"For weeks now the Senate farm bill has been continually criticized by the Administration because of this so called issue of 'frontloading,' however, I asked repeatedly to define what that constitutes the Secretary is unable to give a credible answer. I find that curious," said Harkin. "It is extremely difficult to negotiate a compromise on the farm bill with an administration that refuses to take a position and continues to move the goal posts. This has been the problem that I have dealt with since first becoming Chairman of the Committee in June."

During his questioning, Harkin pointed out that the Congressional Budget Resolution that President Bush supported also allocated more money during the first five years. The assumptions underlying the budget resolution include new farm bill spending of $40.25 billion in fiscal years 2002-06, substantially more than half of the $73.5 billion available. According to the Congressional Budget Office the Senate farm bill will spend $40.38 billion in the first five years, only $130 million than the budget resolution.

When asked by Harkin where the Administration stood on the budget resolution which supported spending more in the first five years, Veneman asserted that while the administration had supported the ten year figure they had taken no position on the projected allocations when they supported the Budget Resolution. Furthermore the Secretary indicated that the administration would only support farm bill spending which divided the funding "relatively" evenly. However, Secretary Veneman declined to define exactly what "relatively" meant in the contexts of the farm bill.

"I don't understand how a budget resolution that the President supported less than a year ago can now be completely unacceptable, just because it is reflected in the Senate farm bill," said Harkin. "It doesn't make sense that the Administration can be so strongly in favor of one portion of the budget resolution, the $73.5 billion, and be completely oblivious to another -- the need to get it out to farmers as soon as possible."

"Farmers are hurting. In January USDA predicted that farm income would decline by as much as 20 percent this year. We have at our disposal the resources not only to help our farmers but repair our failed farm policy and put rural America back on the right track, however, for some reason the administration continues to stall. It is time for the administration to give us some details instead of simply saying no," said Harkin. "Rural America is bleeding and thousands of farm families are on life support. Rather than providing adequate help now, when they need it most, the administration apparently wants us to postpone help until years from now when it will be provided in a different farm bill. This simply doesn't make sense."

• The Senate farm bill fully complies with the ten-year Congressional budget resolution for fiscal 2002-11. The budget resolution provides $73.5 billion in additional funding over ten years for the new farm bill. The only limitation on how the new spending may be allocated across the years is that no more than $7.35 billion of it may be spent in fiscal 2002. The CBO ten-year score for the Senate bill is $73.5 billion in new budget authority, or $72.9 billion in new direct spending (outlays).

• The ten-year budget resolution clearly contemplates that substantially more than half of the new farm bill funding will be utilized in the first five years as compared to second five years. The assumptions underlying the budget resolution include new farm bill spending (outlays) of $40.25 billion in fiscal years 2002-06 – substantially more than half of the $73.5 billion in new spending provided for the period 2006-11. New direct spending (outlays) in the Senate bill for fiscal 2002-06 is $40.38 billion. It is CBO estimated outlays – actual spending, and not budget authority – that really matter when evaluating the budget impacts of the bill. Even if that $40.25 billion assumption were binding – and it is not – the Senate bill is fully consistent with it.

• USDA estimates 2002 farm income will drop 20 percent without added assistance, and the Senate farm bill recognizes the critical need to provide near-term assistance to agricultural producers to enable them to continue in farming and ranching. For commodity programs in total, the Senate bill provides $26.2 billion for 2002-06 while the House bill provides $25.1 billion for the same period. For program crops, the House bill falls well short of the critical need for assistance to help producers survive the immediate crisis. For fiscal 2002 and 2003, the Senate bill provides $10.672 billion in added assistance through marketing assistance loans and direct and counter-cyclical payments, while the House bill provides less than half that amount: $5.335 billion.

• While providing critical early assistance, the Senate bill also continues strong farm income protection into the future and builds a budget baseline for a strong safety net in the next farm bill. The farm income protection in the Senate bill for program crops continues at the same level into the future, even though CBO scoring shows lower farm program spending in later years. That is because CBO predicts that commodity prices will increase over the next ten years. If prices do not rise, the counter-cyclical features of the Senate bill will kick in to provide farm income assistance and the budget figures will adjust accordingly. The safety net for farmers does not diminish in later years of the Senate bill or in the new CBO baseline generated by this bill for the next farm bill (except for the national dairy program and commodity purchases, which are limited). Only the expected spending declines, as judged by current CBO assumptions about long-term commodity prices.

• The ten-year CBO baseline assuming a continuation of Freedom to Farm already contains higher commodity program spending in the earlier years versus the later years – what some are calling “front-loading” – as does the House farm bill to a lesser extent. The current CBO baseline for commodity programs is $77.0 billion for 2002-11, but much more than half of that ($48.7 billion) will be spent in the first five years, 2002-06. Even the House bill’s commodity programs will spend more in the first five years than in the second: $25.1 billion versus $23.7 billion – again, because CBO predicts increasing commodity prices.

• The Senate farm bill follows the same distribution across the years of commodity program spending as the ten-year baseline for a continuation of Freedom to Farm. In the current CBO baseline, 63 percent ($48.7 billion) of the ten-year amount for commodity program spending ($77.0 billion) will occur in the first five years, 2002-06. If the Senate bill were enacted, 64 percent ($74.9 billion) of the ten-year amount for commodity programs ($116.8 billion) would be spent in first five years. By contrast, the House bill would depart from the current law distribution by reducing the percentage of commodity program spending in the first five years to 58 percent ($73.8 billion) of the ten-year amount ($125.8 billion).

• Any benefits to U.S. producers from new WTO trade agreements will not occur in the next five years, and thus a relatively stronger level of assistance to U.S. farmers and ranchers in the near term is justified. In the meantime, the United States must not fail to provide essential income assistance to U.S. farmers and ranchers.

• When all of components of the bills are compared, the five-year Senate bill provides substantially more help to farmers and to rural America generally than the House bill does over the same period. Besides providing more commodity-based farm income protection, in its five years the Senate bill also includes a stronger commitment to conservation, rural economic development and farm-based renewable energy. These types of assistance benefit farmers and rural communities, just as commodity programs do. The five-year Senate bill provides $35.6 billion in benefits to farmers, while the House bill provides $30.5 billion in the same period. In overall benefits to rural communities, the Senate bill provides $38.3 billion, while the House bill provides $32.0 billion.

• The Senate bill makes a strong early commitment to solve the backlog and built-up demand for conservation assistance, while the House bill actually back-loads conservation spending and defers critical investments in conservation beyond five years – into the next farm bill. The Senate bill adds $21.3 billion in new budget authority to the conservation baseline for a total of $42.7 billion for 2002-11, of which half – $21.4 billion – is provided in the first five years, 2002-06. The House bill adds $15.8 billion in conservation budget authority for a total of $37.2 billion for 2002-11, but defers much of it by providing less than half of the total ($16.4 billion) in the first five years.