| Americas farmers and ranchers will watch closely Wednesday when the
U.S. House begins debate on its first major non-terrorism bill since the
Sept. 11 attacks.
That is when a 10-year, $170 billion farm bill goes in front of House
members.
It will be the first significant non-attack, non-defense business
the House has considered since the attacks, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D.,
said. I believe it is very appropriate to take this action right now,
even while we are completely focused on the attacks of Sept. 11.
House Agriculture Committee members say they expect the measure to pass
by weeks end, with the only roadblock a proposed amendment to greatly
expand conservation programs.
Senators say they should pass a similar bill by years end, although
they have yet to write their version.
In normal times, federal farm policy is controversial. But since Sept.
11, lawmakers and administration officials have concentrated their
attention on terrorism and recovery efforts, and how smoothly they will
transition to normal business is anybodys guess.
All the rules have essentially been broken, said Sen. Mark
Dayton, D-Minn.
However, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said New York lawmakers he
knows have expressed appreciation for support Midwest congressmen have
given recovery bills, so they likely will support the farm bill. Such
urban lawmakers are not always friends of farm states, Peterson said.
Still, Peterson said, It is hard to predict how this is going to
shake out.
Peterson and other lawmakers say the federal government may spend
upwards of $100 billion in its expanded anti-terrorism and recovery
programs, which some say may threaten farm spending.
The situation is so unclear that the Bush administrations top farm
policy official could not tell the Senate Agriculture Committee last
Wednesday how much money the president would like to spend on farm
programs.
I cant tell you where the budget is going to go with regard to
anything, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said.
That comment angered Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., an ag committee member
and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.
It was really quite surprising that the secretary of agriculture
does not know what the administration position is on the funding of the ag
bill, Conrad said.
We are charged with writing an economic recovery plan, he added,
and agriculture is a key part of the nations economy. This is a
matter, I believe, of not just of interest to our states but really of
interests to the national economy.
Dayton said debate over the farm bill may be the first division seen in
a united Washington since the attacks.
I think we are going to have our differences over domestic policy,
Dayton said.
If Congress does not pass a farm bill this year, nearly $74 billion to
come from a budget surplus probably will be lost, lawmakers say.
You cant write a decent farm bill without those funds, Conrad
said.
In Pomeroys view, key to the House bill is that it produces
strong price support for farmers. It also raises marketing loan limits.
The House bill does not spend as much on conservation as the Senate
Agriculture Committee is expected to put in its bill.
I dont want production agriculture to have to pay that price,
Pomeroy said about why the House left out some conservation measures.
Conservation will be the biggest battle over the House farm proposal,
Peterson predicted.
Peterson and Pomeroy said if an amendment passes to increase
conservation spending, it will reduce money grain farmers receive.
If we start amending it, we will end up with a worse bill for my
district and North Dakota than what we have now, Peterson said.
One aspect of the bill stands out in Petersons mind: It gives
farmers some certainty about what the governments involvement will be.
Some people want to call it a safety net.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE HOUSE BILL
* Returns price-support philosophy to that of the 1985 farm bill in
which the federal government guarantees a base payment for grain.
* Farmers would know at the beginning of each year how much base
payment they would receive.
* More than $16 billion would be spent on conservation over 10 years
for soil, water and wildlife programs, a 75 percent increase.
* Slightly expands the Conservation Reserve Program through 2011.
* Reauthorizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program through
2011 to give farmers up to $50,000 for dealing with environmental problems
such as in feedlots.
* Expands the Wetlands Reserve Program through 2011, providing for an
additional 150,000 acres to be enrolled per year. |