remsen dairy farmer Ben Simons said. ‘We are just as much on the edge of uncertainty as we were back in November and December waiting for them to come back with a new Farm Bill.’”

Meanwhile, Steve Young reported on Friday at the Argus Leader (S.D.) Online that, “Questioned [at a town hall meeting on Thursday in Sioux Falls] on what Congress will do if drought continues to devastate the Northern Plains this year, [Rep. Kristi Noem (R., S.D.)] said it was imperative to put a five-year farm bill in place as a safety net to producers.

“‘I’ve had conversations with some people in the House that aren’t fans of crop insurance, who don’t want to support it and want to eliminate it,’ she said. ‘But if you eliminate crop insurance, you’re setting up a situation where you will have a disaster bill for agriculture somewhere in this country every year.

“‘If we look at federal budgets and how disaster funding happens, it’s never paid for, it’s an add-on and usually is deficit spending every year. Crop insurance prevents that.’”

In a recent “Q and A” update posted at Ducks Unlimited Online (“Sportsmen’s legislative priorities in 2013”), Ducks Unlimited’s Director of Government Affairs Gary Taylor noted in part that, “Reauthorization of a comprehensive Farm Bill must be accomplished in the 113th Congress in order to continue the vital conservation programs that not only provide wildlife habitat on agricultural land, but also are vital to production agriculture by providing affordable food and fiber delivered for our citizens in environmentally sustainable ways. The Farm Bill delivers more on-the-ground conservation on private lands than any other program. DU’s priority remains the achievement of a robust portfolio of conservation programs including re-coupling conservation with crop insurance, and the creation of a national Sodsaver program. There will be less money overall for the Farm Bill in the 113th Congress, so we will be challenged to secure adequate funding for conservation.”

More specifically on the issue of crop insurance, University of Illinois Agricultural Economists Bruce Sherrick and Gary Schnitkey noted in an update Friday at the farmdoc daily blog (“2013 Crop Insurance Projected Prices, Volatilities, and Harvest Price Impacts”) that, “The Risk Management Agency (RMA) ‘resets’ various features of the crop insurance programs annually to reflect the market’s estimate of the value of crops intended for production in the current year. Among the most important factors are (1) projected prices, (2) volatility factors, and (3) harvest prices. Projected prices directly determine the insurable value of production, and thus impact premiums as well. The volatility factor is a measure of the price risk the market associates with potential price changes in the production year, and thus directly impacts the calculated costs of insurance. Finally, the harvest price has the potential to increase the amount of insurance coverage in effect if prices increase between the end of the projected price discovery period and the harvest price determination period. The purpose of this article is to describe the processes used to establish each of these features and to discuss important implications for crop insurance in 2013.”

Farm Bill: Nutrition Issues, and, Trade

With respect to nutrition issues, the largest component of Farm Bill spending, O. Kay Henderson reported on Saturday at RadioIowa Online that, “Republican Congressman Steve King plans to use a new leadership position to press for a reduction in food stamps or ‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program’ benefits.

“‘These benefits, call them that — nutrition benefits, are for people that need them, that are needy,’ King says, ‘and they’re not for anyone else.’

Saturday’s update noted that, “The monthly benefit for a single food stamp recipient is just under $134.

“King is the new chairman of a House subcommittee that oversees operations of the USDA, including the food stamp program. King won reelection in November by defeating Christie Vilsack, wife of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack — the chief of the USDA. King says he’s worked with Vilsack before when the two were serving in the Iowa Senate and when Vilsack was governor and will be able to do so again.”

Ms. Henderson pointed out in her RadioIowa report that, “‘The Department of Agriculture has been advocating to push more and more SNAP benefits out and, in doing so, the argument that came from the secretary was for every dollar’s worth of food stamps you hand out, you get $1.84 in economic activity,’ King says. ‘I completely reject that economic philosophy.’

“According to King, fraud in the food stamp program needs to be addressed.”

For more background on this issue, see this USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) report, “The Food Assistance National Input-Output Multiplier (FANIOM) Model and Stimulus Effects of SNAP” (by Kenneth Hanson, Oct. 2010), which stated in part that, “An increase of $1 billion in SNAP expenditures is estimated to increase economic activity (GDP) by $1.79 billion. In other words, every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as much as $9 of economic activity. This multiplier estimate replaces a similar but older estimate of $1.84 billion reported in Hanson and Golan (2002)” (at page iv).

