Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Vilsack asked to change tone toward farmers

By DOUG SCHMITZ
Iowa Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee has asked USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to temper recent comments made about farmers, where the former Iowa governor stated that the upcoming school nutrition program reauthorization and the USDA’s larger agenda was “a choice between 30 million children or 90,000 farmers.”

“We believe you could not be more wrong about the choices that will confront policy makers and we sincerely hope you refrain from pitting the needs of children against the men and women who produce the food, feed, fiber and fuel we consume every day,” said Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), the ranking member of the committee, in a March 19 letter to Vilsack.

Along with Chambliss, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), James Risch (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), John Thune (R-S.D.) and David Vitter (R-La.), who had all initially expressed concerns about Obama’s proposed fiscal year 2010 budget request for the USDA.

In the letter, the senators said Congress could reauthorize the school nutrition programs and provide adequate funding to meet the urgent needs of children, while at the same time maintain the support promised in the 2008 farm bill to U.S. production agriculture.

“We think it is unfair and unproductive for you to attack the very farmers and ranchers who form the foundation of our rural economy,” the senators stated. “These farmers and ranchers who represent the vast majority of agricultural production deserve a USDA that will fairly represent them and not put forward false choices.”

The senators said while the USDA has responsibility for a wide variety of interests, it should be able to advocate for one without vilifying the other.

“The President’s proposed FY10 budget request clearly illustrates the priorities of the administration,” the letter stated. “In light of the bipartisan opposition accompanying the budget and the reckless manner in which the budget cuts support to farmers and ranchers, we believe several of the proposals need to be re-examined.”

Of the estimated 2.2 million U.S. farms, there are currently 120,859 with sales above $500,000, representing 74 percent of all production value in the U.S. Of those farms, the vast majority receive some form of government payments that would be impacted by the proposal.

Under Obama’s FY10 budget proposed request, a provision was included to phase out these direct payments, which the senators said is one of the most trade compliant forms of support, to farms with sales above $500,000. But the senators said the $500,000 threshold disregards the costs to produce the nation’s everyday food, feed, fiber and fuel. 

“As a former governor of Iowa, you obviously know that farmers have variable operating costs and in some years, their input prices, through no fault of their own, often exceeds the price of the crop they deliver to the elevator, mill or gin,” the senators told Vilsack.
“In fact, the $500,000 limit in the budget proposal would easily hit a medium-sized corn and soybean farm of only 1,000 acres. Any of your former constituents would tell you that 1,000 acres is not a large “corporate mega-farm” or agribusiness in Iowa,” the letter read.

In a Feb. 26 letter to Vilsack, Chambliss expressed concern with several proposals outlined in Obama’s budget concerning agriculture and the current farm safety net.

“This budget suggests that the current economic downturn has had no impact on our agriculture sector,” he said. “Just last year, Congress overwhelmingly approved a five-year farm bill designed to strengthen the nation’s food security, protect the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, preserve our efforts to remain good stewards of the environment, and enhance our nation’s energy initiatives.

“Efforts to cut direct payments and make other sweeping changes to current farm policy will only inject additional uncertainty into the farm economy and will be met with my strong opposition,” Chambliss said.

The senators added that the farm safety net was counter-cyclical in nature and exists to help farmers and ranchers produce the safest, most abundant and cheapest food supply in the world.

“We applaud your comments about diversifying income opportunities for farmers through renewable fuels and value-added agriculture, but your opportunities are only concepts at this point and cannot provide the needed support overnight,” the senators said.

The senators said U.S. producers could not “flip a switch and change their production methods,” since they have already invested billions of dollars in existing operations upon which many others depend.

“Change must be thoughtful and implemented gradually so there is minimal disruption,” the senators said.
 
“We look forward to working with you on improving the farm safety net, but you should not confuse the existing safety net for one that is not yet designed based on highly speculative “green” payments or a cap and trade regime.”

Ultimately, Chambliss said, the focus should be on offering American producers the certainty they expect, and work with the agriculture community at the appropriate time to make any changes in the current farm safety net.

“I believe it is unwise to completely alter the makeup of this farm safety net before we have the opportunity to assess the effects of the reforms included in the 2008 farm bill,” he said.

4/2/2009