Return
to TFB Main Page
Return
to Current Edition
Texas
Agriculture Archive
May 17, 2002
New farm bill solution
for rural crisis
By
Donald Patman
President
Texas Farm Bureau
The critics of the new Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, the farm bill, are piling on. I do not know if the farm bill's critics are unaware of the many positive effects of this bill, or simply choose to ignore them, but there are some very good reasons for supporting agriculture in this country.
The "big farmer vs. small farmer" argument is one of the most misleading. To explain that, you have to understand that the farm bill is not a welfare program for farmers. The farm bill is about national food security. It is in the best interest of all Americans to keep farmers on the land. Since 1996, the marketplace has provided virtually no profit at all for many commodities. Government payments since that time have prevented mass bankruptcies. Large farmers, who grow most of our food and fiber, have been just as hard hit as small ones. Both groups are important, and equally deserving of a national agriculture policy that works.
Without the farm bill, agriculture would change drastically and in a way that would rob America of the ability to produce much of her own food. If you like American dependence on foreign oil, you'll love the new food dependence that the farm bill's critics are advocating by default.
I recently visited Brazil as part of a Farm Bureau fact-finding tour. This South American nation is on the verge of becoming an agricultural superpower. Clearly, they can produce enormous amounts of soybeans, corn and other agricultural commodities. In Brazil, there are few worries about compliance with environmental regulations or conservation requirements. Labor is cheap.
Agriculture is heavily regulated in the United States. Farmers have learned and are paying to adapt to this because it ensures the safest and most reliable food source in the world. If we believe we can have the same degree of confidence in any foreign grown food, we are kidding ourselves.
In the European Union, agriculture is subsidized to the tune of between $70 and $80 billion dollars per year. The Europeans have repeatedly stated their intentions to continue agricultural support at this level. Perhaps that's because the World War II generation of Europeans can still remember what it's like to go hungry, something that most Americans have never experienced.
In this U.S. farm bill, American farmers would receive support in the range of $15 to $17 billion per year. Without any support at all, it is clear to any reasonable person that U.S. farmers would be competing against the combined treasuries of the European Union! That is gambling against stacked odds with the food security of America.
Let's not forget that food is cheap in America. On average, we spend only about 10 percent of our disposable income for food. The farm bill, by ensuring adequate supplies, makes this possible.
The informal agreements that produced the 1996 Farm Bill had three major components. Congress was to promote trade, primarily by passing Trade Promotion Authority or "Fast Track." Regulatory reform was promised to provide relief for farmers. In return for the first two, farm payments were to be scaled back. So far, only the third promise has been kept.
This farm bill has important incentives for conservation programs and environmental protection. It is the best possible political solution for preventing the tragic loss of our food production capacity.
Agriculture in America is in serious trouble. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act is a responsible and badly needed policy change that will give farmers and rural communities a fighting chance.
