The Farm Bill

Statement

The Farm Bill

As the calendar approached August, the House of Representatives debated and passed with my support the 2007 Farm Bill. What should have been a bipartisan process, including input from both sides of the political spectrum and all regions of production agriculture, made headlines for the process in which it was brought to the floor.

In normal circumstances, the Republicans of the House Agriculture Committee - myself included - would have urged our colleagues to support the Farm Bill on the House Floor. That was difficult to do, however, because of what many believe to be the last leg of bipartisanship - the Agriculture Committee - has been knocked out from underneath us and the nation's farmers by partisanship and narrow special interests.

As a member of both the House Budget Committee and the House Agriculture Committee, I was terribly disappointed by the tactics used to push through this bill. What was a slow move in the right direction risked falling victim to partisan maneuvering. Debate on the farm bill has always focused on the policy but the Majority, by introducing unnecessary politicking, risked this bill failing and threatened the well-being of our nation's farmers and ranchers.

The House Agriculture Committee worked very hard to put together a bipartisan Farm Bill package. It was a long and - at times - contentious process, but we did it together with the understanding it would not be paid for by tax increases. Personally, I was surprised at the willingness of all members on the Committee to work together to accomplish multiple goals while still preserving a workable farm safety net.

The Farm Bill contains provisions I offered including ethanol by-product use as part of the research and development objective of the Agriculture Bioenergy and Biobased Products Research Initiative.

Earlier this year, the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry held a hearing to examine the impact corn-based ethanol production has had on livestock producers, especially the high cost of feed.

If the ethanol industry reaches the levels predicted, a greater amount of by-product will become available for animal feeds. Research and development are needed regarding grain-based ethanol by-product use, including feeding applications, transportation and storage.

I also supported an amendment, which was included in the bill, to delay the closure of Farm Service Agency and National Resource Conservation Service offices for one year after the enactment of the Farm Bill. I have expressed my concerns regarding the timing of the restructuring. Doing so before the Farm Bill reauthorization currently before Congress may not appropriately reflect the new workloads generated from any new farm programs enacted.

The reauthorization of the Farm Bill provides an economic safety net for agricultural producers, a necessary aspect of any agricultural policy. It is vitally important to continue to move the reauthorization process forward, in order to get a workable bill signed into law by President Bush prior to the expiration of the current legislation.

The last minute addition of a measure targeting foreign-owned American companies --including several with locations throughout the Third District -- as well as the introduction of Davis-Bacon wage mandates, threatened to upend a bill that had broad, bipartisan support.

Our democratic system is owed more than partisanship and pettiness. The hardworking men and women working the land this very moment in our nation's fields, farms and feedlots deserve a process that has more in common with the way the House Agriculture Committee tackled the legislation than the way the bill eventually made its way to the House Floor. I look forward to this bill's progress through the Senate and Conference Committee, and I hope the final product is void of partisanship and has the best interest of our agriculture producers at heart.

Source