Stenholm Pledges Rewrite of Farm Bill in 2001 if Democrats Take Back the House
Edited by AgWeb.com Editors
House Agriculture ranking member Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, said on Tuesday that the federal farm bill should be rewritten in 2001, rather than 2002, and vowed to achieve that goal if Democrats win control of the House and he becomes chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the National Journal reports.
Stenholm told the Commodity Club, a luncheon group of agricultural lobbyists, that the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, which eliminated countercyclical aid provided when prices were low, is not working. He later told reporters farmers are facing too much "uncertainty."
"I've never seen farmers and ranchers so dispirited," Stenholm said.
In a more partisan speech than usual, the moderate Stenholm said he believes House Agriculture Chairman Larry Combest, R-Texas, agrees with him that rewriting the bill in 2001 is a good idea. But he said Combest would have difficulty getting the Republican House leadership to go along with him.
"I feel I will have more support from my leadership," Stenholm told reporters later, differentiating between House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo.
Stenholm said improved conservation and food safety programs should be at the heart of a new farm bill.
Asked if he would continue to push for the Supplemental Income Program he proposed this year, Stenholm said that proposal was based on a reorientation of the Freedom to Farm program, but he would push for countercylical aid.
Stenholm also said the new bill should cover agricultural trade policy, and no real progress could be made on the trade front until the United States and the European Union find some common ground.
"We've lost the battle in Europe" on biotechnology, Stenholm said, adding that in his travels there he has seen "tremendous (upset) about the arrogance of corporate America."
Stenhold said: "The Europeans are not going to change their farm policy no matter how many times we tell them to. I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere with our European friends until we come to some agreement on what's permissible" on trade.
He backed carousel retaliation in the hormone-fed beef and banana disputes, but only because both sides lack "the political courage" to settle the disputes.
"We're on the verge of a shooting war on trade, and we may have to go to one," he said.
Stenholm also told the crowd that the country would be better off with an energy policy that stabilizes oil prices at $25 per barrel, rather than lurching from $10 to $40.
Candidates Speak Out on Freedom to Farm
In other news, a report released today by The Associated Press highlights the stance the presidential candidates have on farm aid. The question put to the candidates was: "The Freedom to Farm Act cut price supports to farmers while giving them more freedom to plant what they want. Do you support this law?"
Republican George W. Bush: "Yes. The best way to ensure a strong and growing agricultural sector is through a more market-driven approach that allows our farmers to fully participate in the world economy. As farming moves towards market-driven production, I believe the government should help farmers adapt to a global marketplace by providing a strong safety net and the means to manage the cyclical downturns in the farm economy. I will reinforce the important role farmers and ranchers play in the U.S. economy by increasing trade opportunities, reducing regulatory burdens, and reducing the overall tax burden. My administration will also renew our commitment to investments in new and innovative technologies for rural America."
Democrat Al Gore: "I believe we must maintain America's food security and protect our vital agricultural lands. As president, I will work to maintain flexibility and freedom in what farmers choose to plant while providing our independent family farmers the support they need during hard times. The fact that prices and farm income have remained so low for so long, and that billions of dollars in emergency farm aid was needed over the past two years, shows that the 'Freedom to Farm' Act is misguided and wholly inadequate in a climate of declining crop prices and turmoil in overseas markets. I believe that we must restore the farm income safety net for family farmers with a system that increases support when crop prices or yields fall unexpectedly. That doesn't mean going back to an outdated system where government tells farmers what crops to produce.":
