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.

NCFC: Oppose sugar amendment

Washington, D.C. (May 22, 2013)—The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) today expressed its strong opposition to Senate Amendment 925 to the farm bill (S. 954) being debated on the Senate floor today. The amendment, offered by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), would change, and effectively dismantle, current federal policies with regards to sugar. “The U.S. sugar policy has evolved over the years and has a proven track record in providing helping farmers to compete against heavily subsidized foreign competitors,” said Chuck Conner, president & CEO of NCFC. “Ending our sugar programs would simply result in fewer jobs for Americans and more for our foreign competitors.” “The U.S. and global sugar markets have collapsed, with farmers having seen a 55 percent drop in prices received just since debate on the farm bill has gotten underway,” continued Conner. “Now is not the time to weaken or repeal a long-standing element of U.S. agricultural policy. I urge a “no” vote on the Shaheen sugar amendment.”

USDA Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers Seeks Nominations

WASHINGTON, May 22, 2013--The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently published a Notice of Solicitation for Nominations for its Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers for 2-year membership terms in the Federal Register dated April 30, 2013. "Members of the Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers play a critical role in helping USDA ensure modern and equitable service for all of our customers -- a keystone of the Obama Administration's commitment to civil rights," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "I highly encourage the nomination of folks who are interested in serving their community by helping USDA continue our record accomplishments on behalf of all Americans." This Committee advises the Secretary of Agriculture on matters broadly affecting socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and considers strategies, policies, and programs that enhance Department goals for assisting minority farming and ranching operations. The Committee considers goals and objectives necessary to implement its recommendations, as well as methodologies that maximize participation of minority farmers in USDA programs. The USDA is soliciting nominations from interested organizations and individuals from the ranching and farming industry, related State governments, Tribal agricultural agencies, academic institutions, commercial banking entities, trade associations and related nonprofit enterprises. An organization may nominate individuals from within or outside its membership; alternatively, an individual may nominate herself or himself. Nomination forms are available on the internet at: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/forms/doc/AD-755.pdf. Nomination packages must include the nomination form along with a cover letter and resume or biographical description documenting the nominee's background and experience. The deadline for submitting nominations is May 31, 2013. Nomination packages mailed should be addressed to: Mrs. Kenya Nicholas, Designated Federal Official, USDA-OAO, 1400 Independence Avenue, Room 520-A, Washington, DC 20250-0170. Nomination packages may also be faxed to the attention of Mrs. Kenya Nicholas using fax number (202) 720-7704. Any inquires may be sent via email to: ACMF@osec.usda.gov. # USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users). #