Ag Council Positions Include Farm Bill Complaints

John Boozman

State and federal legislators, regulators and policymakers need not wonder where the Agricultural Council of Arkansas stands on most any issue.

A comprehensive policy guide explains the organization’s positions and suggestions on ag-related matters from the new farm bill to a checkoff program for peanuts.

The council’s 27-page “2015 Resolutions” spells out in great detail various policies the group supports and the basis for that support.

On the most recent farm bill, the council takes several positions.

In understated but unmistakable terms, the council lays out a case for reinstating direct payments to the state’s row-crop farmers.

“The next Farm Bill should provide adequate levels of support to keep the American producers competitive in the global marketplace,” the resolution document reads.

The 2014 farm bill ended direct payments totaling $250 million annually to many Arkansas producers.

The legislation replaced those payments with pseudo-insurance programs, one protecting against lost yields and the other addressing market prices.

“The Ag Council supports direct payments and believes that if Congress insists on eliminating this program that remaining funds are redirected toward new risk management programs that work for producers in Arkansas and other parts of the Mid-South,” reads the council’s stated position. “While the 2014 Farm Bill attempted to provide new risk management programs, we believe they remain insufficient and should continue to be improved upon.”

The council’s position questions whether the new programs provide enough of a fiscal safety net:

“The 2014 Farm Bill provides such support; yet, we are still losing producers at an alarming rate.”

Among the council’s suggestions is a process to provide low-interest loans for capital investments.

The council strongly opposes payment caps or means-testing: “Such discrimination is unfair, inequitable and disrupts and defeats the purpose of any program designed to improve the economic position of agriculture.”

Arkansas’ senior senator, John Boozman, said the legislation is a compromise.

“At the end of the day, my colleagues and I were able to pass a bill that worked for all regions of the country,” Boozman said. “Although the farm bill is still being implemented, the bill provides a measure of certainty to Arkansas’s farmers. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I’ll be working to monitor and oversee farm bill implementation.”

Boozman cautioned against premature judgments on the legislation.

“At this point, it’s been less than a year since the farm bill was passed, and what challenges agricultural producers in Arkansas will face is dependent on many factors including the global market,” he said. “However, my colleagues and I were able to update some existing programs and to consolidate other programs, so a lot has changed. If a producer has not done so yet, they should consider visiting a USDA service center in their area to get assistance with the new programs.”

Unfair trade practices around the world are hurting the state’s farmers, the council says: “Until world trade practices are made fair and equitable, government support for agriculture will remain imperative. Even if the marketplace could yield satisfactory profits for agriculture, government regulations restricting farming practices can make it difficult for farmers to manage their businesses.”

Regarding the farm bill’s risk-mitigation components, the council encourages more widespread participation but also notes that crop insurance premiums must be affordable for the program to function as envisioned.

Also on the farm bill, the council notes that disaster payments should follow a more streamlined process and flow through the Farm Service Agency.

Elsewhere in the policy guide, the council calls for federal and state regulatory agencies to relax rules when possible and fast-track agriculture products, such as herbicides, for use.

The council supports nutritional programs for low-income and malnourished people in the United States and around the world, but the policy guide suggests funding those programs from outside agriculture funding.

The council is not silent on state issues, though many of the positions spelled out in the guide indicate fundamental support for existing governmental structures and organizations.

However, several policy suggestions are considerable.

The council urges faster permitting processes from the state Plant Board.

It lauds checkoff programs for the state’s major row crops and suggests exploring the possibility of such a program for the state’s burgeoning peanut crop. The council addresses dwindling cotton acreage by encouraging new varieties with “more stable yields”.

Other state-specific issues addressed include continuing a boll weevil eradication maintenance program, support for the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture and continued tax breaks for ag-related activities.

On a regional level, the council notes support for Delta Regional Authority and flood mitigation efforts along the Mississippi River from Missouri through Mississippi.

On focused areas, the council endorses:

• incentives for water conservation efforts, including reservoirs and recovering tailwater;

• continued support for ethanol, biodiesel and alternative energy source programs;

• eradicating feral hogs because of the damage they do to farmland.

The council opposes:

• increases in Social Security taxes;

• regulations that “pose a significant economic risk to the agriculture industry” not approved by Congress;

• “cap and trade” policies until all developed countries agree to abide by similar guidelines.