Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack today praised the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for withdrawing a proposed rule dealing with youth who work in agriculture. Last week, Loebsack met with the DOL to urge them to review Iowans' concerns that part of the proposal would limit activities children could perform on family farms and the effect the updates could have on student education programs in rural areas.

"Iowa farmers have a long and proud tradition of feeding the world," said Loebsack. "After hearing from concerned family farmers from across Iowa and the nation, I am pleased the Department of Labor has taken this step to help protect Iowa's way of life. When I met with the Department of Labor, I stressed the importance of better cooperation and outreach to the agriculture community and raised concerns about this rule. I applaud their commitment to working in a cooperative way to make our farms safer for kids."

In addition to meeting with the DOL, Loebsack wrote to the Secretary of Labor to urge the Department to ensure Iowa farmers and families had the opportunity to be heard regarding these proposals and urged the Department to reconsider the provisions relating to the parental exemption for children helping on the farm, which had already been withdrawn prior to today.

Thursday, April 26, 202

Senator Chuck Grassley, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, made the following statement after the committee passed "The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012."  Grassley is one of the only working family farmers in the United States Senate.  Grassley voted for the bill.

The Chairwoman's legislation that was debated in the Agriculture Committee contained the most important parts of Grassley's efforts to limit farm program payments to small- and mid-size farmers.  The legislation that cleared the committee will limit farm payments under the proposed new commodity program to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for married couples.  The bill also includes a provision to begin closing the loopholes that allow people who aren't involved in farming to collect farm payments.  The provision prevents non-farmers from being able to use the management loophole in current law.  A person who doesn't provide labor for the farming operation will still be able to qualify for farm payments by helping manage the farm.  However, there can only be one individual per farming operation qualifying for payments based solely on their providing management.  This provision will help the Department of Agriculture crack down on the general partnerships that have multiple non-farmers trying to qualify for farm payments by exploiting the management loophole.  This will end some of the most egregious abuses of the farm program.

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

"The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012" Mark-Up

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Thank you Madam Chairwoman.  I appreciate all the work you and Ranking Member Roberts have put into this farm bill so far.  And while we still have a ways to go in the process, we are headed in the right direction.

The farm bill is never an easy process, and it certainly isn't any easier under the current budget conditions.  We are dealing with a broad range of issues that are important to Americans, from conservation to nutrition.  It's important we get a bill done this year.

Many of the members of this committee have come together in supporting what many farmers say is the most important piece of the safety-net, crop insurance.  We have worked for 30 years to make it an effective risk management tool.  And farmers have skin in the game with crop insurance, and that's good policy.

There has been a lot of debate about the programs this committee is going to create to replace direct payments.  I still have reservations about a Title 1 revenue program, and its potential interaction with crop insurance.  But I understand the reality that there is fairly broad support for a revenue program.

I commend the Chair and Ranking Member on providing a high level of defensibility to the Chairwoman's mark.  Accepting my proposal for a $50,000 payment cap on the commodity program is crucial to ensure that we all can go to the Senate floor and defend this bill.

And I am pleased we are finally closing the loopholes in actively engaged.  My amendment, which was accepted into the modified mark, will help ensure farm payments go to farmers, not doctors, lawyers, and celebrities.

There is no justification for allowing nonfarmers to receive farm payments.  And that is particularly true in this current budget climate.  The payment limits reform in the Chairwoman's mark is something this committee should be very proud of.

I'm not going to ask for a vote today on my packer ban amendment, but I still want to say few things about it.

For too long, large meat packers have had an unfair advantage in the market place.  At some point, Congress has to address the fact that independent livestock producers are entitled to a level playing field.

One big step Congress could take to solve the competition problems is banning packer ownership of livestock.  As one packer executive once told me, packers own livestock so that when prices are high, they kill their own livestock, when prices are low, they buy from the farmer.

Banning packer ownership of livestock will help us ensure our livestock producers are able to compete in the marketplace.

Thank you Madam Chairwoman, and I look forward to moving an effective and defensible farm bill out of this committee.

-30-

The U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee tomorrow will begin marking up a five-year, $480 billion Farm Bill that introduces a destructive new "shallow loss" insurance program and falls far short of even the modest budget-cutting goals set out by the White House.

While the Senate bill does eliminate some wasteful subsidies, including $5 billion a year in direct payment subsidies that are sent to agricultural producers regardless of need, it projects to save only $26.4 billion over the next decade. That's less than both the $30 billion target set out by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and the $33 billion in cuts anticipated by President Barack Obama's budget proposal.

The bill actually increases by $3.2 billion over the next decade federal spending on the already $9 billion-a-year federal crop insurance program, which sees taxpayers pick up the tab for more than 60 percent of farmers' premiums. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office suggested that simply limiting the subsidy to $40,000 per producer would save $1 billion a year.

Rather than scale back the crop program, the Senate bill diverts most of the savings from eliminating direct payments into a new "shallow loss" insurance program that would compensate farmers if their income drops by as little as 5 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing direct payments would save $44.6 billion over the next decade, but the new "agricultural risk coverage" adds $28.9 billion to the budget. The losses the program would compensate for need not be from floods, droughts, frosts, or other weather-related catastrophes, but would instead largely be driven by market fluctuations in the prices of commodities.

The following statement from The Heartland Institute - a free-market think tank - may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Tammy Nash at tnash@heartland.org and 312/377-4000. After regular business hours, contact Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org and 312/731-9364.

"As currently structured, the federal crop insurance program is a boondoggle that costs taxpayers billions, offers lush corporate welfare both to big agribusiness and to insurers and insurance agents, and harms the environment by encouraging converting previously wild lands for agricultural development.

"Rather than introduce a costly new shallow loss subsidy, Congress should be encouraging risk-based pricing by the Risk Management Agency and phasing out crop insurance subsidies for all but the smallest and neediest of farmers."

R.J. Lehmann
Deputy Director, Center on Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
The Heartland Institute
rlehmann@heartland.org
202/525-5726