WASHINGTON, June 11, 2012 - TODAY, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will travel to Iowa to highlight how agriculture is helping to create jobs and grow the economy.  He will also discuss the Food, Farm, and Jobs Bill.

Monday, June 11, 2012

10:45 a.m. CDT

WHAT: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will highlight the success of the agriculture economy and discuss the Food, Farm and Jobs Bill.

WHERE: Hurtsville Interpretive Center

18670 63rd St

Maquoketa, IA

3 p.m. CDT

WHAT: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will highlight the success of the agriculture economy and discuss the Food, Farm and Jobs Bill.

WHERE: Kirkwood Community College

Iowa Hall (Rooms A, B, C, and D)

6301 Kirkwood Blvd SW

Cedar Rapids, IA

Mr. President - As I grew up on my family's farm outside of New Hartford, Iowa, where I still live today, I grew to appreciate what it meant to be a farmer.  The dictionary defines a farmer as "a person who cultivates land or crops or raises animals".  But that definition doesn't come close to fully describing what a farmer is.

Being a farmer means someone willing to help a cow deliver her calf in the middle of the night, when its five degrees outside.  A farmer is someone willing to put all their earthly possessions at risk just to put a bunch of seeds in the ground, and hope that those seeds get rain at just the right time.

Farmers work hard cultivating their crops, and get the satisfaction of seeing the result of their hard work at the end of each crop season.  They take great pride in knowing they are feeding this nation and world.  And farmers tend to be people who relish the independence that comes with their chosen profession.  They are people with dirt under their fingernails.  They work long hours.  And often are underappreciated for what they do to put food on American dinner tables.  And they receive an ever shrinking share of the food dollar.

Farmers have chosen a line of work that comes with risk, risk that is inherent and often out of farmers' control.  The risk inherent in farming is why we have a farm program.  If we want a stable food supply in this country, we need farmers who are able to produce it.  When they are hit by floods, droughts, natural disasters, wild market swings, or unfair international barriers to their products, farmers need the support to make it through.  Most farmers I know wish there wasn't the need for a government safety-net, but they appreciate that it's there when they do need it.

And for decade after decade, congress has maintained farm programs because the American people understand the necessity of providing a safety net for those providing our food.  That's not to say each and every farm program ever created needs to continue.  Just as there are shifts in the market, sometimes public sentiment towards certain farm programs shifts.  Take direct payments for instance.  There was a time and place for direct payments, to help farmers through some lean years.  But now, times are okay in the agriculture industry, and the American people have rightly decided it is time for direct payments to end.  The Senate Committee has responded, and we have proposed eliminating the direct payment program.  And many farmers agree direct payments should go away.

There are other reforms the American taxpayers want to see.  There is no reason the federal government should be subsidizing big farmers to get even bigger.  People are tired of reading reports about the largest ten percent of farmers receiving nearly 70 percent of agriculture subsidies.  And you know what, most farmers agree with that as well.  Many farmers understand that in order for us to have a farm program that is defensible and justifiable, it needs to be a program designed to help the small and medium-size farmers who actually need assistance getting through rough patches out of their control.  The Senate Agriculture committee listened, and placed a payment limit of $50,000 per individual in this bill, $100,000 for married couples, for the payments under the Agricultural Risk Coverage program.

Taxpayers are equally tired of reading reports about how so many non-farmers receive farm payments.  I have been working to get reforms in farm payment eligibility for years.  And just as the tide has turned on the status quo for direct payments, the tide has turned on payment eligibility.  This bill contains crucial reform to the "actively engaged" requirements.  These reforms will ensure farm payments go to actual farmers.  The American people are not going to stand idly by anymore and watch farm payments head out the door to people who don't really farm.

There have been some people complaining about the payment limit reforms.  They complain that it will detrimentally change the way some farm operations do things.  Well, if they mean it won't allow non-farmers to skirt around payment eligibility, and line their pockets with taxpayer money meant for actual farmers, then yes, these reforms will impact those farming operations.  But let me make it perfectly clear, the reforms contained in this bill will not impact a farmer's ability to receive farm payments.  Furthermore, the reforms will not affect the spouse rule.

These reforms reflect what we hear from the grassroots - which is congress needs to be better stewards of taxpayer dollars.  That's true if we are talking about the farm program, or any other federal program.  Those who are against these reforms, are asking the American people to accept the status quo, and continue to watch as farm payments go to mega-farms and non-farmers.  We cannot, and will not accept the status quo.

Statement in response by Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs

Lyons, NE - An analysis of over a million government records pertaining to federal crop insurance has found that in 2011 more than 10,000 individual farming operations have received federal crop insurance premium subsidies ranging from $100,000 to more than $1 million apiece. The analysis found that some 26 farming operations received subsidies of $1 million or more last year.

According to the Environmental Working Group, the records have never before been made public and were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

"Subsidized crop insurance premiums have become the primary farm program," said Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs. "And if one corporation farmed the entire Midwest, the government would pay over 60 percent of its crop insurance premiums on every acre."

"It's past time to put a cap on crop insurance premium subsidies and stop subsidizing mega farms to bid land away from smaller and beginning farmers, " Hassebrook added.

A copy of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) release, along with links to the analysis and supporting data, can be viewed and downloaded at http://static.ewg.org/pdf/2012cropinsurance.pdf .

According to the EWG analysis, U.S. taxpayers pick up an average of about 62 percent of the crop insurance premiums for farm businesses. Their share of these premiums has soared from $1.5 billion in 2002 to $7.4 billion in 2011. The subsidies go to large operators with no conservation strings attached to protect water and soil, no means testing, and no payment limit on how much a farm business can collect (excerpted from EWG release).

Among the facts disclosed in the EWG analysis:

• A single farm business in Florida received $1.9 million in subsidies for premiums to insure crops of tomatoes and peppers in five counties.
• A Minnesota farm business insuring corn and soybeans in eight counties received $1.7 million in federal crop insurance subsidies.
• In Texas, the 10 percent of farm businesses that received the greatest amount of insurance subsidies harvested 63 percent of all the crop insurance subsidies that went into the state last year.
• The 10 percent of North Dakota farm businesses that received the greatest amount of insurance subsidies took in 45 percent of the subsidies going to all farms in the state.