OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Finalizing the Farm Bill

April 14, 2008 - by Donny Shaw

For months, Congress has been trying to reach some kind of agreement on what should be included in the Farm Bill and how it should be payed for. The bill, which is designed to extend all kinds of agricultural programs at a cost of $286 billion over five years, is about 6 months behind schedule. But a bipartisan group of senators and representatives is meeting this week to iron out the issues that have stalled the bill, and they hope to have an agreement by Friday. The negotiations have boiled down to disagreement over a proposed permanent disaster relief program for farmers suffering from weather-related crop damages.

Right now disaster relief for farmers is approved by Congress on an ad hoc basis, meaning that sometimes the money doesn’t get to the farmers until two or three years after the lost their crops. Lawmakers from states that have received a lot of farm-related disaster money in the past few years – Montana, the Dakotas, Texas – are pushing for this year’s Farm Bill to put in place a permanent disaster relief fund that could get money to suffering farmer quickly and efficiently. But others don’t want the permanent program (and the accompanying tax measures that would be needed to pay for it), insisting that the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Critics of the permanent disaster program argue that it would make major recipients of disaster aid more reliant on federal money and encourage the production of crops in bad locations:

>Close inspection of ad hoc disaster payments to farmers over the past two decades reveals that between 1985 and 2005, five Great Plains states – Texas, North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota and Kansas – received nearly 40 percent of total disaster spending, according to USDA data compiled by the Environmental Working Group. Moreover, 1 percent of the total number of disaster relief recipients – 21,000 recipients – received disaster payments in at least 11 of the 21 years and collected nearly 10 percent of the overall disaster funding from 1985 to 2005. About two-thirds of farmers (66 percent) for whom disaster assistance is routine live in just four states: Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota and Oklahoma.
>Worse, a report last year by the Government Accountability Office suggests that areas in these states with the highest rates of conversion of grassland to intensive crop production tend to be the biggest recipients of disaster payments. If these lands were consistently profitable to grow crops on, then they would have been cultivated long ago. Routine disaster payments on top of other commodity subsidy payments remove the risk from growing crops on marginal, environmentally sensitive lands, creating an incentive to plow up what little is left of our native prairies. Moreover, these payments create a vicious cycle that wastes taxpayer dollars. Risky production decisions result in crop failures that are rewarded with federal payouts that lead farmers to bring more marginal land into production, resulting in more crop failures.

But supporters of the new program point to a mechanism in it that would increase participation in crop insurance programs, thus reducing the need for emergency aid:

>The proposed new program would supplement the current crop insurance program, and would require a farmer to carry at least the catastrophic level of coverage as a prerequisite for a payment.
>According to CBO, the program would cost $5.1 billion over five years (FY 2008-12). CBO estimates that $2.9 billion of that amount would go directly to crop and livestock producers in the form of direct disaster payments and the other $2.2 billion would cover increased crop insurance costs associated with the crop insurance purchase requirement. Most of the cost would be funded through a mandated transfer of 3.34 percent of annual customs receipts from the U.S. Treasury to the new trust fund.
>Under the proposed program, an eligible farmer in a disaster-declared county would receive 52 percent of the difference between an established guaranteed level of revenue and actual total farm revenue. The target level of revenue would be based on the level of crop insurance coverage selected by the farmer, thus increasing if a farmer opts for higher levels of coverage.
>The proposal also allows the trust fund to be tapped for indemnity payments to livestock producers and orchardists to compensate for significant mortality losses caused by a natural disaster. Up to $35 million annually from the fund also could be used for livestock, honey bee, and farm-raised fish losses caused by adverse weather or other environmental conditions.

The map above shows the distribution of disaster dollars from 1985-2006.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.


  • Anonymous 04/14/2008 10:47pm

    The UN says we’re 7 years behind, so we owe them 2 more years. Bush just authorized 200 million more in food aid through USAID. They want 500 million. In the US, when there are disasters, States have to pay matching funds. 35%. Where are the matching funds and will the other foreign aid bills get emergency funding due to commodity prices or other emergencies? These aid bills have also moved to the five year budget like the agencies that hire based on those five year budgets. A lot of people are blaming Russian oil production. OPEC says they’re at the right levels.

    Producing food at home and giving it away as foreign aid is not the answer because of the price and the need. The bio fuel thing was a disaster because of ‘soft power’ and ‘civil society’ groups that were active in the farm bill. We can’t pay the foreign aid countries to grow because they can’t produce now. The sustainable answer is the water.

    The foreign aid disaster relief seems to be a function of the lobbying by ‘soft power’ and ‘civil society.’ The price has double or tripled. In five years this may go up. It may have the same problem that US disaster farm relief has if the relief is not just food relief, but farm relief – ‘Vanity Fair’ has a good article out on agriculture.

  • Anonymous 04/15/2008 6:27am

    Here are some articles about the soft power, civil society, UN and World Bank:

    Zoellick’s ‘New Deal’

    Silobreaker has good articles on emergency programs. See the maps

    Green peace and Sustainable farming:

    Long term financing for sustainable water 200 million for five years:

    Global Security has an article on page 15:

    The links are long, but I couldn’t find a link on the on the comment board.

  • Anonymous 04/15/2008 8:11pm

    The farm bill should be used as a bargaining chip like the FTA. We could limit jobs to five years like Foreign Service Officers and give the opportunity to serve to more Americans. We could do this with other federal jobs. More Americans could serve.

    Since all the US budgets are now five years and the employment, we could open up other programs like S. Korea’s agreement to hire thousands of returned peace corps volunteers for five years after their service.

  • Anonymous 04/19/2008 8:23am

    A link to the ‘land issues’ and five year ‘sustainable budgets.’

  • Anonymous 05/02/2008 4:57am

    Since the US already provides half the world’s food aid, does it make sense to keep them on free food with 770 million (Food for Peace) more than the 200 million they already are getting? They rely on us for food and are just going to say they’re owed it.

    Bush and Clinton might find some of their own life in their speeches yesterday. The people they were making quit.

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.