Expressing Sense of House Relating to Crop Insurance
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the chairman. I want to also commend him for his hard work on the farm bill.
Mr. Speaker, I know this has been a long and drawn-out process. Obviously, there are a lot of changes in agriculture, and also with the food stamp policy and with the economy. I know that this has been very difficult.
But I do want to rise in opposition to this sense of the House. As a farmer from Indiana who uses the crop insurance program, I understand a little bit about how this does affect farmers.
First of all, I would say that I think it is the right thing for us to do to eliminate the direct payment program. I think that is the right policy. That is in the bill, and I would continue to support it. I do think that we have some work to do on the crop insurance program, but this is not the answer. If we are trying to limit or put a means test on those whom you would define as the wealthiest farmers in the country, I don't believe this is the correct way to do it.
Look at agriculture across the country. You have corn farmers in the Midwest, soybean farmers in the Midwest. You have specialty crops, whether it is green beans, strawberries, carrots, or potatoes. All of these have different variables in the amount of income that comes in per acre. So whether it is 10 acres or whether it is 10,000 acres, I believe that the risk is still great to American farmers and producers.
Let's also remember that the premium support is not a cash subsidy to farmers. Farmers don't all of a sudden open the mailbox and get a check in the mail, with premium support, which I think is an appropriate system for our insurance programs that the Federal Government can participate in; but I don't believe that using the AGI is the correct way to measure whether farmers should be participating at certain levels or not.
If we really wanted to means test, we would use taxable income, where farmers would be reporting certain incomes. AGI can vary from crop to crop, from farm to farm, and so taxable income would make much more sense if we are going to talk about any sort of means testing.
Also, I believe that it undermines the important landlord-tenant relationship. I have specifically been involved in this. Whether it comes to direct payments, obviously, with the increased cost of farmland over the past several years, those relationships are very, very important and very valuable.
Almost half of the farmland in this country is rented. I know that on our farm we rent almost three-quarters of the land that we farm. If land owners can no longer afford crop insurance, they can simply transfer that risk to tenants through cash leases. You end up hurting the smaller farmers that rely on rented farmland.
So I don't believe that this particular idea is ready for us to move forward on. I think that it needs more work. I think that the intentions by the author are sincere in trying to lessen the burden on the American taxpayer; but, at the same time, let's not hurt the American farmer and create, basically, a system that can treat a farmer in the South differently than a farmer in the Midwest or a farmer in the North.
Let's go back and reevaluate the system. I think that if you talk to the farming industry, you talk to farmers, they will come to the table and will try to find a reasonable way.
At this time, I would oppose this sense of the House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source