Ron Nixon reported in Saturday’s New York Times that, “The Obama administration on Friday released its long-awaited nutritional guidelines for snack foods sold in schools, an effort to combat the expanding waistlines of school-age children.

“The guidelines come a year after the administration made the first changes to the $11 billion government-subsidized school meal program in more than three decades, adding more fruits and green vegetables to breakfasts and lunches and reducing the amount of salt and fat in meals.

“The guidelines, which set minimum requirements for calories and fats allowed, encourage schools to offer low-fat and whole-grain snack foods or fruits and limit the availability of sugary drinks. They leave room for parents to send treats to school for activities like birthdays and holiday parties and will also allow schools to sell sweets for fund-raisers and after-school sporting events. School districts would have the flexibility to set tougher standards than the federal guidelines.”

Josh Hicks reported on Friday at the Federal Eye Blog (Washington Post) that, “The proposed standards would not affect the breakfasts and lunches served up in cafeterias, which the USDA dealt with last year with stricter guidelines for school meal options.”

On Friday, Senator Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) applauded the USDA action, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.) noted that the nutrition proposals were “a critical step forward.”  On the other hand, Rep. Adrian Smith (R., Neb.) tweeted on Friday that, “Today @USDAannounced new restrictions on school snacks. These decisions are best made at the local level, not by the federal government.”

Also, United Fresh noted in part on Friday that, “This rule supports and complements the new school meal standards, helps create healthier school food environments, and makes the healthy choice the easy choice for our nation’s school children.”

Meanwhile, Tim Carman reported in today’s Washington Post that, “The Agriculture Department — the agency tasked with, among other things, improving public health — made a groundbreaking decision last year when soliciting bids for cafeteria vendors at its headquarters: The USDA would go fryer-less. As in not a single deep-fat fryer in the department’s Whitten and South building cafeterias, which serve more than 40,000 people a month, including members of the public.

“And that’s just the most obvious change at the revamped USDA cafeterias, which debut today. The agency — one of the chief architects of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which counsels citizens to reduce their intake of red meat and salt — has fully embraced its own recommendations (possibly this time without alienating lawmakers from livestock states who were furious last year over the USDA’s suggestion that employees avoid meat one day a week).”

In other news, an update Friday from Sen. John Tester (R., Mont.) stated that, “[Sen. Tester], Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) are leading a bipartisan coalition of Senators in calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative to work with consumers, ranchers and meatpackers to make sure that American families know where their meat comes from.

“The World Trade Organization recently required the USDA to adjust its rules requiring American retailers to clearly label where meat was raised and processed…[T]he Senators, who were joined by 28 colleagues from both sides of the aisle, want to make sure the updated rules still ensure consumers know the origin of their food, giving them the option to buy American meat if they choose.”

Farm Bill: Budget Issues

An update Friday at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) blog stated that, “The triple-headed budget monster [automatic long-term budget cuts (sequestration), providing government funding for the rest of the current fiscal year, and reaching a long-term deficit reduction plan (tied to a debt ceiling increase)] created by the new law will consume much of Washington’s time over the coming four or five months.  While the outcomes of the triple-header debate will inform the budget parameters for the 2013 Farm Bill and 2014 Agriculture Appropriations Bills, it will also delay the start of the 2013 Farm Bill and 2014 Agriculture Appropriations Bill debates until all the budget dust settles at the conclusion of this three-part process…if in fact it reaches a conclusion.  In other words, at this point in time at least, it appears work on the new farm bill and the new appropriations bill will not formally begin until June at the earliest.”

The NSAC update discussed the trifecta of budget variables in more detail and added that, “It is still quite possible, however, for Congress to agree to specific terms and parameters for the debate of a new five-year farm bill in 2013.  If they did so, it would greatly enhance the chances for a new farm bill to be enacted this year.  In fact, done right, it would all but guarantee a new farm bill.

