| Lincoln - Farmers like the flexibility offered to them under
the 1996 farm bill known as Freedom to Farm, but they're wondering what
happened to the other promises that might have made the farm policy work.
Four ag industry leaders outlined the impending congressional debate
over the future of U.S. agriculture policy Thursday during a panel
discussion at the annual Husker Feed Grains and Soybean Conference.
Although the current farm bill does not end until 2002, the
congressional debate and possible final vote on a new farm bill is
expected to take place in 2001.
If the panel holds the key, don't expect a return to government
controls over planting decisions. The 1996 farm bill was designed to allow
farmers to plant whatever they want in return for the phasing out of farm
payments.
"We've been supporters of Freedom to Farm," said Bill Kubecka
of Palacios, Texas, vice president for legislation for the National Grain
Sorghum Producers. "But we've only had one leg of the three-legged
stool."
The missing legs, he said, were big increases in exports that could
have held up commodity prices and reform of the tax code to eliminate
estate taxes and reduce capital gains taxes.
Other panelists were Merlyn Carlson, Nebraska director of agriculture;
Bart Ruth of Rising City, Neb., president of the American Soybean
Association; and Lee Klein of Battle Creek, Neb., president of the
National Corn Growers Association.
Ruth said the panelists were in general agreement about the direction
that farm policy should take in the wake of three straight years of
depressed prices for all of the major Midlands crops.
"We're pretty much on the same page," Ruth said, "and
that speaks well for agriculture."
The panelists said their organizations opposed a return to set-aside
programs that paid farmers simply for not growing crops. There was
interest, though, in a possible incentive for diverting land for
environmental purposes.
Under a global economy, idled acres no longer affect prices, Ruth said.
Instead, South American countries take up the slack. "The world
realizes there are other sources of grain," he said.
The panelists indicated that some sort of "counter-cyclical"
payment program would be considered, a concept that triggers payments to
farmers during times of depressed prices but withholds payments in good
times.
"If the market turns around, then we don't think we need the
money," said Kubecka.
The panelists mentioned these other issues that could be addressed
during the farm bill debate:
- Equalizing price support levels so that one crop is not supported
more strongly than another.
- Continuing direct payments to farmers, rather than phasing them out
as envisioned in the 1996 bill.
- Enhancing trade by taking full advantage of trade enhancement funds,
ending food boycotts and giving the president fast-track authority to
negotiate trade deals subject only to final congressional approval.
- Improving crop insurance protection.
- Creating a method for introducing biotechnology products that
improves public acceptance.
|