Senate and House Agriculture Committee leaders indicated Wednesday that they intend to do the bulk of the work on the next farm bill during 2006, with an eye toward finishing in early 2007.

The 2002 farm bill covers the period through the 2007 crop year, which means that sections of it expire at different times, depending on the Agriculture Department's official designation of the planting, growing and harvesting period for various crops.

The decision to get a head start on the new farm bill prompted the Senate Agriculture Committee to announce plans to spend $2.1 million during the second half of FY05 and $3.7 million in FY06, money that a spokesman for Senate Agriculture Chairman Chambliss said will be used partly to hold hearings in both Washington and around the country in preparation for the next bill.

House Agriculture Chairman Goodlatte said at a news briefing Wednesday he plans to begin hearings on the next farm bill later this year and continue them in 2006, but does not believe his committee would finish a bill until 2007.

The plans to hold hearings during 2006 raises the question of whether there will be pressure on Congress to finish the bill before the 2006 elections.

But two key farm lobbyists -- Mary Kay Thatcher of the American Farm Bureau Federation and Tom Buis of the National Farmers Union -- said late Wednesday they believe Congress should wait until 2007 to finish the bill.

Thatcher said if the United States finishes a new farm bill before the ongoing Doha round of trade negotiations are completed, European countries would be able to use the information in those negotiations and developing countries "will see less need to do anything about tariff reductions."

Both Thatcher and Buis said they believe budget pressures on agriculture may be less in 2007 than in 2006. Buis added that the Farmers Union would argue that the countercyclical 2002 farm bill has not been part of the spending problem because it has cost $20 billion less than projected. "We have been more prudent than most farm programs," Buis said.

Both Chambliss and Goodlatte told reporters they intend to defend mandatory farm programs from cuts in the FY06 budget. "We can't afford a reduction in the budget for agriculture," Chambliss said.

But he added that if "every other mandatory program" is asked to "review their budgets," then Senate Agriculture would take up the question of agriculture budget cuts. Chambliss and Goodlatte also said they will wait until after next Thursday's Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on the Agriculture Department's rule to re-open the U.S. border to Canadian live cattle to decide whether they believe the rule should go into effect March 7 as planned.

View All News