“For instance, in a vote later this month (or in March) on a measure to modify the automatic sequestration cuts, Congress could include a measure removing all farm bill mandatory spending from the sequester provided the Agriculture Committees produce a bill by a date certain that will save $29 billion (or whatever other figure they care to choose) over the next decade.  To ensure that such a proposal is in fact reported out of Committee and that it in fact actually receives floor consideration in both chambers, the provision could include specific deadlines for Committee and for floor action, and specific guidelines for fair but expedited floor consideration.

“With such deadlines and conditions, it is a near certainty a new farm bill would become law this year.  However, to allay the fears of any doubters, the measure could also return the farm bill to automatic sequester rules if the effort failed.”

Agricultural Economy- Biofuels- Trade

Mark Peters reported in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal that, “Faced with a deepening drought in the Great Plains, cattle ranchers are making sizable cuts to their herds as some enter a second or even third year of dry conditions.

“The cattle industry has been particularly hard hit by the drought that by some measures is the worst in more than five decades. Federal data show 69% of cattle in the U.S. are located in areas currently facing drought conditions.

“A report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture released Friday showed the nation’s cattle herd shrank by 2% over the last year to under 90 million head as ranchers faced dwindling supplies of feed and water” (related graph from Friday’s report here).

And, Steven Mufson reported in Saturday’s Washington Post that, “When Congress in 2007 mandated greater use of ethanol in U.S. motor fuel, it wanted to avoid a collision between food and fuel. So instead of creating a mandate for ever-rising amounts of corn-based ethanol, it ordered refineries to use a billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2013 and to use 16 billion barrels of cellulosic ethanol by 2022.”

“But cellulosic ethanol projects have had trouble gaining traction…[S]o Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new standard, slashing the amount of cellulosic ethanol that refiners would need to use to just 14 million barrels a year. At the same time, the EPA said refiners would still need to use high levels of ‘advanced biofuels.’”

The Post article added that, “The EPA move did nothing to calm the storm of lobbying and litigation over the fuel standard: Corn-based ethanol producers see new opportunity, the American Petroleum Institute vows to continue to fight against the standard and environmentalists are worried about the use of crops such as corn or sugarcane, cultivation of which requires higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than cellulosic feedstocks.

“The new proposed standard also comes in the shadow of a D.C. Court of Appeals ruling last week that threw out the standards the EPA set in 2010 and 2011. The agency had set a mandate of 5 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol use for 2010 and 6.6 million gallons for 2011 and none was produced. The court said there was no basis for those figures.”

The article stated that, “But the oil industry, which runs the nation’s refineries, says that even the new standard is arbitrary and optimistic. And the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration has forecast nationwide production of just 9.6 million gallons.”

In other news, James Politi reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “The US and Mexico have reached a deal to avert a trade dispute over tomatoes that had threatened to jeopardise economic relations between the North American neighbours.

“Late on Saturday, the US commerce department announced that it had struck an agreement with Mexico resetting the terms of tomato imports to the US.

“Last year, Washington had sided with Florida growers by backing away from a 1996 deal that kept Mexican tomato prices low in US supermarket – causing anger in Mexico.”

Regulations- EPA

Reuters writer Jeff Mason reported on Friday that, “President Barack Obama is leaning toward choosing Gina McCarthy, a top official in charge of air quality at the Environmental Protection Agency, to run the EPA in his second term, according to two sources familiar with the matter.”

Immigration

Laura Meckler reported in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal that, “How to determine whether the U.S. border with Mexico is secure has emerged as a central battle among senators writing an overhaul of immigration laws.”

While Ricardo Lopez reported in Saturday’s Los Angeles Times that, “According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, roughly half of all hired crop farmworkers are in the country illegally. Of all workers, 7 of 10 are from Mexico, a country that has provided a steady supply of farm laborers to California since the middle of the last century.

“With immigration reform back on the table this year, California farm groups are fiercely lobbying to make sure proposed legislation includes provisions for their workers.”

Meghashyam Mali reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Sunday said that immigration reform was ‘certainly going to pass’ the upper chamber.”

And, Brian Bennett and Lisa Mascaro provided a broad and interesting look at the immigration debate in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times in an article titled, “How a discordant Senate band got back together on immigration.”

