Moran on the new farm bill
By Chris Walker (Contact)
Originally published 12:45 p.m., November 5, 2007
Updated 12:45 p.m., November 5, 2007
Over the next several weeks in Washington, D.C., the House and Senate will be putting together a new farm bill. Farmers have been operating under the 2002 Farm Bill, but that has expired. The Gazette talked with Rep. Jerry Moran about plans for the new farm bill and the effect it will have locally.
Q The 2002 Farm Bill has expired. Does that mean farmers will not be receiving payments this year?
A Technically, the 2002 Farm Bill expired on Sept. 30, but the effects of the farm bill expire at the time of harvest next year. So we have several months to pass a bill. We want to get the new farm bill passed as soon as possible so farmers can get with their bankers and plan their operation next year. I believe we will complete the 2007 Farm Bill in 2007.
Q At what stage of discussions is the new farm bill?
A The House has passed a version of the farm bill and the Senate agriculture committee just passed last week a farm bill. The bill is expected to be on the Senate floor next Monday (today) and probably take two weeks to debate. When they pass their farm bill, then both houses will sit down and work out the differences between the House and Senate bill versions.
Q When the House and Senate work through their bills, do you have a feeling if the 2007 Farm Bill will be drastically different?
A My prediction would be that the 2007 Farm Bill will look a lot like the 2002 Farm Bill but with modest changes that improve it and meet the needs of American agriculture.
Q What issues are you fighting for in the new farm bill?
A The current farm bill gets pretty good marks from Kansas farmers. There is not an outcry to change it. My goal is we should strive to make it more market-oriented and comply with World Trade Organization obligations.
One problem with the 2002 Farm Bill is that a world trade court found our cotton program violated WTO trade agreements. So with the new farm bill, we want to make sure they are not in violation of WTO and comply with our treaty obligations. Also with the new farm bill we want to make sure farmers are farming for markets and not government programs. We want farming decisions based on where farmers can get the best return.
In my opinion, the farm bill needs provide a safety net when the cost of production exceeds the price of the market. One safety net is direct payments. Direct payments go to farmers year in and year out and it is based on crop history. It is unrelated to how much they produce. It is the one part of the farm bill that provides some level of certainty for farmers and their bankers. There have been a number of attempts to eliminate or significantly reduce that payment. But from a Kansas perspective, that is the only payment our Kansas farmers have received in recent years. So one of my goals has been to maintain the direct payment component.
The other risk farmers run is what weather will do to crops when there is little or no production. That is when crop insurance comes into play. So my goal is with an overall safety net is to make crop insurance a more valuable product for farmers when weather conditions make crops poor.
Q Is there more to the farm bill than just farm subsidies?
A The program also includes conservation and environmental programs, rural development and the largest part of the farm bill is food and nutrition. This farm bill will be more environmentally and conservation oriented even though the last one was considered the greenest one ever.
Rural development will focus on renewable fuels trying to make certain the incentives are there to produce fuel from agriculture materials.
Q Will this bill get caught up in politics?
A I think the Democrats want to demonstrate that they are pro rural America and they want to pass a farm bill so they can brag to rural America and farmers that they are taking care of them. The concern I have is that they may not have any real interest in passing a farm bill that President Bush would sign. There are some indications that a desirable political outcome is for Congress with the majority being Democrats to pass a farm bill the President would veto. And then it creates an issue in which Democrats can say we are taking care of farmers and it is the Republicans who vetoed it and causing the problems. If that would happen I would find it sad, and it is a part of Washington, D.C., that I despise.
Q You have not announced whether you intend to run for Pat Roberts’ Senate seat. If you do run, why would you want to change houses at this point in your career?
A If you are going to do what I do — being engaged in public service — you need to put yourself in a position to have the greatest ability to increase the outcome of the public policy debate that benefits Kansas. I appreciate the opportunity that I have to do that in the House. But a senator has more effect on the outcome of a debate. One of a hundred is a much more powerful setting then one of 435. Also the Senate lends its members and itself to be more independent-thinking than the House. In the House, it is more about being on the Republican team or the Democrat team. For me. I am a Republican. But I am on the Kansas team first.