When the farm bill process started in earnest in early 2007, the debate centered around how much lawmakers would be able to spend above the budget baseline on the new farm legislation. The House and Senate Budget Committees came up with "reserve" funds that could be used to write a farm bill that went beyond the budget baseline by $10 billion to $20 billion. The catch: The funds would have to be "offset"--spending cuts or increased revenues would have to be found in order to tap the reserve funds.
The process continued to unfold in 2007. House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson
(D-Minn.) and his committee compiled a bill that went beyond the budget baseline on the assurance that funding would be found.
After the bill left the committee, the funding needed to facilitate the spending beyond the baseline was inserted. The funding came in the form of several billion dollars from closing a tax loophole that allowed foreign countries to shield income from their U.S. subsidiaries from taxes.
That's when things got interesting. House Republicans revolted. The result: The bill passed at the end of July with a 231-191 vote, far from being a veto-proof margin.
Passage of the House bill, complete with what the administration also labeled as a tax increase, also brought a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) that warned if the bill was presented in its current form, President George W. Bush's advisers would recommend a veto.
While the House toiled through its bill, Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) was mired in the same budget-related quagmire. For months Harkin tried to put together a package that his panel would support. Part of the delay hinged on the Senate Finance Committee delivering the extra funding. When the Senate Finance Committee package finally emerged, it had a treasure trove of savings and new spending.
The ag panel finally pushed its bill through in October, only to see it tied up with procedural wrangling on the Senate floor for more than a month. When the bill left the Ag Committee and headed to the floor, the White House budget office SAP echoed the same sentiments as it did with the House version.
Harkin persevered, and in December he finally won passage in the Senate 79-14. Harkin touted the vote as making it "veto-proof."
Farm bill progress was basically in slumber mode when the calendar rolled over to 2008. An effort to bridge the funding gap emerged on the House side via a package that had the backing of the Bush administration for spending $6 billion more than the budget baseline. But Harkin and many farm organizations were quick to denounce the plan as not spending enough. Rep. Peterson shot back that the focus should not be on the policy suggestions in the framework but on the fact that finding more money is achievable.
Which brings us to today. After more than a year into the farm bill process, lawmakers are more or less at the same point they were when the process started--all they have to show are bills approved by the House and Senate.
So what has changed during the last year besides the House and Senate each passing a farm bill? We asked former Rep. Charlie Stenholm (D-Texas) that question. His response: "The only thing really is farm prices. If we had $5 corn, $10 wheat and $13 beans when this all started a year ago, we'd have a bill." Odds are Stenholm is right.
Editor's note: As the March issue went to press, those searching for funds beyond the budget baseline for the farm bill were close to striking a deal. In other words, by the time this magazine reaches your hands the farm bill could be near completion.
You can e-mail Roger Bernard at
[email protected]AgWeb.com