Agricultural Economy- Trade Issues

Purdue University Agricultural Economist Chris Hurt noted yesterday at the farmdoc daily blog (“Where Have All the Beef Cows Gone?”) that, “Cattle numbers are down again, to their lowest level since 1952, according to USDA’s recent inventory count. Beef cow numbers are at their lowest level since 1962 as the devastating impacts of the 2012 drought continues the longer-term decline. Beef cow numbers were down three percent in 2012 and 11 percent since 2007. The drivers have been high feed and forage prices, persistent drought in the Southern Plains, and of course the widespread Midwestern drought of 2012.”

Dr. Hurt added that, “What will it take to turn the herd decline around? The answeris more rain, more crop production, and more pasture and forage production. Larger crop and forage production would increase availability and lower prices of these critical feedstuffs. Given the small size of the calf crop, this would bolster calf prices. A second condition beef producers would like to see before expanding is some assurance that feed prices will have an overall moderation in coming years, not just a one year decrease.”

After additional analysis, yesterday’s farmdoc update pointed out that, “If crop and forage production returns to near normal, the cattle industry is poised for multiple years of favorable returns and expansion. However, everyone watching the ‘Drought Monitor’ knows that much of the country has not yet returned to normal weather conditions. Beef cattle producers will be poised to expand when weather conditions improve. Unfortunately for the beef industry, both poultry and pork producers are waiting at the start line as well. Those industries can expand production much more quickly and will extract market share from beef during the period from late 2013 to 2016.”

Owen Fletcher reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “U.S. soybean futures rose to a seven-week closing high as dry weather threatened to damage crops in Argentina, the world’s third-largest soybean producer…[S]corching heat and cloudless skies over the past few weeks have raised concerns that Argentina may not produce the expected bumper crops that would help rebuild tight global supplies of soybeans. The threat looms after droughts last year in both South America and the U.S. stunted production of the oilseed.”

Meanwhile, Bloomberg writer Isis Almeida reported yesterday that, “Food prices that doubled in the past 10 years are more the result of population growth and increased demand for protein-based diets than any cyclical reasons, according to Sunny Verghese, chief executive officer at Olam International Ltd. (OLAM), the Singapore-based commodities trader.”

The Bloomberg article noted that, “The United Nations’ Food & Agriculture Organization has said global food output must rise 70 percent by 2050 to feed a world population expected to grow to 9 billion from 7 billion now and as increasingly wealthy consumers in developing economies eat more meat. Agriculture has ‘good demand growth,’ Chris Mahoney, director of agricultural products at Baar, Switzerland-based trader Glencore International Plc, said at the conference yesterday [Kingsman sugar conference in Dubai].

“‘In just seven years, the world will need not only to produce, but to move 20 percent more food and also store it, transport it and process it,’ Mahoney said. ‘Without the transport, logistics infrastructure and processing capacity, production even if it keeps pace with demand will be unable to reach the consumer.’”

With respect to infrastructure issues, a recent article at The Economist Online stated that, “Like much of America’s infrastructure, its ports, locks, dams and inland waterways are old, underinvested in, and too often ignored—to the cost of the businesses that depend on them, and the consumers both in America and abroad who buy things that pass through them. Some 70% of America’s imports and 75% of its exports go through its ports.”

The Economist item explained that,  “Of the 257 locks in operation in 2009, more than one-tenth were built in the 19th century; the average age of federal locks is 60 years, and they were built with an expected lifespan of 50 years. By 2020 more than 80% of American locks will be functionally obsolete. The extended failure of a single crucial lock could cost agriculture exporters up to $45m and barge operators as much as $163m.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) released a report yesterday titled, “Rising Grain Exports by the Former Soviet Union Region;” an ERS summary of the report indicated that, “During the 2000s, the three major grain-producing countries of the former Soviet Union–Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine (KRU)–became a large grain-exporting region. This report examines why this has happened and also provides the outlook for the region’s production and exports over the next 10 years.”

In more specific trade developments, outgoing U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk was a guest on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams.  In part, Mr. Adams asked Amb. Kirk about U.S. beef and pork exports to Russia.  Recall that Russia has expressed concerns about beef products that contain the feed additive ractopamine.  A recent Reuters article pointed out that this trade conflict “could jeopardize more than $500 million a year of exports to Russia and coincides with mounting U.S.-Russian tensions over trade and human rights.”

To listen to the discussion on this issue from yesterday’s AgriTalk program, just click here (MP3- 2:31).

