An Urban's Rural View

Who murdered permanent law?

For decades the backstop to the farm bill has been a piece of legislation enacted in 1949. This "permanent law" is suspended as long as Congress passes a new farm bill every few years. If it fails, the old law kicks in and milk prices soar. Needless to say, this encourages Congress not to fail.

When the House of Representatives passed its version of the 2013 farm bill, it voted to repeal permanent law and kill this incentive to pass future farm bills. Were the House to get its way, the 2013 farm bill would remain in effect indefinitely.

I had read a number of commentaries arguing that this is a mistake. What I hadn't seen explained is why the House did it in the first place. In whose interest would it be to murder permanent law?

Not farmers, certainly. The ag economy is volatile. A farm bill that works for farmers today may not work tomorrow. Most of them want Congress to try again every few years. Even rice and peanut growers, who look like winners this time around, might live to regret it if the 2013 farm bill is the last.

Nor would it please farm-subsidy opponents to freeze the 2013 farm bill in place. Both the House and Senate versions are too generous for their taste. They should be itching for another crack at trimming subsidies in 2018.

Good-government advocates might prefer a "sunset provision" stating explicitly that the farm bill expires on a named future date. But as permanent law has the same effect, these reformers are unlikely suspects in this murder case.

Who, then? DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom has the answer. Writing in the National Journal (http://tiny.cc/…), he identifies the man behind the repeal as House Ag committee chairman Frank Lucas.

Lucas, Jerry writes, "is putting in a stellar performance as he tries to get a farm bill through Congress under the most difficult circumstances."

For the "weary Lucas," the repeal may make sense. "Passing farm bills has gotten harder," Jerry notes, "and it would be much easier for future chairmen of the House Agriculture Committee not to have to face the expiration of the commodity programs."

But it's a bad idea, even if it's Lucas's, Jerry argues. Over the years periodic rewrites of the farm bill have yielded a variety of important innovations, from the addition of Internet to the Rural Utilities Service to support for farmers' markets.

The House Ag committee's ranking member, the Senate Ag committee chair and the president all oppose the repeal. The danger, Jerry writes, is that "as Congress continues the difficult task of trying to write a farm bill this year, temptations will arise to do anything to get it across the finish line."

Lucas has always struck me as a reasonable man. Perhaps he will listen to reason if the House and Senate ever get around to reconciling their differences in a farm-bill conference.

(CZ)

© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.