Letter to House Ag Chair Collin Peterson Outlines Farm Policy Objectives

This letter was sent early in the first session of the 110th U.S. Congress to Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Chairman of the U.S. House Ag Committee, by a broad coalition of Minnesota farm groups including the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers, outlining common goals and policy positions for the 2007 Farm Bill. The House Ag Committee plays a key role in writing the new farm bill. Sign up for news updates and updates of the Committee’s hearing schedule by e-mail at the House Ag Committee web site –  agriculture.house.gov – there, the public can also listen to live audio of hearings in real time.

The Honorable Collin Peterson
2159 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:

Congratulations on becoming Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.  We look forward to working with you and assisting you in any way that we can.

In an effort to help craft policy that meets the diverse needs of American agriculture, a coalition of Minnesota ag groups has come together to highlight the common goals and policy positions shared by our groups.

First of all, we strongly support a budget allocation for the 2007 farm bill that is an increase over current baseline projections. The forecast for higher commodity prices will negatively impact the current Farm Bill baseline, from which members of the Budget Committee will be working. This lower baseline is a double-edged sword.  On one hand, it indicates how well the safety net provided by the commodity title of the current Farm Bill has worked.  In fact, the current Farm Bill is estimated to have saved up to $17 billion, as compared to the budget.  On the other hand, the lower costs associated with the current Farm Bill will reduce the baseline and make it very difficult to add new and innovative programs that can help improve the current Farm Bill

We all support the current Farm Bill structure and we would like to see it continue.  The commodity title provides an appropriate safety net for producers and it has allowed for reinvestment into agriculture.  The marketing loan, target price and direct payment, together, can provide a stable reliable safety net that responds to the fluctuating market conditions that producers can not control.  However, we recognize that adjustments need to be made to address the inadequate support levels for some commodities, which has caused imbalances between commodity program crops.

You are well aware of the need for a nation-wide natural disaster assistance program for the agricultural losses that occurred in 2005 and 2006.  We support an emergency disaster assistance program for these years.  In addition, we support your idea of a permanent agriculture disaster program in the Farm Bill.  This new program is very important and we believe that the funding for this should come from new funding above the current baseline.  A permanent disaster assistance program should cover the shallow losses that are not covered by crop insurance and should be based on the multi-peril price election or the actual price level that the producer is insured under, whichever is highest.

We support expanding the renewable energy compound of the current Farm Bill.  Producers are ready to help the country become less reliant on foreign oil. We believe any new Farm Bill energy provisions should put emphasis on local ownership and that new initiatives should be funded with additional dollars above the current baseline.

Lastly, we are supportive of conservation programs that producers can utilize on their working lands.  We prefer programs that provide incentives for moving toward or investing in specific conservation practices, such as EQIP.  These types of programs help farmers test and adopt new conservation practices on their farms. Conservation programs must be consistently applied, available to all producers, and result in real environmental benefit. The uncertainty and lack of consistency found in the current Conservation Security Program has been a major stumbling block for farmers’ acceptance of the program.

Our groups support enhanced conservation programs, but not at the expense of current Farm Bill programs. Any new or enhanced conservation programs should come from funds above the current baseline.

In summary, we believe that Congress should make budget allocations above the current Farm Bill baseline for the next Farm Bill because of the large savings the current Bill has given the country.  We support the current Farm Bill structure while recognizing inadequate support levels for some program crops. We support permanent disaster assistance, renewable energy provisions, and enhanced conservation programs, provided they are not funded at the expense of commodity support programs.