As a farmer-lawmaker, it’s always refreshing for me to meet with Iowa farmers in their hometown communities and talk "shop." With federal farm policy up for renewal this year, Iowa farmers and the state’s entire economy have a lot at stake with what gets included or excluded in the nation’s farm program.
During the break in the congressional calendar, I used the opportunity to catch up with farmers in Iowa, Benton, Tama, Marshall, Crawford, Monona, Harrison, Shelby and Audubon counties. I can empathize with the unease and uncertainty expressed by many participants in my meetings. When the USDA issued its farm revenue projections for 2002, it estimated farm earnings would drop by 20 percent over last year. Representative government is a two-way street. I value the feedback I hear from the folks whose livelihoods depend on what Washington decides to do with the first farm bill written in the 21st century. And I will bring their ideas and concerns with me to the U.S. Senate when we resume debate on the farm bill Jan. 23.
When Congress passed the last farm bill in 1996, it put in place a seven-year program designed to give farmers greater flexibility and independence over their planting and marketing decisions. In exchange for less government intervention, the current farm bill promised fixed but declining federal farm payments. While it did help introduce farmers to a more market-oriented approach, the FAIR Act of 1996 was not able to predict the widespread downturn in the U.S. farm economy due to an economic collapse in Southeast Asia and a worldwide glut of grain in the international marketplace. And Washington also failed to deliver on important tax tools and market-opening trade laws to help boost a farmer’s profit margins and marketing opportunities. So to help America’s family farmers make it through the lean years, Congress has responded with emergency payments to supplement the farm program for the last four years.
After the House passed its farm bill last October, the Senate began its floor debate in December. Fortunately, the partisan bill under consideration did not get rammed through at year’s end. Although I am pleased my initiatives to limit concentration in the livestock industry, empower family farmers in dispute resolutions and help farmers develop renewable energy sources were adopted by the Senate, the bill suffers from two major shortcomings that would have long-term negative consequences on Rural America and independent, small to mid-sized family farms.
First, the proposed farm bill in the Senate risks breaking U.S. trade commitments and in all likelihood would throw American agriculture into non-compliance with our world trading partners. With too much government aid based on production and price, the proposed farm bill fails a key test with U.S. trade agreements right off the bat. And that would put U.S. farmers in the unacceptable position of facing stiff retaliatory action from our competitors. This would cripple the farmer’s ability to compete abroad. And since the American farmer depends on at least 25 percent of his income from exports, the possibility of non-compliance under world trade rules in the first farm bill of the 21st century is a non-starter.
Secondly, the farm bill as written proposes to set an extraordinarily high farm payment limit per farming entity. The Democrat-backed farm bill in the Senate would allow a farming operation to collect up to $500,000 each year from the Federal Treasury. That’s a slap in the face to small and mid-sized family farms. And it would accelerate the ability of large operators to grow bigger and squeeze out chances for first-time, beginning farmers to get started. Such a sky-high farm payment limit would further erode public confidence in U.S. farm programs and widen an already inequitable distribution gap between the top 10 percent of farm subsidy recipients and the bottom 90 percent. It’s bad policy and hurts competition in Rural America when large operators can receive hundreds of thousands of federal dollars annually from the U.S. Treasury. It enables them to afford inflated rents and land values and hampers the ability of smaller, beginning farmers from taking over the reins of Iowa’s growing crop of retiring family farmers. Rest assured when the Senate resumes consideration of the farm bill, I will continue my efforts to cut the annual farm payment limit in half or more.
Hopefully, Congress can move forward in the spirit of bipartisanship for the benefit of our hard-working farm families. The farm bill traditionally serves as a safety net for Rural America, whose economic health and vitality resonates throughout the entire economy. As President Bush reminded America during his visits to the Midwest in mid-January, the food and fiber sector of our economy employs 24 million Americans and contributed $1.3 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product in 2000.
In the wake of Sept. 11, it is time to put politics aside. Congress needs to focus on the substance and merits of farm policy proposals, not the next election. Food is too often taken for granted in this country. Not enough people appreciate that our ability to grow our own food is a national security interest. As long as I’m in the Senate, I’ll make sure my colleagues don’t underestimate the importance of preserving a farm safety net that enables our farm families to prosper and feed America and the world in the 21st century.