Farm Bill Conferees Nowhere
Near Agreement Despite Work

WASHINGTON — A conference committee has been sorting through versions of the new farm bill for more than two weeks now, but it doesn't appear that a finished bill is near.

Various people on Capitol Hill have been pontificating on deadlines and what would be and not be in the finished bill, but the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and the conference committee, Rep. Larry Combest, R-Texas, says he's more interested in getting a bill that will help farmers and ranchers than in meeting a deadline.

Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Texas, the ranking Democrat on the House Ag Committee and a member of the conference committee, was in his home district last weekend talking with constituents.

With characteristic candor, Stenholm said he doesn't know when a final bill will be negotiated.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Ag Committee, says he thinks they can finish by March 22, the beginning of the Congressional Easter recess.

"I think that's possible, but at this point I have no idea of how complex the staff has found this," Lugar says. "I think that on the part of senators, there's interest to complete action."

He admits, however, that it will be difficult.

The House passed its version of the farm bill, HR2646, the Farm Security Act of 2001, on Oct. 5, by a vote of 291 to 120.

The Senate version of the farm bill, S1731, the Agriculture, Conservation and Rural Enhancement Act of 2002, was passed by a vote of 58 to 40 on Feb. 13.

The House bill is 300 pages, said Stenholm, a veteran lawmaker. The Senate Bill is 1300 pages.

Just the physical size of the task complicates matters, Stenholm said.

To add to the problem, the Congressional Budget Office last week announced they had underestimated the cost of the Senate's version of the farm bill by more than $6 billion.

The House version is a 10-year bill, while the Senate version is for five years. The House version also holds spending down to about $33 billion over the first five years of the bill. The Senate version allows for a budget of more than double that of the House bill over the same period.

The Bush administration was initially cool to the House bill until the Senate passed its version. Now, White House officials are saying that the House bill is closer to what they want.

Stenholm said he's disappointed that the White House provided little leadership on this farm bill.

Speaking through an aide, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Ag Committee, says he's frustrated that President Bush is criticizing the Senate version of the farm bill for excessive spending.

Observers say there are more differences between the two versions of this farm bill than with any farm bill in recent memory. The differences include crop support levels, restrictions on the ownership and marketing of livestock, country of origin labeling, environmental and conservation programs, animal identification, water rights and acquisition, farm savings accounts, animal health protection and checkoff programs.

Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, says he has concerns about the negotiations over the bill, particularly with regard to the money allotted for various programs in the bill.

"We have a certain amount of money set aside in our budget for paying for the new programs and new emphasis of this farm bill over a 10-year period of time," Moran says. "Unfortunately, the Senate front-loaded the bill. They spent the 10 years’ worth of money in the first five years. That's a major obstacle."

With regard to the livestock industry, one of the major controversial points is an amendment to the Senate's bill that was added by Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., just before Christmas, that prohibits packer ownership of cattle or pigs.

"The Senate added a number of provisions including this one," Moran says. "The House never considered this issue in our farm bill. There are a number of issues that the Senate added to the farm bill. They were able to do that."

"The Johnson Amendment, as it's written, is unworkable," Stenholm contended.

That said, he continued, he would like to see a compromise like the one that was offered by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, to study the problems of packer concentration and find a solution.

Stenholm insisted he doesn't want a study as a way of taking the pressure off and then letting it die. He said he wants a study that will lead to a solution without violating the principles of free enterprise.

"Something needs to be done," Stenholm agreed.

But he doesn't think the Johnson Amendment, as proposed in the Senate bill, is what needs to be done.

To add to the problem, the livestock industry is split over what should be done with regard to packer ownership of cattle.

Another controversial issue that will have to be resolved in the final bill is country of origin labeling.

Stenholm warned that supporters of mandatory labeling need to be careful or they may get what they're asking for.

While he supports voluntary labeling, Stenholm said mandatory labeling could have unintended consequences.

Other countries could use mandatory country of origin labeling as an excuse to throw up their own non-tariff blockades to U.S. exports.

In the 1950s, Stenholm noted, the U.S. adopted a zero tolerance for karnal bunt in wheat that was then coming in from Mexico.

That means, he said, that one infested kernel could quarantine an entire railroad car of wheat. Millers, however, can use wheat with up to several percent karnal bunt.

The karnal bunt issue and zero tolerance become a major issue the last couple of years in the grain belt of Texas, which includes part of Stenholm's district.

Suddenly, a measure designed to keep wheat out became a problem for U.S. producers as they tried to export their crops.

Stenholm pointed out that export markets are becoming increasingly important to the livestock industry as well as to U.S. agriculture as a whole.

Stenholm also said that some programs may have to be cut because of costs.

One of those programs may be the Grassland Reserve Program, a pilot program involving two million acres of grazing lands, similar in concept to the Conservation Reserve Program.

Senate conferees are Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate ag committee; Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont; Kent

Conrad, D-N.D.; Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the Senate Majority Leader; Richard Lugar, R-Indiana; Jesse Helms, R-S.C.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

House conferees are Larry Combest, R-Texas, chairman of the House ag committee; Stenholm; John Boehner, R-Ohio; Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia; Richard Pombo, R-Calif.; Jerry Moran, R-Kansas; Terry Everett, R-Alabama; Frank Lucas, R-Oklahoma; Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia; Gary Condit, D-Calif.; Collin Peterson, D-Minn.; Cal Dooley, D-Calif.; Eva Clayton, D-N.C.; and Tim Holden, D-Penn.

Additional conferees were named last week to help resolve differences in tax, trade, budget and natural resource issues.