Harkin Calls for Administration Position on Two Provisions

March 18, 2002

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) called on Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman to clarify the administration's position on two key provisions in the Senate farm bill. While the Administration has taken positions on some of the significant differences that exist between the House and Senate bills, it has not taken a position on two of the most significant provisions in the Senate bill: a ban on packer ownership of livestock and stricter limits on commodity program payments, according to Harkin.

"Now that the farm bill conference committee is moving forward it is increasingly necessary for the administration to clarify it's position on the crucial parts of this bill. The Senate twice approved a ban on packer ownership with strong, bipartisan votes and 66 United States senators supported limiting the size of payments that the largest producers can receive," said Harkin. "The ban on packer ownership is one of the most important and contentious issues before the conference committee, and I am going to do everything I can to see that it is part of the final farm bill. It is, however, a major disappointment that the Administration has yet to take a position."

The provision banning packer ownership of livestock seeks to improve small producers' market share by banning packers from owning livestock or exercising decision-making control over the production of livestock prior to two weeks of slaughter. The ban has been supported for years by farmers and ranchers across the country, and the Senate legislation has been endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union and more than 100 grassroots agricultural organizations.

"I am disturbed that the administration has been silent on what is the most important issue to my livestock producers in Iowa. The staff of the conferees will be meeting on this provision this (past) weekend, and I'm afraid they won't have the benefit of knowing the administration's position," added Harkin.

On the issue of payment limits the administration has been more vocal. In the statement of administration policy opposing the House farm bill the Office of Management and Budget stated: "H.R. 2646 would direct the greatest share of resources to those least in need of government assistance. Nearly half of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8% of farms, usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share in only 13% of the payments."

The Senate bill provides a cap on direct and counter-cyclical payments of $75,000 per year and on loan benefits of $150,000 per year. It also requires direct attribution for each payment, which means that while a producer could continue to receive benefits indirectly through one or more entities each payment would count against the total eligibility for the individual producer. Yet the administration still has not specifically addressed the Senate's payment limit provision, says Harkin.

"I share the administration's concern that too much government assistance is going to large farm operations that are in the least need of support. If we are trying to provide help to farmers who are struggling to survive we must know that the support is going to the right places," said Harkin. "I am encouraged by the past comments of this Administration, and I am hopeful that they still hold these beliefs. However, I am afraid that their silence on this issue sends the wrong message to the conferees who are opposed to payment limits."