Agriculture
More than three million people farm or ranch in the United States. Individuals, family partnerships or family corporations operate almost 99 percent of U.S. farms. Over 22 million people are employed in farm or farm-related jobs, including production agriculture, farm inputs, processing and marketing and wholesale and retail sales.
Principles
- Farming is an important part of the economy of our great country, particularly in Indiana's 5th district.
- Our farmers are the best in the world, exporting their products to every continent. Agriculture is America's #1 export.
- Our farmers are environmentalists. Those who work the land are our finest evironmental stewards. Dan opposes attempts to hamper agricultural production with heavy-handed mandates.
Dan's Record
2008 Farm Bill
I believe in investing in America’s future; and for me that means investing in America’s family farms through fiscally responsible common-sense policies that take into account the real-world costs and challenges that American farmers face. After careful consideration, with regret and some reluctance, I opposed the “Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008” (H.R. 2419) – sometimes referred to as the 2008 Farm Bill – because I believe that bill failed this test.
For example, the bill allows married couples with a combined on-farm and off-farm household income of up to $2.5 million to receive government subsidies. We shouldn’t ask taxpayers to pay for subsidy payments going to millionaires, some of whom are nothing more than weekend farmers. Furthermore the bill did nothing to ensure that subsidy payments truly went to the neediest farmers. Under the provisions of the bill, the top 10 percent of subsidy recipients will still receive nearly two-thirds of all farm payments.
However, the most disturbing aspect of the bill, and the principle reason I opposed it, was the fact that it contained numerous undisclosed earmarks which were stuffed into the bill in the dark of night. For example, the bill included $5 million for grants to broadcasting systems, $3 million for Delta Health Alliance Grants, $1 million for the National Sheep and Goat Industry Improvement Center, and $170 million for “Fisheries Disaster Assistance” to West Coast salmon fishers. The bill also included an earmark to require the United States Forest Service to sell a piece of land to a local ski resort in Vermont and an earmark to allow the Nature Conservancy to claim a $250 million “tax refund,” to be used for the purchase of 1.6 million acres of land from Plum Creek Timber Company. The tax refund would be provided even though the Nature Conservancy is a non-profit group that does not pay taxes.
2007 Farm Bill
At issue in the 2007 Farm Bill was whether or not Congress should renew the planting restrictions contained in the 2002 bill. A provision included in the 2002 Farm Bill essentially restricts the ability of farmers in the farm income and commodity price support programs to plant fruits and vegetables on acres on which they receive benefits (also known as base acres). The provision was included in the bill at the urging of specialty crop growers who argued that allowing non-specialty crop producers to switch even small numbers of acres to fruits or vegetables would negatively affect specialty growers' annual income. In addition, they argued that they would be at a further disadvantage because traditional crop producers whose specialty crops lost money would still be able to receive federal payments on the base acres they had planted with fruits or vegetables.
While the restriction has been a boon to specialty crop growers, it's been a bust for Hoosier farmers and other farmers in the Midwest and Great Lake States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). Many farmers in these regions of the country traditionally rotate soybeans with vegetable crops grown on contract for processing. Since the 2002 farm bill made soybeans eligible for declaration as a "base" crop, the planting restriction essentially prevents many Hoosier farmers from continuing their traditional vegetable rotation on their own land. Unfortunately, the restriction has also made finding rental farmland much more difficult, as many owners fear losing base acreage if the renter plants a vegetable crop after a soybean crop. In addition, by not allowing farmers the ability to expand and diversify their farming operations to include fruits and vegetables (FAVs), this policy created an unintended over-reliance on Federal farm program payments; in short this policy turned out to be a lose-lose for farmers and taxpayers.
The Farm Flexibility Act
As mentioned above, a provision included in the 2002 Farm Bill essentially restricts the ability of farmers in the farm income and commodity price support programs to plant fruits and vegetables on acres on which they receive benefits (also known as base acres). While the restriction has been a boon to specialty crop growers it’s been a bust for Hoosier farmers and other farmers in the Midwest and Great Lake States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan).
That is why I am a strong supporter and co-sponsor of the “Farming Flexibility Act” which repeals the 2002 planting restriction. I firmly believe that giving Hoosier farmers’ the freedom and flexibility to plant fruits and vegetables is not only good land management but vital to helping Indiana farmers stay competitive in the global marketplace as well as a critical tool to help reign in out of control federal spending and save taxpayers millions of dollars annually.
Resources
