5/7/02

**************************************************************************

1. Fast Track Up for A VOTE - ACTION ALERT
2. Farm Bill Conference Report Clears House and Senate
3. Farm Bill Costs Keep Ballooning
4. Editors Comments on Farm Bill and the WTO

**************************************************************************

In a predictable coincidence of timing, the fast track vote in the Senate is expected to come right on the heels of the final vote on the Senate farm bill (See story two below). Fast Track, President Bush's first legislative priority after taking office, has been stalled in adamant opposition by national family farm groups, environmentalists, consumer and labor organizations. These groups fear the loss of farms income, jobs and adverse effects on environmental quality and see the mulitnational corporations as spearheading an effort to weaken the laws of independent nation-states. Now Fast Track is up for a vote in the Senate and the National Family Farm Coalition is urgently asking groups to sign on in opposition to its passage. As time is of the essence they ask for a quick response; requesting replies by Thursday May 9, 11 am Eastern time. You may view the letter at www.familyfarmer.org and to sign on send an e-mail to Ariane Kissam with the National Family Farm Coalition and Western Organization of Resource Councils ariane@worc.org or call her at (202) 543-5675.

2. FARM BILL CONFERENCE REPORT CLEARS HOUSE AND SENATE

The House of Representatives approved the Farm Bill conference report last week by a vote of 280-141. The final passage of the bill in the House came after a disappointing loss on a motion to force conferees to reinstate that payment limitations that were in the Senate bill. That motion to recommit, which was sponsored by Representative Ron Kind, failed 172-251. The conference report went to the Senate this week. Vocal opposition was lodged by Senator Lugar (R-IN), who stated that the cost of the bill would force the government to abandon other priorities (see #3 below), and Senator Grassley (R-IA), who complained that lawmakers had "frittered away the opportunity that comes with a new farm bill to keep competition alive and kicking in American agriculture." Senator Grassley was a sponsor of several competition measures that were left out of the conference report, particularly the packer ownership ban. Despite this opposition, the conference report passed the Senate on Wednesday afternoon, by a vote of 64-35. The Farm Bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.

In the midst of all the current hollering between legislators about the amount of farm spending, who gets it, and why, projected costs for the farm bill keep ballooning. Today, both the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and FAPRI (Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri) today announced that the actual farm bill will, in fact, cost much more than believed just two weeks ago. Now the CBO is announcing that the proposed increase in farm spending contained in the bill, if spread over 10 years, would total $82.5 billion instead of the original $73.5 billion. The CBO's cost estimate rose because commodity prices are expected to be lower than the assumptions on which the bill is based. The Budget Ofice predicts that of the new total, $56.7 billion will go towards commodities programs.

Meanwhile, FAPRI's figures show that, relative to baseline, net outlays for commodity programs will rise by $49.7 billion over the next 10 years. With this runaway spending, many legislators are arguing that the new numbers would force Congress to retreat from other budget priorities, including shoring up Social Security and Medicare.

4. EDITORS COMMENTARY ON FARM BILL AND THE WTO

With the farm bill vote in the Senate federal trade experts are busy ducking questions regarding the ever-rising commodities subsidies and how they "fit" into World Trade Organization rules. This sticking point is being ignored by almost everyone from the White House to Congress. While this problem cuts to the essence of concerns over what so-called "free markets" can do to domestic agriculture, our policy makers seem to prefer a "head in the sand" policy approach. By enacting enormous price supports for commodities, our ostrich-like leaders send a clear and present signal to rest of the world that the US will apparently not follow the very trade rules they insist the rest of the world follow. With the CBO announcement yesterday of higher than expected costs for the Farm Bill, this blatant hypocrisy deepens and is certain to further sour trade negotiations and portray US leaders ship as unfair and untrustworthy.