Agriculture

Several years ago, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a Farm Bill (P.L. 107-117) that represents a giant leap backwards in federal agriculture policy. Some political opportunists misrepresented my fiscally conservative beliefs on commodity programs with half-truths and sloppy research about my farm bill vote.

Beginning with the first opportunity I had, I voted for payment limitations for commodity programs. However, I have not supported measures to use the savings from payment limitations on commodity programs to increase funding for liberal programs, such as providing food stamps for non-US citizens. Other fiscal watchdogs like myself recognize that the Farm Bill is a raw deal for farmers, suppliers, consumers, and taxpayers.

Most importantly, I voted against final passage of the Farm Bill because it was an expensive, big-government bill. The total cost of the massive bill is not known, but estimates of $171 billion over the next 10 years are common. And over the past decade, poor forecasting and technical errors have caused actual agriculture spending to be twice as high as many forecasts.

The Farm Bill’s negative effects will be far-reaching. At the time of its passage, it represented the largest non-military expansion of the Federal government since the Great Society. It is estimated that the farm bill will cost households at least $1,895 in higher taxes, and $2,572 in inflated food prices. The bill preserves the Conservation Reserve Program, which raises the price of food above the market-clearing level by taking cropland out of use and thereby creating a food shortage. The farm bill further promotes the “plantation effect,” where family farms with less than 100 acres are being bought out by larger agribusinesses. Far from saving the family farm, the farm bill will accelerate its demise.

The farm bill is based on self-defeating policies that are not economically sound. Farm policy is based on the premise that a surplus of crops has lowered crop prices too far and farmers need subsidies to recover lost income. The bill will mean federal government payouts to some farmers to grow more crops, while the Conservation Reserve Program pays other farmers to grow fewer crops. Even more contradictory and confusing is that big government will then employ price supports to make food more expensive at home and then fund export subsidies to make the same American food less expensive for consumers overseas.

The farm bill will reduce agriculture exports and lead to a trade war. It fails to facilitate access to export markets or remove trade-restricting price supports and could eliminate American exports from competition. Ninety-six percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States, making international trade vital to American farmers. This legislation will have a devastating effect on U.S. exports.

I voted against final passage of the Farm Bill because American farmers, taxpayers, and consumers need a better bill that incorporates market principles, open global markets, and does not cost hundreds of billions of dollars increasing funding for liberal programs. This bill represents the largest non-military expansion of the Federal government since the Great Society. In a time of war and of mounting budget deficits, this is irresponsible. We are now locked into 10 years of expensive, mistargeted, and self-defeating farm policies, creating even larger problems that will plague Americans for decades.

METHYL BROMIDE: I support the development of broad spectrum, cost effective and practical alternatives to the use of methyl bromide.

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING: The recently-passed Agriculture appropriations bill, would prohibit funding for a program authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill that requires retailers to label mean and meat products to show the country of origin. The labeling program--which is now voluntary--will become mandatory next year.

RC&D: I support increasing USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Services, Resource Conservation and Development Council (“RC&D”) resources.

H-2A PROGRAM: The current 50-year-old H-2A agricultural guest worker program is broken. Less than 2 percent of the nation's season workforce needs are met through this unaffordable, litigious, and cumbersome program. Demansd for a reformed program are at an all-time high, as labor intensive crops have grown rapidly in the past two decades to the point that they now represent 43% of farm receipts from all crops. Enactment of a workable program not only will help our farmers but also will reduce the pressure of illegal economic migration into the U.S. by controlling and monitoriing the admission and departure of temporary foreign workers. I support reform; transition to a workable H-2A program. A one-time opportunity to regularize the status of experienced farm workers in the U.S. It is my hope that the Congress will enact legislation this year that promotes a safe food supply produced in the U.S. by a legal work force.