Page images
PDF
EPUB

LARRY COMBEST, TEXAS,
CHAIRMAN

BILL BARRETT, NEBRASKA,

VICE CHAIRMAN

JOHN A. BOEHNER, OHIO
THOMAS W. EWING, ILLINOIS
BOB GOODLATTE, VIRGINIA

RICHARD W. POMBO. CALIFORNIA
CHARLES T. CANADY, FLORIDA
NICK SMITH, MICHIGAN

TERRY EVERETT, ALABAMA
FRANK D. LUCAS, OKLAHOMA

HELEN CHENOWETH, IDAHO

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, INDIANA

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, GEORGIA

RAY LIHOOD, ILLINOIS

JERRY MORAN, KANSAS

BOB SCHAFFER, COLORADO

JOHN R. THUNE, SOUTH DAKOTA

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, TENNESSEE

JOHN COOKSEY LOUISIANA

KEN CALVERT, CALIFORNIA

GIRL GUTKNECHT, MINNESOTA

BOB RILEY, ALABAMA

GREG WALDEN, OREGON

MICHAEL D SIMPSON, IDAHO

DOUG OSE. CALIFORNIA

ROBIN HAYES, NORTH CAROLINA

ERNEST L. FLETCHER, KENTUCKY

U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Agriculture

Room 1301, Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6001

(202) 225-2171

(202) 225-0917 FAX

March 2, 1999

CHARLES W. STENHOLM, TEXAS,

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA
GARY A CONDIT, CALIFORNIA
COLLIN C. PETERSON, MINNESOTA
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, CALIFORNIA
EVA M. CLAYTON, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID MINGE, MINNESOTA
EARL F. HILLIARD, ALABAMA
EARL POMEROY, NORTH DAKOTA
TIM HOLDEN, PENNSYLVANIA
SANFORD D BISHOP, JR, GEORGIA
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, MISSISSIPPI
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, MAINE
MARION BERRY, ARKANSAS
VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., VIRGINIA
MIKE MCINTYRE, NORTH CAROLINA
DEBBIE STABENOW, MICHIGAN
BOB ETHERIDGE, NORTH CAROLINA
CHRISTOPHER JOHN, LOUISIANA
LEONARD L BOSWELL, IOWA
DAVID D. PHELPS, ILLINOIS
KEN LUCAS, KENTUCKY

MIKE THOMPSON, CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM E O'CONNER, JR

STAFF DIRECTOR
LANCE KOTSCHWAR
CHIEF COUNSEL
STEPHEN HATERIUS.
MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

[blocks in formation]

Attached is a revised copy of the Committee on Agriculture's letter with respect to the fiscal year 2000 budget for the agencies and programs under its jurisdiction.

The Committee met on February 25, 1999 with a quorum present and approved the attached letter. This letter was in fact sent on March 1, 1999. However, on March 2, 1999, the Committee was notified by a Member of his intention to submit additional views for inclusion. Therefore, the letter is being resubmitted with additional views.

If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact me at 5-0025.

Attachment

www.house.gov/agriculture
agriculture@mail.house.gov

[blocks in formation]

Pursuant to section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and House Rule X,
clause 4(f), we are including below the recommendations of the Committee on
Agriculture with respect to the fiscal year 2000 budget for the agencies and programs
under its jurisdiction.

The Committee on Agriculture continues to monitor the progress of the 1996 Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act. As you recall, this Act not only made
substantial contributions to budget deficit reduction, but also controlled the level of future
expenditures by limiting the amount that can be spent on direct farmer income support
payments. While the European Union provided nearly $47 billion dollars in export
subsidies and domestic support to its agriculture producers, the United States provided
only a small fraction of similar program spending. For this reason, federal agriculture
policy will continue to play a critical role in assuring the competitiveness of our farmers
and ranchers.

When the FAIR Act was passed, the agricultural community was promised that this far-
reaching farm program reform would be coupled with improvements in trade policy,
regulatory reform, and tax relief. Failure to pass Fast Track authority last year,
disappointing implementation of our existing trade agreements, and continuing financial
crises in key foreign markets have diminished trade opportunities for the present.
Regulatory burdens have not been reduced and, in fact, have increased for such critical
agricultural areas as crop inputs and natural resource regulation, which continue to be a
significant financial burden on the agricultural sector and should be addressed through
adequate incentive-based conservation programs. While last year's farm tax relief was a

www.house.gov/agriculture

Hon. John Kasich

Page 2

positive and substantial first step, it has yet to affect farm finances and more remains to be done on this, and other fronts.

Unfortunately, the general economic situation facing farmers and ranchers today is drastically different than it was during consideration of the 1996 Farm Bill. There are many reasons for today's current agricultural economic situation including a decline in exports, particularly in the Pacific Rim nations, significant natural disasters that have wreaked havoc on producers in many areas, and falling prices coupled with increases in the cost of production. Though the remainder of the domestic economy is booming and the Federal Government is enjoying budget surpluses, the food and fiber sector is struggling. This has significantly increased the economic pressures on all parts of the agricultural sector including lenders, input suppliers, producers, and entire communities in rural America.

Analysts are projecting continued low commodity prices for the upcoming year. Credible observers are suggesting that commodity prices will continue to drop. Even beyond the next fiscal year, most analysts are not optimistic that the general economic situation for farm commodities to improve until the world trade situation improves, which could take anywhere from 2 to 5 years. Farmers and ranchers understand and accept the cyclical nature of their livelihood. However, they need tools to help survive the unpredictable, and sometimes severe, economic downturns.

One of the biggest obstacles in this area is the lack of access to more effective risk management tools that producers can use. The lack of a viable, national risk management policy for agricultural producers was an underlying cause for Congress having to provide a $5.9 billion ad hoc assistance package-spending that was outside of the normal budget process. If Congress is to avoid facing repeated requests for short-term ad hoc assistance for farmers, a prudent investment in risk management improvements is needed now.

This chronic problem needs to be addressed two ways: first, some short-term improvements need to be made to current risk management policies; and second, a sustained effort to develop an effective, fiscally-responsible risk management policy so that our nation's agricultural sector can remain competitive into the 21st century.

It is vital that some short-term risk management improvements occur this year. For fiscal year 2000, this Committee is considering several additional changes to the risk management system that will allow it to be a more effective tool for producers. The Committee is currently developing a range of options, with careful attention about the cost to taxpayers and the benefits to producers.

Recall that last year, the Appropriations and Agriculture Committees, along with the Administration, recommended shifting all crop insurance costs to mandatory spending.

Hon. John Kasich
Page 3

Despite the fact that, in reality, this was simply a shift from discretionary to mandatory spending, the "paygo" provisions of the Budget Act, along with CBO's scoring methods, reflected this as being a cost of $1.03 billion for fiscal years 1999 to 2003. While it was a difficult process, this goal was achieved without requiring additional budget outlays and by realizing savings of over $500 million through program reforms. The capability to realize these kinds of savings has been exhausted.

U.S. agriculture is counting on Congress to follow through with a renewed commitment to expanding agricultural trade opportunities, reducing regulatory burdens, and providing tax relief. At the same time, because the food and fiber sector continues to suffer while the rest of the domestic economy thrives, it is critical that we now make some prudent additional investments in our risk management system. We look forward to working with you on this important issue.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]
« PreviousContinue »