Congressman
CHARLIE STENHOLM
17th District of Texas

AG TALK
By Charlie Stenholm
October 12, 2001

Senate Now Working on Farm Bill

As I indicated last week, the House has passed “The Farm Security Act,” a farm bill that reauthorizes federal farm programs through the year 2011.

While this was a significant step, it is important to keep in mind that this was just the first step in a long process of developing a farm bill.

It is now up to the Senate to take further action.

I understand that Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle wants the Senate to consider a farm bill before the end of the first session of this Congress.

This could be some time around Thanksgiving.

The Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee has scheduled a hearing to begin marking up legislation this coming week.

It is generally believed that the Senate version will differ from the House version in that there will be more emphasis on conservation, and a reduction in spending for commodities.

In addition, the Senate may add a section dealing with concentration among agricultural sectors, a so-called “competition title.”

The White House would prefer that further action on a farm bill not be taken until next year, when the 2002 farm bill expires.

Despite the fact that the Administration declined repeated offers from the House Agriculture Committee to provide input on the farm bill, the Administration has indicated they intend to work closely with the Senate in writing their version of the farm bill.

Once the Senate passes a farm bill, it will be necessary for the House and Senate to hold a conference to work out a compromise between the two bills.

Following that, each chamber will have to take one more vote on the final version before sending it to the White House for a signature.

At this point in time, a presidential signature is not a sure bet, even if the House and Senate can come to a final agreement on farm bill legislation.

I am hopeful that we will soon have a bill that will be good for producers and one that provides a greater level of certainty to the nation’s agricultural economy.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)

The House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill this week to give the president Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

Formerly known as “fast track authority,” TPA would give the president increased authority to negotiate trade agreements.

In brief, TPA authority would allow the Administration to speedily negotiate trade accords.

Under such authority, Congress could approve or reject such treaties, but would not have the ability to amend them.

Agricultural trade would be included in these accords.

I have supported “trade promotion authority” in the past because I believe the president should have the full support of Congress in negotiating on behalf of U.S. interests.

At this point in time, however, it is not clear whether the Administration is committed to getting the best deal possible for U.S. farmers and ranchers, businesses and other job interests.

With the recent Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the farm bill, the Administration seems to believe that the best way to make U.S. agriculture competitive is to lower the prices our farmers and ranchers receive for their products.

The Administration believes that the increased subsidies provided for in the House farm bill would undermine the ability of the U.S. to negotiate in the next round of negotiations by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

I disagree with their opinion, and I believe that the restriction on counter-cyclical payments is a clear indication of our own commitment to free and fair trade.

I also believe that until we get our competitors to reduce their agricultural subsidies, we should do everything within the current WTO limits to ensure that our farmers and ranchers receive a fair price for what they produce and a fair deal in trade. This is currently not the case.

Bt Cotton Re-registered

The EPA has announced a five-year extension of its conditional registration of Bt cotton.

After a thorough review, the EPA has determined that there is reasonable certainty that Bt cotton will not pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.

With the extension, however, come certain limitations.

First, the product’s manufacturer, Monsanto, will be required to continue monitoring for potential effects after long-term use and will be forced to educate the users of the product about the best methods of planting to minimize any potential development of insect resistance or gene transfer to other plants. This is very important.

In order to address these issues, the registration requires that some acres be set aside to serve as a refuge, and support populations of insects not exposed to the Bt toxin to ensure that resistance is not developed.

In general, the ruling is good news for cotton producers, providing for the continuation of a widely used, environmentally sound option in pest control.

Return to 2001 News