More than a Bystander
Critical issues affecting the meat industry will be discussed during the 1995 farm bill debate
by David R. Black
The American people spend only about 11 percent of their disposable income on food. That is the lowest percentage in the world.
As lawmakers begin to deliberate the 1995 farm bill, the agriculture industry, including the meat sector, wants lawmakers to remember that percentage.
"[America] needs an agriculture program that encourages abundance for the consumer," points out Chandler Keys, National Cattlemen's Association senior director of congressional relations. "It encourages a stable society."
While meat products are generally outside the support system that the farm bill entails, changes in commodity and price support programs directly impact the supply and price.
Meat processors could be affected by farm bill legislation. Several issues that have hovered over the head of the meat industry for several years could find their way into the final bill. Here is a look at certain issues that would impact the meat industry and how they might be debated in farm bill negotiations.
Interstate shipping
This is a potentially divisive issue for the meat industry. Major processors, led by AMI, are opposed to the measure. Smaller processors, led by the American Association of Meat Processors, support it.
As Steven F. Krut, AAMP executive director, says: "We have opened up foreign markets through trade agreements. But we will not let state-inspected processors ship their products across state lines."
AMI's position is if processors want to ship products across state lines, all they have to do is apply for federal inspection.
But with a change in leadership in Washington-the Republican Party controlling Congress-AMI admits the prospect of interstate shipping legislation passing is more likely.
That's because two major supporters of interstate shipping, Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-Wis.) and Rep. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), will become agriculture committee chairmen. Gunderson has introduced interstate shipping legislation in the past.
Interstate shipping nearly made it into the 1990 farm bill. This time, Krut is optimistic about its chances.
"Many candidates heard about interstate shipping from their constituents during the [recent election] campaign, so they know it is an important issue," he notes. "[Interstate shipping] has been difficult to get because of the big-money interest behind the opposition. But now we have committee chairs who support the measure. There is bipartisan support for this measure."
Another plus for proponents of interstate shipping is the elevation of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to Senate Agriculture Committee chairman. While not supporting the most recent attempt to pass legislation, Lugar has supported interstate shipping in the past.
User fees
Despite opposition in the meat and poultry industries, and from some members of Congress, user fees could play a role in the farm bill.
The Clinton administration has unsuccessfully sought in its first two budgets to classify second and third inspection shifts as overtime and subject them to user fees.
On the other hand, two GOP congressional agriculture leaders, Rep. Joe Skeen of New Mexico and Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, have opposed user fees in the past.
But there is some bipartisan support for user fees, and the Republican congressional leadership wants to balance the federal budget within a decade. That desire could lead to a decrease in funding for federally mandated programs, including inspection.
And in its agricultural appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995, the House required the industry to pay $103 million for inspection that happens after an eight-hour shift. The proposal was shot down in the Senate.
In the spirit of bipartisanship between Congress and the White House, a form of user fees could be part of the farm bill.
Science-based inspection
The Clinton administration has attempted to evolve agriculture policy toward consumer protection during its first two years. The administration is expected to continue that trend in the farm bill.
USDA is putting together a request for an increase of millions of dollars for scientific research into pathogens.
Together with its long-awaited Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulation and the Pathogen Reduction Program, the department hopes that this will put meat and poultry inspection onto a science-based path.
Market-oriented programs
The hallmark of the past several farm bills has been their shift from commodity-driven legislation to market-driven legislation. AMI and NCA will lobby Congress to continue that trend.
Agriculture commodity programs cost between $7 million and $8 million a year.
Changes to commodity and price support programs impact the supply and market price of feed, which impacts the retail prices for meat.
"We just want to make sure commodity programs have a minimal affect on the meat industry," NCA's Keys notes. "Agriculture is a huge industry that does not just entail commodity programs. We want Congress to know that.
"The goal is to eventually get the government out of farm programs," he adds. "That is a long way off, however. In the meantime, we want a farm bill that is market oriented."
Other factors
There are several extenuating circumstances that confront farm bill negotiations.
-- At press time, USDA was still without a permanent replacement for Secretary Mike Espy, who left the department on Dec. 31. The new secretary, especially if he or she comes from outside of Washington, may have his or her own ideas about what the farm bill should entail.
But Keys points out that the USDA secretary can only do so much.
"[USDA] is always secondary to Congress," he notes. "If it is somebody who is forceful, he or she could make a difference. But it is Congress' job to write legislation and USDA's job is to implement that legislation. It is not the other way around."
-- The change in congressional leadership (from Democrat to Republican) should not affect the farm bill, Keys believes. "Agriculture committees have always been among the least partisan, so I don't believe there will be much difference with the change in party control."
But in the Republican's effort to cut spending (as stated in the Contract With America), export enhancement programs, which the meat industry supports and benefits from, may be eliminated.
-- Since 1990, there has been a sizable turnover in Congress, and most new members do not have agricultural experience. That puts pressure on Roberts and Gunderson, as well as Democrats like Charles Stenholm and Kika de la Garza, both of Texas, and others with considerable agriculture experience to manage the legislation, Keys says.