Washington, DC, June 19, 2007—“Today a Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee failed miserably in its responsibility to America’s farmers, ranchers and consumers,” said Ralph Grossi, President of American Farmland Trust (AFT). “While there have been some efforts in the 2007 Farm Bill to create reasonable and responsible agriculture policies that better meet the needs of producers who must lead economically viable operations and compete in a rapidly changing global market place, the Committee shouldn’t try to design the future of U.S. agriculture policy by looking in the rearview mirror.”

AFT has led the agriculture community in developing plausible alternative policies and program recommendations that respond to the extreme budget conditions under which the 2007 Farm Bill is being written, the trade distortions of existing policies, the inequitable distribution of farm bill benefits and the insufficient focus on infrastructure investment and on conservation, environmental, energy and other programs of great potential benefit to consumers and rural America.

“For over three years, agricultural leaders have recognized that U.S. farm policy is broken and doesn’t serve the farmers and ranchers who work nearly half the land in America,” said Grossi. “Quite simply it is time to generate future prosperity for all types of farms and ranches with a revenue-based risk management program to replace counter-cyclical programs.”

By enacting an integrated farm revenue program, Congress could provide better risk management protection to producers by targeting revenue rather than commodity prices. By replacing counter-cyclical and loan-deficiency payments and integrating crop insurance, payments to producers will be less erratic and more effective at covering risk. All program crops would be treated equally and farmers would get protection when they need it most—when they experience a drop in revenue. It would solve the problems too many farmers have faced—a lack of reliable disaster assistance when they are in the most dire straits.

Given the tight budget constraints under which they are enacting the 2007 Farm Bill, Grossi says the House and Senate Agriculture committees could best serve agriculture and a disgruntled public tired of outmoded methods of supporting agriculture through careful consideration of Title I  (farm subsidy payment) reforms. One farm leader said, “There is little to be gained by extending policies rooted in the past. AFT wisely sets the stage for a 21st century farm policy that meets the needs of 21st century agriculture.” 

“Staying with the status quo in farm policy leaves U.S. agriculture with gaping needs, a broken safety net, and increasingly vulnerable in WTO negotiations and lawsuits. It doesn’t address the growing public concern over conservation funding, nutrition and regional food systems, or the inequities in current farm programs,” Grossi added.

“We hope the full House Agriculture Committee seeks to institute a new safety net to provide better risk protection for commodity farmers, and new risk management tools through an integrated farm revenue program. Such a program as recommended by AFT, and similarly the National Corn Growers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the administration, would be more market oriented, less trade distorting and more equitable.  Instead of moving backwards, the Committee could also choose to address the unmet needs of all agricultural producers, and fund vital programs that address healthy diets, conservation and nutrition with funds that would be freed up by moving away from direct payments.”

-30-