Win-win outcome for farmers, consumers sought for 2007 farm bill

Those elements would include utilizing farms as sources for renewable energy, limiting commodity payments and focusing on rural economic development beyond crop subsidies.

The projected federal deficit, though, could alter federal farm policy, conferees were told Feb. 14 at the Catholic Social Ministry Gathering in Washington, co-sponsored by five agencies of the U.S. bishops and 12 national Catholic organizations.

The 2002 farm bill, which added $73.5 billion in new federal funds over 10 years for rural communities, was written in a time of budget surpluses, said Mark Halverson, minority staff director and chief counsel for the Senate Agriculture Committee. (William O’Connor, staff director for the Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee, was invited but unable to attend.)

The budget reconciliation measure passed by Congress earlier in February cut rural economic development funds, conservation programs and renewable energy initiatives, Halverson said, but not crop subsidies.

Subsidies in and of themselves do not constitute rural economic development, Halverson said, pointing to a map showing that in the top 25 percent of U.S. counties receiving subsidy payments, economic growth is below the U.S. norm; there were as many counties recording negative economic growth as those showing above-average growth.

Currently about 10 percent of U.S. farms collect 72 percent of all subsidy money, according to Halverson, and of those 4 percent collect fully half of the subsidies. "We’ve been interested in trying to reform that," Halverson said.

The figures reflect the growing concentration in farming that was highlighted by the so-called farm crisis of the early 1980s when economics forced 80,000 farmers to quit, retire, sell their land or let their farms be repossessed. But throughout the 20th century, Halverson said, while the U.S. population rose 270 percent, the number of U.S. farms shrank 60 percent.

The scope of the farm bill has expanded over time, Halverson noted, in part perhaps because coalitions were formed around certain issues to ensure its passage. Farm bills have passed by narrower margins over the past 20 years.

School lunch programs, Halverson said, have been a regular part of recent farm bills. While nearly every senator represents farmers, the same is not true of House members. "Framers of the next few farm bills will have to embrace a wider vision of agriculture than in the past," he added.

"The other factor that will play into this will be international trade negotiations," Halverson said. Domestic farm programs, among them crop subsidies, may have to be adjusted depending on what kind of trade agreements are approved in the future.

Randall Dodd, director of the Financial Policy Forum, said trade agreements thus far have hurt smaller farmers, and the U.S. government has not sought to reduce the inequality caused by trade agreements. "We don’t see the losers being compensated by the gainers to make a truly equitable farm policy," he said.

"What has happened with NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) is that you can’t compete with (and) your scale can’t compare with those big mechanized farms in the Midwest," Dodd added. Low domestic prices ruin the small U.S. farmer, and exported commodities because of domestic overproduction ruin the small farmer in the countries importing U.S. commodities.

Dodd, who grew up on a Texas farm and still has relatives farming in Texas, used biblical allusions to stress the fragility of the farm enterprise.

In Chapter 6 of the New Testament Book of Revelation, he pointed out, the third figure of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse was agrarian — famine — who said, "A ration of wheat costs a day’s pay, and three rations of barley cost a day’s pay, but do not damage the olive oil or the wine." In Revelation, the figure holds a scale, considered a symbol of a food shortage with a corresponding rise in price.