Chairwoman Stabenow Floor Remarks on Conservation Compliance, Crop Insurance in 2013 Senate Farm Bill

Chairwoman Stabenow Floor Remarks on Conservation Compliance, Crop Insurance in 2013 Senate Farm Bill Washington, DC – Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, today delivered the below remarks on the Senate floor regarding the historic conservation compliance agreement included in the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of the 2o13 (the Senate Farm Bill). These remarks are prepared for delivery. Senate Floor Remarks of Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) Chairwoman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry As prepared for delivery I want to talk specifically today about the work we’re doing in the Conservation title of the Farm Bill. This is about jobs: Healthy wildlife habitats and clean, fishable waters are not only good for our environment, but they also support hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation that benefits our economy and creates jobs. In fact, outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs in this country. And this Farm Bill includes an historic new agreement around conservation – the most powerful conservation work in decades. It is truly amazing what can happen when people sit down, listen to one another, and work out their differences. If farmers want to participate in Title I Commodity programs, including the current Direct Payments Program, they must take steps to use best conservation practices on their land when it comes to highly erodible soil and wetlands. This has been the case for many years. Of course, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act that we’re debating now eliminates the Direct Payment subsidy program. Instead, we’re strengthening crop insurance, which farmers need to purchase, and we’re making market-oriented reforms to Title I. But here’s the issue: if we eliminate Direct Payment subsidies, we don’t want to create unintended consequences. It is important for all of us that sensitive lands be managed in the best possible way – that’s how we avoid having a dust bowl during droughts. It’s important for us to continue protecting wetlands, which help prevent flooding, and are important wildlife habitats for ducks and other water fowl. Now, commodity groups and conservation groups were on different sides of this issue. They looked at this issue from vastly different viewpoints, and they didn’t agree on the best approach. They could have followed the typical Washington playbook. They could have both gone to their corners. They could have fired off angry, venomous press releases at each other. They could have drowned the Hill in lobbyists pushing for their solution and demonizing the other side. But that’s not what happened. Like farmers and families all across the country, they sat down together around a table, and they did something that’s too rare these days in Washington: they listened. They listened and tried to see the other point of view. They came to understand one another, and it turned out their differences weren’t so great after all. With a little compromise and a lot of hard work, they were able to come up with a plan that conserves soil and water resources for generations to come – and protects the safety net our famers rely on. This has been called the greatest advancement to conservation in three decades. I want to underscore that for my colleagues – this is an important and historic agreement. I know a number of my colleagues today are planning to talk about amendments on crop insurance – and I know a number of my colleagues voted for some of those amendments last time around. But this conservation agreement puts us in a very different situation this year. For one thing, we want to make sure the biggest landowners who control the most acres are using crop insurance which means now they would need to use conservation practices to preserve sensitive lands and wetlands. Amendments that weaken crop insurance would reduce the number of farmers participating in crop insurance – raising premiums for family farmers and reducing the environmental benefits of this historic conservation agreement. With this new agreement, the math is simple: more acres that are in the crop insurance equals more environmental and conservation benefits. Here’s another reason my colleagues should re-evaluate these amendments. This chart shows the counties in the United States that were declared agricultural disaster areas last year. 2012 was one of the worst droughts on record. And in the past, when we had situations like that, Congress had to pass ad hoc disaster assistance for those crop farmers. But we didn’t have to do that last year. Because crop insurance works. The only farmers last year who needed disaster assistance were the ones who cannot participate in crop insurance! Producers purchase crop insurance so they are protected when there are disasters. But if we weaken crop insurance, resulting in premium hikes of as much as 40% on small farmers, we are going to go back to the days of ad hoc disaster assistance – something we cannot afford in today’s tight budget climate. Finally, we need to keep this historic agreement in place through the Conference Committee. I think we owe that much to the folks who sat down together and worked out this agreement. I would ask my colleagues to stand with the commodity and conservation groups who worked hard to find compromise and forge this constructive agreement. If we want to preserve the conservation wins that we have in this Farm Bill, we need to support the farmers and the environmental community, who have been very clear that with the new agreement this year, we should not be weakening crop insurance or making it harder for large producers to participate in the program.