January, 1999

Farmers voice concerns to Congressmen in town meetings

by Lee Dean

Two Congressmen heard an earful about the conditions of agriculture during a series of town meetings held over two days in West Michigan.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) hosted the meetings and brought along a colleague, Rep. Tom Ewing (R-Ill), who is chairman of the Risk Management and Specialty Crops Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture.
The two legislators held three meetings, including one in Ravenna, where fruit and vegetable growers let them know of their concerns for the future of agriculture in the U.S. In turn, both Hoekstra and Ewing tried to reassure their audiences that Congress wasn’t intending to bury American agriculture.
“There’s a general concern in Washington about the ag community. No one is interested in putting farmers out of business,” said Hoekstra.
Trade issues were on the minds of growers, especially the importing of foreign juice concentrate. The apple industry is targeting Chinese concentrate in an antidumping suit, while Hoekstra and Michigan Governor John Engler have written letters to President Clinton asking him to support their efforts.
Looking farther out, the antidumping controversy will be part of the next round of General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) talks. Ewing added that the new chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Rep. Larry Combest (R-Tex.) plans to be more active on the issue.
Other trade areas of concern include Canada and Asia. Hoekstra said an infusion of American dollars to the International Monetary Fund would help jump-start the anemic Asian economies.
“Our economy is strong and Asia’s is weak - and that’s hurting exports,” said Hoekstra. “Agriculture will be more vulnerable to fluctuations in their economies. We want to make currency fluctuations and trade deficiencies part of the next GATT talks.”
Along with trade, other issues discussed in the Ravenna meeting included the Food Quality Protection Act, labor, country-of-origin labeling and crop insurance.
FQPA passed the Senate unanimously and was thought to be a great improvement for agriculture over the existing Delaney Clause. However, as the Environmental Protection Agency has implemented the new law, concerns have been rising in the ag community that important crop protection chemicals could be lost before suitable replacements can be registered.
Hoekstra and Ewing both said Congress was working on ways to influence EPA as it implements the law. Both legislators expressed frustration over how entrenched bureaucrats can hamstring the will of Congress. Hoekstra hinted at the possibility of cutting EPA’s budget, which would act as a “shot across their bows.”
Added Ewing, “Bureaucrats often have a life and mind of their own. They’re convinced they know what’s good for America. Much of our government is running on its own and exceeding the authority Congress gave it.”
Growers had no kind words to say about the current crop insurance program. Vegetable grower Don Swanson of Ravenna noted the only peril he could insure for was excess water, which was of no value in last season’s drought conditions. Comstock Park apple grower Harold Thome called crop insurance “totally useless,” explaining that calculating loss based on crop history is ridiculous in a crop such as apples that is seeing more higher-density plantings.
Ewing pointed out that new ag chairman Combest supports a total revision of the crop insurance program and mentioned a pilot program planned for five southwest Michigan counties, and areas of New England an Florida. The program, called adjusted gross revenue insurance, will insure a level of income based on a producer’s Schedule F tax history.
Hoekstra described the progress of an agricultural guest worker reform proposal that cleared Congress as part of a departmental appropriations bill. But the measure did not survive intense negotiations over the budget between the White House and Congress just before the current fiscal year began.
“The Clinton administration wanted that out of the final bill. This bill will come back up next year. The question now is how to get the executive branch to move on it,” said Hoekstra.
Country-of-origin labeling was addressed by both Congressmen. Hoekstra said he was inclined to support such legislation, explaining that producers would benefit because most consumers have a preference for U.S. produce. Ewing pointed out that he also represents consumers, saying the cost of labeling would raise the price of food.