Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Texas Agriculture Archive

October 19, 2001

House passes 'Farm
Security Act of 2001'

House passage of "The Farm Security Act of 2001" on Oct. 5 was enthusiastically applauded by major farm groups but received a lukewarm reception by both the U.S. Senate and the Bush administration.

Donald Patman, president of the Texas Farm Bureau, said the House version of the 2001 farm bill would provide badly needed relief for Texas farmers and ranchers. The bill passed the House by a vote of 291-120.

"The farm bill passed by the House follows a proven path that has assured ample food and fiber in America," Patman said. "Like previous farm bills, this version will continue policy that provides food security for America, and it will increase the likelihood that farm families can afford to stay on the land."

Other agricultural leaders joined Patman in praising the House action.

"The House's good news delivery to rural America—the Farm Security Act—is the economic stimulus that farmers, ranchers, rural businessmen, farm lenders and rural communities need," said American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman. "Throughout the 10-year run of this bill, farmers, ranchers and the American public can be assured of increased environmental protection, increased economic certainty, and a prosperous outlook for agriculture and the rural communities farmers and ranchers call home."

Said National Cotton Council Chairman James E. Echols: House passage of the bill is "an important step to putting effective long-term farm policy in place for the next 10 years."

House Ag Chairman Combest's views

House Ag Committee Chairman Larry Combest said the approval of the $170 billion bill by the House will bring predictability to farm policy.

"Today, we are exactly at the point where I wanted to be two years ago, when I set out to make needed improvements to our farm policy," said Combest. "It is the product of more than two years of earnest and bipartisan work by the House Agriculture Committee. It is a balanced approach that recognizes the very real economic and societal problems that are pressing rural America, and employs market-oriented and proactive policies to fix them."

Combest said the new legislation makes unprecedented investments in a number of areas, including:

•Conservation programs for land improvement.

•Rural development programs to foster economic growth in small communities.

•Trade promotion to expand markets for U.S. products.

•Research to promote more efficient agricultural systems.

The House Ag Committee chair said H.R. 2646 provides flexibility and predictability sought by producers, commodity and farm groups by allowing producers the voluntary choice to update their base acres, and by adding counter-cyclical support based on target prices to the already-established 2002 level of transition payments.

The House narrowly defeated an amendment that would have diverted crop support away from farmers and to conservation programs, a move that caused Combest to threaten to pull the bill before a final vote.

"This farm bill already contains an 80 percent increase in conservation programs," said TFB's Patman. "The final bill correctly focuses adequate resources on agricultural producers, who are in a fight for survival."

Senate action?

Ranking House Ag Committee member Charles Stenholm, noting lack of action in the Senate and opposition to the farm legislation by the Bush administration, said he hopes House passage of the bill will spur both to consider a farm bill this year.

"A former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, now a senator, has said `the Senate has objectives, the Administration has principles, and the House has a farm bill!' I hope this is only a temporary condition and that this action by the House will be used as momentum to move forward expeditiously, to complete a farm bill and enact it into law in order to address the needs of our agricultural economy and rural America."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a senior member of the Senate Budget Committee, has urged a one-year extension of the current farm bill. He cited uncertainty over the federal budget and whether or not the $73.5 billion set aside for the next farm bill would be available.

"I am suggesting we ought to go ahead with a one-year extension of the present farm bill," Grassley said in late September. "Only one year isn't much but it gets us through the crop year 2003."

Meanwhile, sources at the American Farm Bureau Federation say House farm bill passage has placed pressure on the Senate to work on their version of the farm bill. They predicted the Senate version could be released by press time with the possibility of Senate Agriculture Committee mark-up soon to follow.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin and ranking member Dick Lugar have released their joint objectives for the Senate version of the farm bill as a guide for the committee drafting the legislation.

According to the Senate Ag Committee leaders, the plan would:

•Improve farm income opportunities.

•Promote conservation on agricultural and forest lands.

•Foster economic growth, job creation and quality of life in rural communities.

•Promote the development, production and use of farm-based renewable energy and industrial raw materials.

•Strengthen the foundation of the U.S. food, agriculture and forestry sectors.

•Improve assistance to fight hunger in the United States and abroad.

•Expand trade opportunities for U.S. farmers and exporters.

•Improve the availability of credit to agricultural producers.

AFBF's Stallman, along with Texas Farm Bureau's Patman, urged the Senate to soon pass farm legislation along lines similar to the House bill.

"Now our work shifts to the Senate, where we hope Senate leaders approve a farm bill that is as balanced as the House version," Stallman said. "America's farmers, ranchers and the rural communities they support need the economic certainty this farm economic stimulus package will provide."

Administration opposition

The Bush administration released a statement of opposition to the House Farm Bill on Oct. 3, two days before bill passage, urging the House to defer action on the bill.

"The Administration believes it is possible to craft a policy that is better for rural America, better for the environment and better for expanding markets for our producers than H.R. 2426," the administration stated.

The administration stated they were specifically opposing the legislation because they said it:

•Encourages overproduction while prices are low.

•Fails to help farmers most in need.

•Jeopardizes critical markets abroad.

•Boosts federal spending at a time of uncertainty.

However, while the administration opposed the House farm bill, they have not provided any farm bill recommendations.