The Ruminant is not a happy cow.

The Farm Bill crafted by the House Agriculture Committee and mistakenly embraced by Democratic leaders would provide little new funding to protect California's grasslands from development.

That puts us in a bad mooooooood.

Grasslands are under siege. In the last 20 years, more than 14 million acres of pasture — or roughly 10 percent of all pasture in America – have been converted to grow corn or condos. California's grasslands are especially threatened by pressure from development.

But, the "reform" Farm Bill supported by some Californians would provide less than $300 million to protect grasslands from development.

By contrast, the Farm Bill that will come to the floor this week would provide more than $30 billion to subsidize large commercial farmers in the Midwest during a time of record prices and net worth.

The Ruminant would have to be smoking grass to support a Farm Bill that provides unlimited subsidies to 99.9 percent of America's farmers and that would continue to reject thousands of farmers and ranchers offering to protect grasslands. 

Seems like some "leaders" are more interested in cash cows that California cows.  Fortunately, House reformers will offer amendments to increase funding for the Grasslands Reserve Program.

That makes California cows happy.

This week, 348 members of the House of Representatives will have a clear choice:

• to vote for family farmers, taxpayers, hungry Americans, economic prosperity and the environment, or
• to vote for unlimited subsidies for large commercial farmers, to raise taxes, to deny food assistance to the hungry, to invite trade wars, and to turn away farmers offering to help the environment.

It's that simple. Because that's how many legislators would better serve their districts by voting for the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment.

The choice could not be clearer.

The Farm Bill crafted by the House Agriculture Committee and mistakenly supported by some Democratic leaders would:

• perpeuate a farm subsidy system that allows the largest commercial farmers to collect two-thirds of all subsidies, driving their small neighbors out of business. 
• help feed some hungry Americans but tax other Americans to pay the cost.
• expand subsidies that increase hunger in developing nations and that violate our trade agreements, inviting new trade barriers.
• provide little new funding to reward farmily farmers offering to share the cost of a healthier environment.

By contrast, the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to be offered by a group of House reformers and supported by business, religious, anti-hunger, environmental, anti-tax and health leaders would:

• provide a safety net that helps family farmers, not corporate farmers.
• provide $6 billion over five years to combat hunger — without taxing other Americans.
• Bring our farm subsidies into compliance with our trade obligations and reduce hunger overseas.
• Reward — not reject — farmers when they offer to share the cost of a healthier environment.

Legislators have a clear choice.

For most, a vote against the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will be a vote against their the family farmers, taxpayers, the hungry, and the environment.

We need a farm safety net as modern and as entreprenuerial as our farmers. 

A farm safety net crafted in response to the Dust Bowl and the Depression is no longer needed when farmers have not only joined the middle class but have also joined the investor class.

Farmers are enjoying record prices and have average household income of more than $80,000 a year — or nearly twice as much as the average American household. The large commercial farmers who collect the lion's share of farm subsidies have farm household income greater than $270,000 a year. According to USDA, the net worth of our largest commercial farms is, on average, more than $2.2 million.

Unfortunately, the safety net proposed by the House Agriculture Committee ignores these and other important developments, such as a federal ethanol mandate that has caused corn and soybean prices to soar. 

Spending $26 billion on "direct" subsidy payments — which are linked to past production, not market prices – provides many large commercial farmers a security blanket, not a safety net.  And, linking farm subsidies to rising and falling prices ignores the impacts of droughts, floods and other events that reduce yields.

Helping farmers when they need help — and reducing second helpings from the federal farm trough such as direct payments — should be the foundation of farm policy.

But, the proposal developed by the House Agriculture Committee and embraced by many Democratic leaders would provide unlimited subsidies to 99.9 percent of America's farmers, regardless of need. The means test proposed by Chairman Peterson would deny subsidies to roughly 3,000 farm owners and operators — out of 1.6 million.

What's more, the Peterson proposal would renew "direct" subsidy payments — which were created to wean farmers off subsidies but have been an entitlement  — for a third time and would raise price supports for many program crops.

