Fix Farm Bill's flaws to help the hungry
Philadelphia Inquirer, November 6, 2007

In late October in the U.S. Senate, a brave vote quietly unfolded. Sen. Robert Casey (D., Pa.) joined Sen. Dick Lugar (R., Ind.) and other Agriculture Committee senators to vote to amend the U.S. Farm Bill to help the hungriest Americans get enough to eat. Their bravery came in proposing to pay for it with a $1.7 billion cut in a crop-subsidy program.

Although this amendment was rejected by the Agriculture Committee, reforms to crop subsidies are being debated now. In the full Senate, those amendments stand a greater chance of passage because many senators realize this is a perfect time to update Depression-era crop subsidies: The American farm economy is booming, with record harvests, sales and profits.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicted that 2007 net farm income would rise to almost $30 billion above the 10-year average. Meanwhile, the five-year Farm Bill includes about $40 billion in crop subsidies, of which 70 percent goes to just 10 percent of recipients, and 50 percent goes to just seven states. This includes $26 billion in a "direct payment" that gives farmers the same amount every year, even if they are earning record profits. Many Americans have been disappointed that the House, and now the Senate Agriculture Committee, have failed to offer reforms to crop subsidies to invest savings in other national priorities. Polls conducted by Zogby International this summer found that more than 75 percent of Pennsylvanians supported such changes.

In particular, the Senate has the opportunity to expand investments in nutrition, conservation and healthful-food programs that benefit farmers, consumers and the environment.

Roughly 35 million Americans, including 12 million children and 10 percent of all Pennsylvania households, struggle to put food on the table. Food Stamps - America's first line of defense against hunger - and other nutrition programs are a critical but underfunded lifeline for these Americans. One investment that Lugar and Casey proposed funding is the Emergency Food Assistance Program. This program complements private donations to provision food banks – it needs at least $10 million more in funding per year. Another underfunded program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, is a vital resource for low-income seniors and young families. In the near term, the Senate has increased Food Stamp funding, but after five years the Senate has set up a disaster as these increased benefits that millions of Americans will be relying upon disappear.

Conservation programs are another critical part of the Farm Bill. Every year, these programs help tens of thousands of farmers improve water and air quality, protect wildlife habitat, and stop sprawling development from consuming more prime farmland. Unfortunately, two out of three farmers applying for help are rejected because of funding constraints. The Senate Agriculture Committee has admirably increased funding for some conservation programs, but the full Senate should do more to help farmers and the environment by providing at least $1.2 billion more for conservation programs.

How can the Senate pay for these investments? There are many ways to trim crop subsidies while maintaining or strengthening the "safety net" that helps America's farmers.

Lugar and New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat, have proposed a system that would replace crop subsidies with free crop insurance that would help every farmer, not just the third of farmers who grow cotton, rice, beans and other commodities. By providing payments only in times of need, this insurance system saves billions that is invested in conservation, nutrition, healthful food, renewable energy, and rural-development programs.

Other amendments will focus on smaller cuts from direct-payment subsidies. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) himself proposed a $4.5 billion cut, but was unable to include it in the committee bill due to opposition from many members. Other senators are likely to propose amendments to cap the amount of subsidies anyone can receive at $250,000 per year and exclude individuals with annual incomes greater than $200,000 from receiving subsidies altogether. Surely, providing very large payments to well-off individuals should be a lower priority than expanding programs that benefit our environment and low-income Americans.

The flaws of current farm policy have been obvious for too long. It is time to fix those flaws with more brave votes on the floor of the Senate, where farm and nonfarm state senators should have an equitable say over how to spend hundreds of billions to the benefit of farmers, the environment and hungry Americans.