Leading House and Senate Farm Bill negotiators this week notified the remaining 37 conferees they may need to return to Washington, DC, this weekend for a briefing on the final conference report framework in preparation for quick approval on Monday, a bill filed in the House Monday night, a quick House vote Wednesday morning, and a Senate vote Thursday or Friday.

The fast-track schedule is because of the President's State of Union address on Tuesday - the House shuts down for security preparations midday Tuesday - and the departure of House Republicans to their two-day policy retreat Wednesday afternoon.  Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) is pushing to move the framework in hand and avoid ugly votes on specific issues; she faces other conferees who want votes on relatively minor outstanding issues, including country-of-origin labeling, the King language on federal preemption of state ag production laws and a handful of smaller issues.

Coming off a week-long recess, both House and Senate Agriculture Committee staff have nailed down most, but not all, contentious issues in the conference report.  Still not locked in are dairy supports and federal farm payment limits.  

Lawmakers went home a week ago thinking the deal was done on the dairy provisions, but House Agriculture Committee ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN), backed by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) - architects of the original dairy margin insurance program tied to milk supply controls - are reportedly trying a last-ditch effort to add stronger disincentives to milk overproduction. This move does not sit well with Rep. Frank Lucas (R, OK), chair of the House ag panel and chair of the conference committee who sees victory close and does not want it delayed.  Insiders say Peterson's effort will likely not succeed.

The current agreement dumps all supply controls, but gives USDA the authority to adjust margin insurance premiums - designed to pay the difference between milk and feed costs - up or down by 5%.  If a farmer sticks to a milk production base set by individual farm formula, 100% of the indemnity is received; if the producer exceeds that farm base, only a percentage of the indemnity is paid on milk produced over the base amount.

Program payment limits in the two versions of the Farm Bill cap the combination of subsidies and loan deficiency payments at $125,000 per individual and $250,000 per couple.  Crop insurance payments are not counted toward the cap.  

Critics want to tie the cap to adjusted gross income, limiting higher incomes to lower caps and payments, a move that would generally benefit smaller southern farms over much larger midwestern operations. Sen. Charles Grassley (R, IA), who is not a conferee, is lobbying hard to put a hard limit on payments and include a much stricter legal definition of an "actively engaged" farmer in order to qualify for the payments.  However, conferees, unable to agree on a compromise version of "actively engaged," may pull that section from the Farm Bill and give USDA authority to rewrite the definition to limit participation in farm programs by nonfarmers.

While the deadline for comments on EPA's controversial proposal to reduce or freeze the 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) at 2013 levels on alternative fuels isn't until next Tuesday, the biofuels industry - from corn ethanol to biodiesel to cellulosic fuels - dominated this week's headlines in Washington, DC.  

This week 31 Senators and 30 House members sent letters to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in support of increasing the biofuels RFS, particularly on ethanol. Led by House and Senate members representing midwestern ethanol and biodiesel states, the letters reminded McCarthy the RFS was designed to increase the use of biofuels and deemed the Obama Administration move to freeze the RFS based largely on falling gasoline sales "a significant step backward...placing at risk both the environmental benefits from development of advanced biofuels and rural America's economic future."  The letter went on to say holding the RFS at proposed levels would "halt investments in cellulosic, biodiesel and other advanced biofuels."

In a conference call with the reporters with week, Renewable Fuels Assn. (RFA) energy company executives said the RFS is the single greatest important market stimulant in the biofuels industry, and the uncertainty created by the EPA proposal is forcing producers to look overseas for both investment and sales.  RFA said the RFS was designed to drive the market for biofuels, not react to it.  

The National Biodiesel Board (NBB), representing both plant and animal-based biodiesel and renewable diesel manufacturers, was at its annual meeting in San Diego this week, and wasted no time in reminding President Obama that as a Senator, he supported creation of the RFS.  The biodiesel industry, which fared slightly better than corn ethanol makers in the EPA proposal, is looking at a proposed 1.28-billion-gallon RFS level.  NBB says fuel makers see this as a 50% cut in their RFS based on industry production. The industry wants an RFS of at least 1.7 billion gallons, even though 2014 production is on track to exceed 2 billion gallons.  