The safety net proposed by House reformers like Reps. Ron Kind and Paul Ryan, by contrast, would provide farmers a safety net, not a security blanket.

Their Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform the farm safety net to be linked to farm revenue, not prices, and to set price supports below the market average. Their proposal, developed by USDA and endorsed in concept by many farm organizations would help farmers when they need help in times of low prices and low yields. Price supports would be subject an annual cap of $250,000 per person, and farmers with net farm income of more than $250,00 would be denied any support.

The centerpiece of the Fairness amendment is gradually reducing direct payments.

As the Ruminant has noted before, direct payments were supposed to be the methadone, not the heroin. Under the Fairness amendment, direct payments would be reduced by $10.4 billion over five years to help meet urgent priorities, including more funds for food stamps, conservation, and rural development. Americans represented by nearly 350 members of the House would fare better of the Fairness amendment is adopted.

Most of our farmers are ask comfortable with a spreadsheet as they are spreading manure. We a safety net as modern as they are.

The House Agriculture Committee would allow 99.9% of America's farmers to collect unlimited subsidies and turn away two of of three family farmers offering to share the cost of a healthy environment.

Is that reform?

The Washington Post doesn't think so.

Unless we reward farmers when they offer to share the cost of stewardship, we can't hope to meet some of the nation's biggest environmental challenges. Unfortunately, if the House fails to amend the Farm Bill that will be brought to the floor this week, two out of three farmers will still be turned away when they offer to share the cost of a healthier environment with USDA because of our misplaced spending priorities.

Helping farmers when they help the environment would also help many more farmers and states receive a fair share of farm and food spending.

Current farm and food policies are unfair

Less than 40 percent of farmers grow crops that are eligible for subsidies, and the largest 10 percent of those farmers receive two-thirds of the payments. Overall, most farmers receive no benefit or less than $125 a month from farm subsidies that cost more than $20 billion in some years. Because payments are concentrated in so few hands, half of all farm spending flows to just 20 congressional districts.

This week, the House will debate the 2007 Farm Bill and consider the "Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment," which would reduce and restructure subsidies to help reward — not reject — farmers when they take steps to help the environment. In particular, the amendment will provide a better safety net for family farmers and will do much more to help meet our hunger, health and environmental challenges.

Real reformers will be fair to family farmers and support the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment.

When Speaker Nancy Pelosi accepted the gavel in January, she called for the creation of a new America. "The American people also spoke clearly for a new direction here at home – they desire a new vision, a new America, built on the values that made our country great," including fairness.

Unfortunately, the Farm Bill delivered by the House Agriculture Committee is far less than fair:

• More than half of all farm spending will continue to flow to just 20 congressional districts.
• Millions of hungry kids will continue to go to bed without knowing the source of their next meal.
• Thousands of family farmers offering to share the cost of a healthy environment will continue to be turned away.
• Thousands more family farmers will be driven off the land by larger neighbors now able to collect unlimited farm subsidies.
• Subsistence farmers in the developing world will be pushed closer to ruin by subsidies that drive down global cotton prices.
• Black and Latino farmers will continue to lack adequate access to farm programs from which they have long been excluded.
• Fruit and vegetable farmers will receive a small slice — but not nearly a fair share — of federal farm spending pie.

Fortunately, a bipartisan group of legislators will offer an amendment this week to bring fairness to farm and food policies.

The "Fairness in Farm and Food Policy" amendment will reduce and restructure depression-era subsidies to help more farmers and to help meet America's urgent health, hunger and environmental priorities.

In particular, the amendment replaces depression-era price guarantees with a modern revenue-based safety net developed by USDA experts that better protects family farmers from declines in crop prices and crop yields.

The amendment also denies subsidies to large commercial farmers with average annual adjusted gross income greater than $500,000 and limit annual subsidies to $250,000 per person.

Finally, the amendment gradually reduces direct payments, which were created to wean farmers off subsidies in 1996 but which have become an entitlement program that will cost more than $26 billion over the next five years. The "fairness" floor amendment will include major new investments, including:

More Domestic Hunger Assistance – The fairness amendment will increase hunger assistance by at least $5.4 billion over five years to feed more deserving people, especially hungry children and seniors.

