WASHINGTON, D.C. — A third hearing series on agricultural policy in writing the 2012 farm bill took place May 16-17 in the House Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management.

During the two-day hearing, testimony was taken by subcommittee Chair K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) from four panels of witnesses. These included representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the National Assoc. of Wheat Growers (NAWG), along with University of Illinois extension crop insurance expert Dr. Gary Schnitkey and 15 other witnesses.

Shortly after the hearing, Conaway said the clear message from witnesses is that farmers need price protection. He also questioned whether the Senate version of the farm bill provides enough of a safety net for all farmers.

“If prices collapse, we can’t have policy that collapses right along with them (while) creating a crisis in farm country and calls for expensive, unbudgeted bailouts in Washington,” Conaway stated. “I have concerns that the Senate bill fails to provide that kind of protection. The Senate bill also creates a complicated new program that is so lopsided it actually locks in profits for some while denying any safety net at all to others.

“In a few weeks, the House Agriculture Committee will begin crafting a farm bill that is both fair and fiscally responsible to all producers across all regions of the country. Our efforts will save money for the taxpayer while providing policy that farmers can depend on when they truly need it.”

Ranking Member Leonard L. Boswell (D-Iowa) said the subcommittee was reminded the details are critical when designing programs to provide farmers with assurance and a safety net.

“I am pleased that over the course of our two-day hearing we heard from commodity groups, economists and insurance agents that we must preserve crop insurance and other farm safety mechanisms that allow producers to feed America and the world,” he said. “To no surprise, our farmers and ranchers have stepped up to the plate and are ready and willing to dig through the weeds with us to craft policy that will benefit all producers.

“We must continue to work together to move forward on a House farm bill so that we can go to conference and negotiate a final bill that will assist our farmers and feed our communities, before further budget cuts place these important programs in jeopardy.”

Witnesses described the effectiveness of current programs and how reforms aimed to strengthen the safety net and crop insurance programs can be implemented. AFBF President Bob Stallman stressed the organization’s continued support of a single commodity option and strong crop insurance program for the farm bill.

AFBF’s approach could easily provide a budget-friendly safety net that meets regional and commodity differences, Stallman said. “Continuation of a multi-legged stool remains the best approach for providing a fair and effective safety net, which should consist of a strong crop insurance program, continuation of the current marketing loan provisions and a catastrophic revenue loss program,” said Stallman.

He based his testimony on the expectation the House Ag Committee will draft farm bill legislation that reduces spending by $23 billion over the next 10 years, with proportional cuts of $15 billion in commodity programs, $4 billion in conservation programs and $4 billion in nutrition program funding.

AFBF’s farm bill proposal prioritizes protecting and strengthening – rather than reducing – federal crop insurance program funding, developing a commodity title that encourages producers to follow market signals rather than government payment schedules and discourages basing any programs on cost of production.

“The new farm bill must ensure that producers continue to take production signals from the marketplace, rather than enticing them to chase federal program benefits,” Stallman told the subcommittee. “Approaches that allow producers to pick and choose between various program options would impose severe challenges and drive production decisions.”

Its proposal covers insurable specialty crops such as apples, tomatoes, grapes, potatoes and sweet corn, according to the AFBF. “As a general farm organization, we place high priority on ensuring the bill benefits all American agricultural commodity sectors in a balanced, coordinated manner. Conceptually, our proposal can cover all specialty crops that have crop insurance available, but we thought it best to walk before we run,” said Stallman.

In addition, AFBF continues to oppose payment limits and means testing of farm program benefits in general.

NAWG President Erik Younggren agreed a multi-legged farm safety net with crop insurance as its foundation should be a priority, calling it a vital concern for wheat and other crop growers. He and other panelists also agreed crop insurance alone does not provide a fully-functional safety net, while voicing support for a revenue-based Title I program modeled on ACRE and SURE crop insurance programs with an on-farm trigger and coverage by commodity.

“While we support a revenue-based program in Title I, we recognize and are grateful for concerns from the leaders of the House Agriculture Committee about protecting farmers and farm businesses in times of low prices,” Younggren commented. “As a farmer, I share these concerns and recognize the risks of changing the existing safety net so dramatically that it removes the price protection currently available in Title I.”

He offered several core principles that should guide House leaders when developing new farm policy, including building on the aspects of existing, proven Title I programs, bringing Title I coverage as close to the farm as possible, ensuring new programs do not distort producers’ planting decisions and ensuring compliance with World Trade Organization obligations.

Congress must complete its work on the farm bill before the current farm and food law expires Sept. 30, when wheat growers are planting early winter wheat, Younggren stressed.

Schnitkey presented a mainly positive view of the Senate farm bill draft, citing its workability with crop insurance, maintenance of a revenue-based safety belt and minimal impact on the federal budget. The task before lawmakers, he said, is to ensure the program is fair and equitable across all crops and regions.

“According to Congressional Budget Office numbers, payments on ARC (Agricultural Risk Coverage in the Senate draft) would be roughly proportional to crop value, 2 to 5 percent. That obviously is different from the way payments are made now based on base acres and direct payment rates, so that would differ and whether or not that is equitable or not is something for you all to decide,” he testified.

Also offering testimony was Linda Ruan, chair of USA Rice Producers Group, who spoke against the Senate draft. According to Ruan, if adopted and passed in conference, it would not be fair and equitable to rice producers and other Southern farmers.