The U.S. Senate passed a five-year farm bill in February, clearing the way for a bicameral conference committee to iron out the differences between the House and Senate versions of U.S. farm policy.
Some of my colleagues may believe I sound like a broken record when it comes to my advocacy for the nation's mid-section and its hard-working food producers. But I like to remind them about an old saying: We're only nine meals away from a revolution. In other words, empty stomachs can prompt a traditionally law-abiding populace to mob hysteria and mayhem. A stable food supply brings social stability.
For seven decades the federal government has recognized the importance of maintaining a farm safety net to ensure America's homegrown food security. The tragic events of Sept.11 underscored the significant responsibilities the federal government must undertake to protect our national security interests at home and abroad. Safeguarding the American public and shielding the U.S. economy, transportation infrastructure, health care delivery systems, energy supplies, natural resources and production agriculture from the threats of 21st century terrorism have become Washington's top priority. This effort must include a farm safety net that works to ensure our farmers and ranchers are able to continue feeding America by making a decent living off the land. Otherwise, American consumers could well find themselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers at the grocery store much like we are today at the gas station.
In addition to the still-emerging threats of terrorism, Congress has learned a thing or two since it last passed a farm bill in 1996. Just like farmers, Washington can't prevent natural disasters or control the weather. But the federal government can help immunize farmers from financial collapse due to severe swings in the marketplace. Instead of resorting to emergency bail-outs, the Senate-passed farm bill seeks to establish a counter-cyclical program to kick-in when the marketplace fails. However, I harbor serious concerns that the counter-cyclical program included in the Senate bill could violate our trade commitments.
While I'm glad the Senate adopted my amendment that directs Congress to revise the farm bill should the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture determine that such domestic price supports would risk violating our farm trade agreements and in so doing jeopardize a critical source of income for American farmers, it is clear to me that improvements in this area are needed before the farm bill reaches the president's desk. During the negotiations between the House and Senate, I'll continue to make the case that our domestic farm program cannot put U.S. farm exports at risk. And in another ill-advised move, the Senate version heedlessly front-loads the farm bill, spending approximately three-fifths of the budgeted $73.5 billion I helped to lock in for farm spending over the next ten years. This too ought to be revised so farmers aren't left with table scraps in the second half of the decade. At the same time, I'll be watching to make sure two other amendments I won in the Senate aren't put on the chopping block during the bicameral negotiations.
For more than a decade, I've witnessed "merger-mania" infiltrate the agricultural sector. Now "bigger" isn't necessarily the bad guy. But it isn't always "better" either. Danger lurks when vertical or horizontal integration begins to erode fair competition. That's why for the better part of the '90s, I have kept a vigilant watch over federal regulatory oversight of mergers and alliances among agri-giants in the food chain. Despite my calls for tighter enforcement of anti-competitive practices, I've noted a shift in the playing field for independent producers, who often find themselves competing against packing houses that own their own livestock. This effectively leaves the independent producer with a narrow window of opportunity at the slaughter house gate to earn a competitive price.
Despite intense lobbying against my bipartisan amendment, I won Senate approval for a ban on packer ownership of livestock for more than 14 days before market. While protecting the ability for farmers to enter into forward contracting and other voluntary marketing agreements, my amendment ought to promote greater access, transparency, competition and fairness, especially among smaller and mid-sized producers.
In another David vs. Goliath victory, I successfully fought to cap farm subsidy payments at no more than $275,000 a year. Currently, they are virtually unlimited in some cases. And studies showed that 10 percent of the farmers in the United States were receiving 60 percent of the farm payments from the Federal Treasury. Not only does this erode public support for the farm program, it also undercuts the intention of the farm safety net. Capping farm payments aren't intended to penalize larger farming operations. But it would help stop the erosion of support for the federal farm program by more urban-oriented lawmakers and the American public. Putting in place reasonable annual payment limits will better target medium to small-sized family farms.
In addition to my amendments to limit farm program payments and prohibit packer
ownership of livestock, the Senate also adopted my amendments to give farmers greater leverage in dispute resolutions, help farmers develop renewable energy sources, avoid trade disputes that hurt farm income and protect farmers who raise livestock under production contracts.
While the Senate and House hammer out the differences between the two farm bills now on the table, I'm counting on the conferees to let good sense prevail. However, it will be a blow to Rural America if my efforts to keep intact our world trade commitments, protect fair competition in the livestock industry and target the lion's share of farm payments to small and mid-sized farmers are stripped from the bill. And I'm not going to let that happen without a fight.