Reward Stewardship – The fairness amendment increases voluntary stewardship incentives by $3 billion over five years above the Committee's proposal, including more funds to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat and for the preservation of open spaces.

Promote Healthy Food Choices – The amendment increases by $1.2 billion over five years resources to fund healthy food choices, including more fresh fruits and vegetables for school children and more farmers markets.

Support For Our Fruit and Vegetable Producers – To fairly address the needs of all producers, the amendment expands programs to more equitably support our fruit and vegetable producers by $1 billion above the Agriculture Committee’s investment, including research and grant programs.

Support For Our Minority Farmers – The amendment provides $500 million over five years above the Committee’s proposal and makes overdue changes which will make USDA programs more accessible to minority farmers.

Boosts Rural Prosperity – The amendment will boost rural prosperity by providing $200 million more than the Committee invests over five years in grants and loans for the development of new rural enterprises.

Reduces the Deficit by $10 billion – The amendment would reduce the deficit by $2 billion over five years and by roughly $10 billion over 10 years.

Expands School Lunches Overseas – The amendment increases by $1.1 billion over five years the McGovern-Dole program to provide school lunches to hungry children in developing countries.

By denying subsidies to some millionaires but allowing unlimited subsidies to those farm families annually earning less than $2 million, the House Agriculture Committee took one step forward and two steps back.

Farm and food policies that are fair — and that measure up to the Speaker's vision for a new America — would not provide unlimited farm subsidies to wealthy farmers and deny food and farm assistance to the hungry and to small family farmers. Farm and food policies that are fair would restucture and reduce our outdated subsidies — especially direct payments linked to past production — to help meet America's urgent hunger, health and environmental priorities.

The Farm Bill passed yesterday by the House Agriculture Committee falls far short of what's needed to reward farmers and ranchers when they take steps to the help the environment.

Farmers manage 70 percent of the landscape, so we can't solve some of the nation's biggest environmental challenges unless we reward — not reject — farmers when they offer to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, USDA would continue to turn away two-out-of-three farmers when they offer to share the cost of a healthier environment.

The bill would increase funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs by just $3 billion over five years — far less than proposals by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and more than 220 members of House.

The conservation provisions of the Peterson package is even less ambitious than the proposal by the Bush Administration!

In particular, the proposal shortchanges the Grasslands Reserve Program, a voluntary program designed to protect our grasslands from conversion to corn and condos.

Rising corn prices driven by the federal ethanol mandate have made it economically feasible to convert pasture and rangelands to grow corn, posing major new environmental challenges. The loss of grasslands will threaten hundreds of species and increase the use of water and farm chemicals. The "marginal" lands that are being converted in response to the ethanol mandate are far more likely to leak fertilizers into our rivers and bays and to host endangered species.

Expansion of the GRP would have been the thoughlful response to one of the unintended consequences of the biofuels boom. Unfortunately, the committee's proposal would provide only $48 million a year for the GRP, which has the largest program backlog in the nation.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made expansion of the Grasslands Reserve Program a personal priority. Expanding the program to protect 5 million acres would cost about $200 million a year — which could be easily generated by reducing the direct payment rate on corn by just two cents a bushel.

As the Ruminant has noted, direct payments were created to wean farmers off subsidies and are hard to justify in a time of high crop prices. But, the Committee would sign up farmers for these "transition" payments for a third time.

Speaker Pelosi should work with Chairman Peterson to make needed cuts to direct payments to address the nation's environmental challenges before the Farm Bill reaches the floor next week.

By including a means test in the 2007 Farm Bill, the House Agriculture Committee has started an important and long overdue debate over which farmers are truly in need of federal subsidies.

The income of an average farm household in almost twice that of an average American household, and the large commercial farms that collect the lion's share of farm subsidies report household incomes greater than $250,000 a year.

What's more, every other measure of farm wealth — net farm income, net cash returns, debt-to-equity ratios — show that most farmers have not only joined the middle class but have joined the investor class. Even many small farmers report net worth far greater than most Americans.

