House Panel Approves USDA Spending

June 14, 2001

The House Appropriations Committee approved a $74 billion spending bill for agricultural programs Wednesday and in the process, side-stepped a fight over dairy compacts but prolonged another on the pork checkoff. Among the major provisions of the bill was another $150 million for financially-strapped apple producers (offered by Rep. Maurice Hinchey), and $3.9 billion for agricultural credit programs, $765 million more than last fiscal year.

Agricultural research was funded at $1.05 billion, an increase of $79.4 million over last year and an increase of $104.2 million above the President's request. Funding is provided to initiate construction of a major facility consolidation and modernization project to meet high national priority animal health programs.

The Risk Management Agency / Federal Crop Insurance Corporation activities were fully funded to implement last years Agricultural Risk Protection Act. RMA is funded at $75.1 million, an increase of $9.7 million over last year and an increase of $0.4 million above the President's request. The corporation (mandatory spending) is funded at $3.037 billion, which is an increase of $232.3 million above last year and the same as the President's request.

But it was dairy and pork that sparked the most fireworks. Rep. James Walsh (R-NY) wanted an amendment that would ensure a continued life for the an expanded Northeast Dairy Compact and authorize another 14-state southern compact from Virginia to Oklahoma. Rep. Walsh withdrew the amendment after warnings it could sink the entire appropriations measure and after being assured that the House Judiciary Committee would be urged to take a look at compacts.

Another amendment, however, from Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) was accepted. It would halt the farmer-financed pork checkoff program after Sept. 30. Rep. Kaptur has held that USDA shouldn't have modified the checkoff program but instead have accepted a referendum vote as having approved the program's demise.

National Pork Producers Council President Barbara Determan, Early, IA, issued a statement that said the Kaptur amendment was "nothing more than the further intrusion of politics into the pork checkoff program. It is highly unfortunate given the facts."

Determan said Rep. Kaptur was aware that an insufficient number of petitions was collected to trigger a pork checkoff referendum. "Kathleen Merrigan, AMS administrator in the Clinton Administration, reported that fact in Jan. 2000," Determan said. On the question of the authority to call a referendum without sufficient signatures, Federal District Court Judge Robert Enslen wrote as part of temporary restraining order that "allowing the Secretary to violate the pork act by usurping more authority than he was given by Congress does not serve the public. Likewise, allowing the Secretary to terminate a program relied on by many, when the process used to arrive at termination is allegedly flawed, is not in the public interest. The entire process leading to the termination of the pork checkoff program was arguably flawed."

"The settlement agreement between USDA and NPPC is currently in litigation and should be determined later this year. For Congress to intervene in litigation pending before a federal court is unfortunate," Determan added.