NBB says if EPA doesn't increase the RFS, then it may join with other biofuel groups and companies and sue EPA on the grounds the new RFS action violates the law. This, they allege, is because EPA bases its RFS decision on the gasoline marketplace, not on "damages, severe economic hardship or inadequate supply" as the federal law stipulates.

Meanwhile, EPA said this week it will likely revisit its proposed levels of cellulosic ethanol required to be blended with gasoline under the RFS because commercial production of cellulosic ethanol is not meeting projections.  A single cellulosic company which produces the majority of commercial U.S. cellulosic ethanol, KiOR, recently announced it was refiguring its overall annual production because it missed its second quarter target. The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) petitioned McCarthy asking for the reconsideration based on the KiOR production. The agency says it will revisit the numbers and begin rulemaking.

Comments on the RFS proposal can be found at www.epa.gov.  

Despite critics calling it a "power grab without legal basis" and the agency saying it's required by law to inspect certain grain-related activities whether they're on-farm or not, OSHA this week said it's moving to clarify its actions in trying to regulate small farms as "commercial grain dealers."  

Sen. Mike Johanns (R, NE) first exposed what he calls OSHA's disdain for a 35-year-old federal policy enshrined annually in appropriations law that keeps OSHA inspectors off small farming operations, defined as those with 10 or fewer employees.  The agency, Johanns said, ignored congressional direction and simply tried to redefine farming operations with separate commercial identities to permit OSHA inspections.  He included language in the recently enacted FY2014 omnibus appropriations bill upholding the small farm exemption, but encouraging OSHA to meet with USDA "before moving forward with any attempt to redefine and regulate post-harvest activities." A USDA meeting will be set up "very quickly," OSHA officials said.

Johanns said what OSHA defines as "commercial grain storage" subject to inspection is simply routine grain storage used post harvest, action specifically exempt by the federal law.  OSHA maintains it's trying to make the regulations clearer for both farmers and its inspectors.

OSHA told reporters on a conference call this week the agency is motivated by safety, citing a string of storage accidents in 2010 that lead to 57 incidents and 31 deaths. In 2011, the agency announced its intent to focus on grain handling, beginning what it called "a very aggressive campaign" to prevent grain handling accidents.  Further, the agency said that it has never been its policy to inspect grain storage that is "intrinsic" to a farming operation, and it is unaware of any inspector ever "going to the wrong places" to enforce grain storage rules.

House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) promised action on immigration last year - and missed the mark - and earlier this month reiterated not only the House GOP priority on immigration reform, but promised to unveil "principles and standards" to guide his party during the reform process.  Those strategy priorities will be unveiled next week at the GOP's two-day policy retreat in Cambridge, Maryland.  

Reports indicate Boehner and his lieutenants want the four immigration reform bills approved by the House Judiciary Committee ready for floor action by late summer.  Included in this package is a guest worker bill to grant "legal status" to undocumented workers, but will likely not go as far as granting full citizenship. The other three key bills deal with the children of illegals, tracking of foreign nationals and increasing the number of visas for immigrant unskilled labor. Border security and high-skilled worker visa legislation has already cleared the House.  The goal would be to take the six bills and package them into a single piece of legislation.

Critical, say conservative Republicans wary of the "legal status" priority, is language in the ultimate immigration package to legally compel President Obama to enforce all parts of the ultimate law agreed to by Congress. They cite the White House's recent waiver of several parts of the Affordable Care Act without consulting with Congress.  

Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI) said in a Texas speech this week the granting of "legal status" to illegal workers was absolutely necessary, and would be predicated upon undocumented workers learning English, learning U.S. government and history, paying taxes and a fine for entering the country illegally.