In addition, a recent WTO decision regarding Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) issues also came up on yesterday’s AgriTalk program.  Sen. John Tester (D., Mont.) and a group of bipartisan lawmakers have recently expressed an eagerness “to make sure the updated rules still ensure consumers know the origin of their food, giving them the option to buy American meat if they choose.”

To listen to Amb. Kirk’s remarks on yesterday’s AgriTalk program relating to the WTO-COOL issue, just click here (MP3- 1:34).

Biofuels

Zack Colman reported yesterday at The Hill’s Energy Blog that, “The Senate Energy Committee’s top Republican said Monday that she is ‘in good company’ with congressional calls to reevaluate a biofuel-blending mandate.

“Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, joined a growing group of lawmakers Monday in saying Congress should change the renewable fuel standard (RFS).

“‘Let’s have the ability to pull back and say, ‘Maybe this one just didn’t work the way that we had hoped it would,’’ Murkowski said during a Capitol Hill news conference [video replay here] detailing an energy road map she released Monday. ‘Let’s not be afraid to admit that we might need to reform it.’”

The Hill update noted that, “Much of the congressional conversation has occurred in the House, with the Energy and Commerce committee pledging to hold hearings on the fuel rule.”

Tom Steever reported yesterday at Brownfield that, “A coalition of groups wants the renewable fuel standard repealed. A conference call Monday featured spokespeople decrying renewable fuels for food shortages to ruined engines to a damaged environment. Charlie Drevna with the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers says anything over a ten percent ethanol blend is not appropriate.”

Mr. Steever added that, “However Brian Jennings with the American Coalition for Ethanol takes issue, saying that Drevna cited a type of ethanol fuel that contains water and acid and that is not available on the market.

“‘It had a greater percentage of water than what you find in any fuel today, it had a greater percentage of certain acids than you find in fuel that’s available on the market,’ Jennings told Brownfield Ag News Monday. ‘When you put fuel designed to ruin an engine in an engine in a test, guess what, it’ll be ruined.’”

Farm Bill- Policy Issues

Bob Meyer reported yesterday at Brownfield that, “Another thing that has been very frustrating for many in agriculture is the lack of a farm bill. [Tom Sleight, president and CEO of the U.S. Grains Council] says part of the problem is, members of Congress are not hearing from farmers. He says the Congressional staffers believe that ‘crop insurance took care of the drought and everyone is happy out in the country.’ He says farmers need to drop their Congressional representatives a couple of lines every week to let them know what is really happening out here. ‘Let them know, this is important!’”

Also yesterday, Senate Agriculture Committee member Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.) tweeted that, “Held a great meeting with my Ag Advisory Committee today in Bismarck. Going to use the input to continue to push for #farmbill on @SenateAg”

And agricultural economists Carl Zulauf (Ohio State University), Gary Schnitkey (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) and Art Barnaby (Kansas State University) authored a brief paper made available yesterday titled, “List of Alternative Ways to Reduce Farm Premium Subsidies in Crop Insurance.”

An Email summary of the paper indicated that, “[Zulauf, Schnitkey, and Barnaby] provide a paper which lists and briefly discusses alternative options for reducing the cost of farm premium subsidies, the largest cost item in crop insurance.  The list is not meant as recommendations; rather it is commonly-discussed alternatives for reducing costs, roughly in order of potential cost savings.  It is not a comprehensive discussion. It does not consider if cuts will occur this year or in the future and whether cuts will be made elsewhere in the farm safety net.  It is a list.

“Each alternative may impact the actuarial soundness of crop insurance, the possibility that ad hoc disaster assistance is provided, and different crops and areas of the country differentially.  It is important to assess these impacts so that a better informed decision is made.  A few selected examples are provided as illustrations of the type of analyses that would be desirable.”

And DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Gail Fuller may find himself being punished for farm and soil stewardship practices that have won him praise.

“That would be a disappointment to those who fervently believe proper care for the soil — above all things — should be rewarded.

“The extended drought, crop-insurance rules, stewardship practices to build organic matter in soil and conflicting USDA agencies’ dictums are all crossing paths in a bad way for Fuller, a 50-year-old grain and livestock farmer from Emporia, Kan.”