According to USDA:

• Average farm household income is more than $80,000 a year.
• Average farm household income for our largest commercial farms is more than $270,000 a year.
• The net worth of our largest commercial farms is, on average, more than $2.2 million.
• Farm household net worth is roughly five times as great as the net worth of the average American household.
• More than 80 percent of farm household income comes from sources of the farm.

Undre current law, farmers with adjusted gross income greater than $2.5 million can not collect subsidies. To calculate "adjusted" gross income, farmers are permitted to deduct more than 20 categories of expenses, ranging from farm expenses to health insurance costs. The Bush Administration has proposed to deny subsidies to a farmer whose average AGI is more than $200,000.

Yesterday, the House Agriculture Committee proposed to deny subsidies to a farmer with an average AGI of more than $1 million and to a farmer with an average AGI of more than $500,000 — unless two-thirds of his income comes from farming.

It's important to be sure that all income is captured by a means test, including investment income from ethanol plants and other rural enterprises. Excluding investment income would be like measuring the wealth of Warren Buffett without considering all those Berkshire Hathaway stocks.

Committee Chairman Collin Peterson deserves credit for putting means testing back on the table. Now, the Committee and the Congress need to go much further if they hope to avoid a brutal battle on the House floor.

In particular, the Committee must work with Speaker Pelosi and House reformers to craft a means test that fairly reflects the means of our largest and most successful farmers. What's more, payment limits should be lowered and loopholes should be eliminated once and for all. And, in light of growing wealth in agriculture, the Commitee should work with House reformers to craft risk management tools that allow farmers to manage the ups and downs of agriculture on their own.

Our farmers are as comfortable with a spreadsheet as they are spreading manure. We need a farm "safety net" as modern and entrepreneurial as they are.

Members of the House Agriculture Committee have a chance to vote for their farmers — and for the environment — when the Committee completes its work on the 2007 Farm Bill this week.

It turns out that farmers and ranchers represented by slightly more than half of the legislators who serve on the House Agriculture Committee would benefit if Congress shifted $10 billion or more from "direct" subsidy payments to conservation programs that share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat.

In particular, farmers and ranchers represented by Reps. Bonner, Everett, Rogers, Baca, Cardoza, McCarthy, Salazar, Mahoney, Marshall, Scott, Gillibrand, Kuhl, Etheridge, Foxx, Hayes, McInteyre, Schmidt, Space, Holden, Davis, Conaway, Cuellar, Goodlatte and Kagen would be eligible for more USDA funds if Congress cut "direct" subsidy payments to fund USDA conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

Overall, farmers and ranchers represented by 24 members of the House Agriculture Committee would fare better — one more than is needed for a majority.

According to analysis by Environmental Defense, the biggest winners would be farmers represented by Rep. John Salazar (D-CO), a seed potato farmer who has been a leader in efforts to better serve fruit and vegetable producers. His farmers would be annually eligible for more than $30 million in additional USDA funding if legislators shifted some subsidies to help address environmental challenges in Colorado.

Other big winners include farmers represented by Reps. Terry Everett (R-AL), Bob Etheridge (D-NC), and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who is the committee's senior Republican. Farmers in all three districts are eager to address environmental challenges — including many of the challenges posed by animal waste — but are routinely turned away when they seek USDA conservation assistance.

As the Ruminant has noted, direct payments — which are not linked to market conditions but to past production — will cost about $26 billion over the next five years. Once created to wean farmers off subsidies, direct payments have now become an entitlement that the Agriculture Committee has so far refused to reduce — despite soaring prices for some commodities.

There has never been a better time to reduce and restructure our subsidies. Reducing direct payments forn corn farmers by just 3 cents a bushel would produce more than $1 billion in savings over five years — or enough funds to protect 5 million acres of grasslands from conversion to corn or condos — but would cost most corn farmers less than $2 a day.

Many legislators who choose to vote for the status quo this week will be voting against the needs of their farmers — and the environment. The Ruminant will remember. So will their farmers.

