AGRICULTURE
Throughout America’s history, we have relied on farmers and ranchers to provide us with a wholesome and hearty food supply. We owe our continued prosperity to their dedication, innovation, and resilience. America has the safest, least expensive, most abundant food supply of any country in the world, and are truly fortunate considering that we spend only 11 cents of every dollar we earn on food. In other nations that figure may be as high as fifty cents on the dollar. Agricultural producers in the Texas 26th district help to carry on this legacy from generation to generation despite weather, fuel prices, and government regulations.
I represent three counties in Texas that have a strong legacy of providing for the agriculture needs of our region, state, and nation. The major commodities in Cooke County are beef cattle, dairy, feed grains, forage/hay, forestry, and horses. Denton County primarily provides beef cattle, feed grains, forage/hay, and horses, while Tarrant County additionally provides honey, cotton, nursery/greenhouses, and wheat.
Currently, Congress is addressing a number of issues affecting U.S. agriculture. During the 109th Congress, some of the important agriculture issues have included the passage of CAFTA; concerns about agroterrorism, food safety, and animal and plant diseases, including "mad cow" disease and Asian soybean rust; high energy costs; environmental issues; and a number of agricultural marketing matters. On November 10, 2005, President Bush signed the FY 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act (PL 109-97, HR 2744). This legislation provides $100 billion funding for the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Future Trading Commission, which is $15 billion above the FY2005 levels. Although the current (2002) farm bill (P.L. 107-171) generally does not expire until 2007, the agriculture committees have begun hearings on a new measure this year.
BSE, a.k.a. Mad Cow Disease
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or "mad cow disease") continues to attract interest, as the seventh North American case (the third in the United States) was confirmed in March 2006. Authorities characterize the risk to human health from these cases as extremely low. However, the beef industry has suffered economically due to foreign borders being closed to U.S. beef. The 109th Congress has held hearings on trade impacts since the first confirmed U.S. BSE case in December 2003. H.Res. 137 and S.Res. 87 call for economic sanctions if Japan does not readmit U.S. beef. Elsewhere, the Senate early in 2005 approved a resolution (S.J.Res. 4) to disapprove a January 2005 USDA rule to reopen the U.S. border to some Canadian cattle imports (the rule also was blocked by a federal judge). A similar House resolution (H.J.Res. 23) was not approved in 2005. Other bills addressing various aspects of BSE include H.R. 187, H.R. 384/S. 108, S. 294, S. 73, S. 135, S. 2002, H.R. 1254, and H.R. 3170. The last two bills require the establishment of a nationwide electronic animal identification system.
Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)
Mandatory COOL for fresh meats, produce, and peanuts was scheduled to take effect September 30, 2006. However, the FY2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-97) again postpones mandatory COOL for two additional years. Some Members continue to support mandatory COOL, and a few of them would prefer that it take effect sooner (see, e.g., S. 1331) or be expanded to processed meats (see, e.g., S. 135). Others have sought to replace mandatory COOL with voluntary labeling programs. A bill (H.R. 2068) sponsored by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee (and an identical Senate bill, S. 1333) would make COOL labeling voluntary for fresh meats. S. 1300 would make COOL voluntary for meat, fish, and produce. I am generally supportive of voluntary COOL programs.
Farm Bill and Commodity Support Programs
Farm income and price support programs are dictated primarily by Title I of the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), which expires in 2007. The House Agriculture Committee has conducted several field hearings this year, with more intensive deliberations and markup expected in both the Senate and House committees in 2007. Two key variables expected to drive the policy debate in the next farm bill are budget limitations and the outcome of pending World Trade Organization negotiations. While I am not the House Agriculture Committee, I will continue to monitor this important upcoming legislation.
In May, 2006, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing in Texas on the upcoming farm bill. Local producers, agribusiness leaders, and agriculture officials attended the hearing, along with Members of the House Agriculture Committee. They discussed a variety of farm policy issues including commodity programs, payment limits, conservation, livestock, and marketing issues. To read more about the hearing please visit http://agriculture.house.gov/press/109/pr060509.html.
Farm Disaster Assistance
Several major weather events in 2005, particularly Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and massive drought and fires, have caused the 109th Congress to consider emergency disaster assistance for farmers this year. In past years, Congress has authorized crop disaster payments and various livestock assistance programs when natural disasters strike. Approximately $1 billion in agricultural assistance, primarily for the cleanup and rehabilitation of farmland and rural areas affected by hurricanes, was provided in the supplemental attached to the FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148). In April 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment to an emergency FY2006 supplemental bill (H.R. 4939), which would provide $4 billion in crop and livestock assistance and other forms of assistance nationwide. Please be assured that I am committed to providing additional Disaster Assistance for my constituents.
S. 2120, The Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-215)
The Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005, S. 2120, was signed into law on April 11, 2006. S. 2120 addresses several federal milk marketing order issues relevant to the western United States. Among the milk marketing order issues addressed in this bill are: 1) the regulation of fluid milk processors who operate a plant in a federal order area, are not regulated by that order, and ship packaged milk into a state marketing order (not a federal order); 2) the regulation of fluid processors who produce, package and distribute their milk, also known as producer-handlers or producer-distributors; and 3) the exclusion of Nevada from federal milk marketing orders. This legislation was widely supported by the diary industry. I voted for S. 2120.
For related websites, please visit the following links:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
House Agriculture Committee
State Agricultural Departments
Environment, Energy and Agriculture at firstgov.gov