Mr. Clayton noted that, “While there are guys out there sitting on a lot of land equity, Fuller isn’t necessarily one of them. He faces the possible loss of his farm because of cancellation of his crop-insurance policy on the 2012 crop. Fuller is an enthusiastic advocate for protecting the land from erosion and building organic matter back into the soil. But his planting practices in 2012 got crossways with a USDA Risk Management Agency crop insurance rule requiring cover crops to be terminated before cash crops are planted.

“Fuller lost his policy on some of his fields because he planted soybeans and other cash crops on his 1,800-acre farm before terminating his mix of cover crops. RMA has required such cover-crop terminations. Fuller left cover crops growing, ranging from days to weeks, after he had planted the spring crops, before he could spray to kill the cover off.”

The article went on to explain that, “In late July of last year, Fuller was informed by his insurer that he had to undergo a growing-season inspection. He was later informed that his policy had been canceled. He hadn’t terminated his cover crop before planting his cash crop. Fuller has now applied with the insurance company for remediation, but he’s also challenging USDA’s Risk Management Agency over the validity of the rule.

“‘We decided to appeal it on the approach that the rule was wrong,’ Fuller said.

“Fuller said the policy cancellation has become an opportunity for soil-health researchers and advocates for no-till farming and cover crops to educate RMA about the value of the practices.”

Mr. Clayton pointed out that, “RMA is trying to quantify the actuarial soundness of a producer’s farming operation, and that is made more complicated by sustained drought. But over the past year, RMA sought to improve its stance for farmers who use covers. The agency also worked to encourage farmers to plant cover crops last fall on acres considered damaged or destroyed, citing that it would not affect 2013 spring crops.

“Local and state officials in various capacities are now advocating for farmers to grow more covers largely because of the effects cover crops have in reducing dust storms and improving water quality in rivers and streams. An increasing number of states pay farmers or provide cost-share for cover crops in parts of the Chesapeake Bay or MississippiRiver basins.

“Thus, producers who grow cover crops are questioning how a farmer can lose his insurance policy for protecting the soil from erosion while bare fields are not penalized.”

Budget- CBO “Baseline”

Lori Montgomery reported in today’s Washington Post that, “For the third year in a row, President Obama on Monday blew the deadline for submitting his budget request to Congress, prompting Republicans to grouse once again about presidential fecklessness on fiscal matters.

“Less usual was the administration’s refusal to say when Obama would release his 2014 spending plan. Congressional aides in both parties said they expect to see the budget in mid- to late-March — a delay of more than a month, unmatched by any other incumbent president except, on one occasion, Ronald Reagan.

“Though Obama’s budget requests have been dead on arrival in Congress since Republicans took control of the House two years ago, the blueprint remains an important political document. That’s particularly true this year as lawmakers gird for showdowns overautomatic spending cuts, a government shutdown and the federal debt limit.”

And Vicki Needham, Erik Wasson and Bernie Becker reported yesterday at The Hill’s On the Money Blog that, “The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Tuesday will release its annual budget and economic update that will take a peek into the nation’s financial condition.”

The update noted that, “The CBO report will form the ‘budget baseline’ by which House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) will rewrite their radically different fiscal 2014 budget plans.”

Immigration

Russell Berman reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “A bipartisan group of House negotiators is even further along in drafting a comprehensive immigration overhaul than its counterpart in the Senate, but the path to passage in the lower chamber is lined with thorns.

“Republican House leaders from Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) on down have not decided how to handle the vexing issue, even as they have voiced general support for ‘addressing’ it in 2013.”

The Hill article pointed out that, “The new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), signaled in an interview that the panel would move at a deliberate pace on immigration, in part because Republican leaders need to educate more than 100 first- and second-term members who Goodlatte said ‘know very little’ about the complexities of immigration law.

“Goodlatte is holding the panel’s first full hearing on immigration on Tuesday — the first of what he told The Hill would be a ‘long series of hearings’ on the issue.”  [See this related article in today’s New York Times, “Immigration Hearings Set to Open in the House.”]

David Nakamura reported yesterday at The Washington Post Online that, “President Obama will meet separately Tuesday with labor and business leaders on immigration reform, as the White House seeks to enlist the often at-odds interest groups in a common push toward a comprehensive legislative package.”