Congressman
CHARLIE STENHOLM
17th District of Texas

AG TALK
By Charlie Stenholm
February 8, 2002

Senate Action on the Farm Bill

This week the Senate once again began working on the farm bill, after failing to move forward with an economic stimulus package.

The Senate version of the farm bill would set farm policy and spending levels for five years. The House version, passed last October, is a 10-year farm bill.

On Thursday, the Senate passed a controversial amendment that would limit annual government payments to farmers from a maximum of $500,000 to $275,000.

There is widespread opposition to payment limitations and the passage of this amendment creates problems for different regions of the country.

Lawmakers from the southern states are concerned about the impact on our producers. For example, it costs more to produce cotton and rice in the south than it does to grow wheat and corn in the northern plains states.

The House farm bill passed by the House of Representatives had a payment limit of $550,000.

Another amendment passed by the Senate will require that farms have a planting history to be eligible to participate in commodity programs.

Specifically, land that has not had a crop on it during the past five years would not be eligible to receive government assistance.

President Introduces FY 2003 Budget

This week, President Bush submitted his budget for fiscal year (FY) 2003. Under this proposal, total USDA spending for FY 2003 would decline from the spending levels for the current fiscal year.

However, the president’s budget would provide an increase of $131 million in funding to protect agriculture and the nation’s food supply, in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

I am pleased to report that the president’s budget does include $73.5 billion in spending over the years 2002-2011 for a new farm bill.

There has been some question about funding for the farm bill, given the nation’s move back toward deficit spending.

The president requested a $216 million increase in spending for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Unfortunately, the president’s budget proposed a $43 million reduction in funding for boll weevil eradication, and this is something that will need to be addressed in the months ahead.

Elimination of Funding for the Small Watershed Program

Another unfortunate surprise in the president’s budget was the elimination of funding for the Small Watershed Program, a program that has been very successful in Texas and other parts of the country.

The bureaucrats at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have never really cared much for this program, probably for the same reason that they don’t care for the rural electric system.

This year, they finally succeeded in convincing the White House not to include funding, despite its popularity in the countryside.

The OMB folks don’t feel that the cost-benefit ratios for the Small Watershed Program projects make economic sense.

And I have to admit, these cost-benefit ratios can appear to be high since they often times include flood control or drinking water supply projects in areas with low population levels.

Nevertheless, the backlog of requests for approved Small Watershed Program projects stood at $1.6 billion at the beginning of this fiscal year.

The OMB is arguing that states and localities can come up with the funding for these projects on their own and don’t need federal assistance.

I was also disappointed that the budget did not contain funding for watershed project dam rehabilitation.

Return to 2002 News