Sheep Producers Hear Update
From Key Legislative Aides

SAN ANTONIO — Those attending the recent joint meetings of the National Lamb Feeders Association and American Sheep Industry Association had the opportunity to visit with key legislative directors who represent the sheep industry's friends on Capitol Hill.

Speaking on a legislative panel were Jody Levin, legislative director for Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo.; Ric Molen, legislative director for Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.; and Jim Richards, legislative assistant for Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas.

Levin told listeners that developing farm bill legislation in the Senate has been difficult.

"That's probably the nicest thing I can say about it. It's been a real hard struggle."

Levin noted that the Senate is on track to pass the first ever truly partisan farm bill.

"When we got on the ag committee we were joined by Colorado and Idaho on the Republican side and South Dakota and Montana on the Democratic side. That gave us a real unique opportunity to assure that the farm bill had some western interests in it.

"Historically, the farm bill has always broken down on a regional basis, never a partisan basis. So it's been quite a shock to go through the farm bill because it's truly been partisan. In committee, the Republicans didn’t have too much of a say in what those titles looked like. It was prepared by Democratic staff, given over to Republican staff and we were allowed to give some comments," Levin explained.

"The House did a committee bill, and they worked together for two years ahead of time to put that bill together, so when they presented it to the full House it was a committee bill. In the Senate it was different. The bill that passed out of Senate committee was not the bill that got put on the Senate floor.

"At every stage, wool and mohair has been included," she continued, "and I'd say that is a credit to you and the work that you do to keep in touch with Washington staff and with your members."

More than 250 amendments were filed on the committee bill, and rather than debate each one of those amendments separately, the Senate developed a "manager's" amendment to get some of those amendments automatically included in a "manager's package" which could then pass without debate.

"Some were taken in and some were taken out," Levin explained. "When the smoke cleared in December, and we were finally able to read that amendment, much to our shock we learned that mohair had been taken out of the Senate bill. There were several other commodities put in its place.

"Wool remained in the bill and a pelt provision was put in as well. I’m confident that we can get mohair put back into the bill," she told listeners. "Regardless when we go into conference with the House, your interests are going to be well protected on the wool and mohair side. So I think we’ll be in good shape coming out of conference. I think we'll see both wool and mohair and hopefully a pelt provision as well in the next farm bill."

Levin also shared their reasoning on why Republicans were blocking or delaying action on the Farm Bill back in December.

"There is a very, very good reason why that happened," she told the group. "Because of what happened in committee, because we didn’t have an opportunity to debate the amendments, our members kept voting against the ability to end debate.

"These amendments take time," she continued, "but the majority leader wanted to prevent Republicans from having that opportunity. Some of those amendments were pretty important."

One of the major stumbling blocks in what Levin termed a Democratic bill was a provision dealing with the CRP program and water conservation. This provision was included in the package and reached the floor without any debate.

"I hope all of you recognize the importance of what this provision does. It’s the ability of USDA on a willing buyer/willing seller basis to go out and acquire temporary or permanent water rights on private property and direct that water to threatened, sensitive or endangered species. You can imagine from a western perspective that the federal government owning water rights on private land isn’t really a selling idea.

"What’s even more frightening about this is that it's not just an issue that’s going to go after agriculture," Levin continued. "It's going to go after recreation, and it's going to go after municipalities.

"It is an issue that has never been before a hearing. It's never been thought through, and all of a sudden it's in a farm bill. We haven’t had the opportunity to think through the consequences of this whole new idea. Maybe it does have some merit, but again the federal government owning water rights on private property is not something that’s easy for my boss, let alone most of the Republican caucus, to say is an okay idea.

"We can’t support a farm bill with this kind of language, even if it does have a marketing program for wool. So we'll fight to get that water rights provision taken out of the bill before it ever goes to Conference so we don’t have to go to our friends in Congress to get it fixed."

Levin told listeners they're hoping to have the bill done and into conference by March.

Ric Molen opened his comments with a discussion on Wildlife Services, the USDA agency that deals with predator control.

"We were able to introduce some language in the House side to at least allow the House at least to keep away from a lot of the animal rights amendments that came up on Wildlife Services. As we face that in the coming year, it's very good to know that at least on the House side we have things taken care of."

