Washington Round-up

Rep. Tom Osborne (NE-03)		 Week of  March 18, 2002
 
Time is running out on the 2002 budget. And a new hurdle has arisen in the way of expeditious completion of the Farm Bill: the Senate bill will cost $6.3 billion dollars more than previously expected, raising its total cost from $73.5 billion to $79.8 billion. The bill now exceeds its budgetary limit by more than $6 billion. If the Senate tries to fully reformulate their bill to fit within the budgetary limit for farm spending, it is unlikely that the Farm Bill will be completed under the 2002 budget, as the House expects to vote on a budget for 2003 in the near future. Instead, it will have to rely on the budget for 2003—a budget that emphasizes necessary increases in homeland defense and is constrained by a rapidly shrinking surplus. 

The new cost estimate is the result of an error made by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) while scoring the Senate version of the Farm Bill. Since the House version of the bill provides payments upon 85 percent of base acres, CBO used the same percentage when figuring the cost of the Senate bill. However, the Senate based its formulas on 100 percent of base acres. This error will further complicate what will be a complex conference negotiation on the Farm Bill.

Recently, Rep. John Boehner, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Workforce, named me to serve on the Farm Bill Conference Committee in a limited capacity. I will confer on the provisions in the bill that fall under the jurisdiction of the Education Committee. These provisions include the school lunch program and women, children and seniors nutrition programs.

What exactly is the role of a conference committee? A conference is a formal meeting or series of meetings between members representing both chambers of Congress to reconcile differences in legislation each one passes. A conference is authorized to deal only with matters of disagreement between the House and Senate. It may not change language that both chambers have previously approved, nor may it insert a subject not dealt with in either the House or Senate version of the measure. This conference committee will determine which provisions from the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill will form the basis for agriculture policy over the next several years.

There are several important and favorable provisions in the Senate bill that I hope the conference will incorporate into the final legislation. First, I support country-of-origin labeling. Second, the Senate bill bans packer-ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter. 

While I support some provisions of the Senate version of the Farm Bill, I believe that the sound process used by the House Agriculture Committee has created a stronger piece of legislation. First, it was developed over two years of work in the field and in Washington. The House Agriculture Committee held 47 hearings and one forum that included 368 witnesses in preparation for drafting the Farm Bill. Second, it was passed with near-unanimity by the House Agriculture Committee. Finally, the House bill evenly distributes commodity payments over its ten-year course.

The Senate version was hastily developed and passed the Senate Agriculture Committee on party lines. And the resulting legislation reflects its rushed development. The bill was so hastily written that Senators and their staffs are still working to figure out just what it contains. One of my largest concerns is that spending in the Senate Farm Bill is front-loaded, with a large percentage of its funding—60 percent of the total funding increase—to be exhausted within five years. With a front-loaded bill, we could experience a return to ad-hoc emergency payments as early as four to five years from now.

 Both the House and Senate versions contain important provisions regarding payment limitations. I favor tightened limitations that close the loopholes and stem abuse of the system. However, I am concerned with some of the Senate’s provisions that could be extremely detrimental to livestock producers of all sizes.

In the last year, Nebraska lost approximately 1,000 farmers. We need a new bill now, before we are subject to the 2003 budget. Legislation alone will not solve the crisis in agriculture. But, the bottom line is that our producers deserve much more than partisanship and delay. It is possible to complete the Farm Bill expediently and effectively: if the Senate will accept large portions of the House bill, particularly the Commodity Title, we have a chance to complete work on the legislation before this year’s budget expires.