The Senate side, however, is a different matter. Molen described his version of what has happened in the Senate regarding the farm bill policy.

"Mr. Byrd, chairman of the Appropriations Committee on the Senate side, will not allow any bills to be taken up in the Senate until after the house has passed them due to the fact that the House is in charge of taxes and money, and the Senate is in charge of policy," he explained.

The Senate, Molen said, was actually ready to go forward with farm bill debate in late August, but events of September 11 threw everything into a "tizzy."

"After 9-11, no one wanted to see anything brought up that was controversial. No one wanted to get into a fight on the floor because we were still working in a bipartisan nature in the Senate. That won’t happen again, and I guarantee we will see some sort of Wildlife Services amendments in the Senate next time.

"It comes from both sides of the aisle," he continued. "We have some members from the Northeast who are just as good at offering those kinds of amendments as some of our Democratic friends from the Midwest. We will face this issue again, so don’t let this slip from your radar screen," he warned.

Like his counterpart, Molen said the reason they held up the farm bill in the Senate was because they felt that limiting debate to 30 hours, a request made by the majority leader, was not appropriate.

"This is a major piece of legislation that’s going to affect you for the next five years. Limiting the debate was not fair to you. We want to address these issues but we want to take the time to address them," Molen noted.

He reminded listeners that his boss, Senator Burns, is the ranking member on the Interior appropriations subcommittee. That is positive for the Western lands states because this is where funding is decided on for the Forest Service, BLM and the National Parks Service.

"The Interior department wants to work with you regarding public land policy," Molen assured listeners, "but like many they’re focused on one thing right now — homeland security. You wouldn’t believe the amount of money they wanted us to spend to protect the Washington Monument, you wouldn’t believe the plans they came up with to protect that monument."

Interior is also focused on energy policy.

"They are searching for ways to get some of the energy resources that are available on public lands into use.

"As soon as they get this energy policy out the door, they’re going to want to work on something else, and that’s going to be public land policy, so keep your eyes and ears open. Let us know if you have ideas to improve public land policy and we’ll work with you on it," he told listeners.

Jim Richards, legislative assistant for Rep. Henry Bonilla, said the House took care of the sheep and goat producers.

"I'm enjoying it, because this administration has people in there who understand the issues. They understand because they have an agricultural background. They're not here because the administration owes some political debt. It's a refreshing change."

Richards told listeners about a newly released Government Accounting Office report reviewing Wildlife Services.

"The GAO did a wonderful job. It’s 100 percent positive. I think it will be a valuable tool in the future for fighting off amendments from the animal rights faction."

He also told listeners to be expecting the "lamb report" in the near future. Request for such a report was included in the agricultural appropriations bill in November.

"I've heard that the report is a pretty accurate reflection of what went on in the lamb market in 2001 and shows some of the historical trends taking place.

"Hopefully, this report will be another tool."

The ewe lamb payment that producers have been waiting on is in the budget at USDA, Richards said. The next step before it goes to the Federal Register for comments is the Office of Management and Budget.

Bonilla chairs the House Appropriations Subcomittee on Agriculture.

"The budget process," the aide said, "is going to be interesting as hell."

Finally, Richards complimented sheep producers for being proactive versus reactive.

In other legislative discussions, the issue of quality grading of imported carcasses was brought up on several occasions. Reportedly, one major lamb packer/processor based on the West Coast is involved in this practice. Approximately 100,000 lamb carcasses were imported this past year, graded and stamped with the USDA quality grade.

The objection to this practice, voiced by many attending the convention, stems from the fact that once these carcasses are graded and stamped with the USDA quality grade, there is no distinguishing them from domestic carcasses. Ultimately, as was pointed out time and time again, it all has to do with price. Importers bring the imported product in at a much lower price, but once the product is stamped with a USDA quality grade, those carcasses are as domestic carcasses.

In 1999, both the lamb and the cattle industries petitioned Agricultural Secretary Dan Glickman to ban this practice. Opposing forces had a stronger pull with the secretary then and nothing was ever done.

"Secretary Veneman and her staff are aware of the situation," ASI executive director Peter Orwick said.

It may be that the administration decides to let the issue be decided through legislation. The Senate currently has a provision in the farm bill to stop quality grading of imported carcasses. The House does not.