Freshmen members of Congress represent lots of farmers — but most of them do not grow corn.

But, the Washington Post perpetuated some long-held myths by presuming that Congressional leaders are worried that farm and food policy reforms will hurt freshmen legislators representing corn and soybean farmers.

In fact, many more freshmen members of Congress represent fruit and vegetable producers than represent the producers of subsidized crops.

In particular, districts represented by Reps. McNerney (D-CA), Mahoney (D-FL), Giffords (D-AZ), McCarthy (R-CA), Sali (R-ID), Kagan (D-WI), Carney (D-PA), Arcuri (D-NY), Hall (D-NY), Gillbrand (D-NY), Sestak (D-PA), Murphy (D-PA), Heller (R-NV), Buchanan (R-FL), Shuler (D-NC), Welch (D-VT), Hodes (D-NH), Shea-Porter (D-NH) and others are dominated by farmers who do not grow subsidized crops but are seeking a larger share of federal farm spending pie.

In fact, as the Ruminant reported, farmers represented by 36 of 55 freshmen members of the House would be better served if Congress cut subsidies to help pay for conservation programs. In addition, farmers in 12 districts would see little or no change.

Farmers in only seven districts in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana would receive modestly less federal support if Congress cut "direct" payments to share the cost of clean water — mostly corn and soybean farmers who have seen farm prices double in recent years in response to the ethanol mandate.

The Post points to Rep. Zack Space, who represents part of eastern Ohio, as an example of a Congressman who may pay a political price for subsidy reform. Certainly, Space thinks that his farmers are happy with the status quo.

But, not all of his Rep. Space's farmers are well served by farm subsidies that flow to a handful of larger commercial farmers.

Most of the farmers in eastern Ohio do not crops that are eligible for costly, depression-era subsidies. Most of his farmers grow fruits and vegetables, raise livestock, or produce trees. There are certainly corn and bean farmers, but most collect about $70 a month in direct payments.

Of course, a few very large commercial farmers in Ohio's 18th district collect almost $3,000 a month in direct payments – driving up the price of land and squeezing their smaller neighbors out of business.

Those must be farmers Space considers "generally satisifed."

Here's the thing: cutting direct payment to fund voluntary USDA conservation programs would actually help more farmers and bring more resources to the 18th district. Cutting direct payments by $10 billion over five years, for example, would increase farm spending by almost $5 million in Space's district and allow many more farmers to participate in conservation programs like EQIP.

But, such cuts — which could be achieved through reasonable payment limits — would reduce direct payments for the very large, very successful commercial farmers who just saw their profits double and who, according to Space, are "generally satisfied."

Most of the farmers represented by Jerry McNerney, Heath Shuler and Tim Mahoney are generally "not satisfied."

Farmers in their districts do not grow subsidized crops — they take their cues from the marker, not from the government — but they do want more support USDA, including more funds for research, rural development and conservation.

In combination, all of the farmers represented by Tim Mahoney — whose central Florida district is dominated by fruit and vegetable producers — collected about $380,000 between 2003 and 2005.

A single farmer in Space's district collected almost as much during the same period.

Taken together, farmers in Space's district collected more than $52 million between 2003 and 2005. No wonder they are satisfied.

The Ruminant knows that congressional leaders are as worried about freshmen like Mahoney, McNerney and Shuler as they are about Space.

But, we worry that leaders will forget that fruit and vegetable farmers represent half of agriculture — and dominate the districts represented by freshmen.

We also worry that leaders will forget that rural voters overwhelmingly support reasonable subsidy reforms like payment limits and that rural voters are for more concerned about America's hunger, health, energy, and environmental challenges than they are about a few very large "satisfied" farmers.

The Ruminant doesn't spend much time in the kitchen.

But when we heard House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson warn that writing the Farm Bill on the floor of the House would be a "recipe for chaos," we decided to help legislators by creating our own farm subsidy "calculator."

It's sort of a like a calorie counter for large subsidized farmers with household incomes greater than $200,000 a year. Who is in better need of a diet?

Here's how it works: just change the direct payment rate for any of the subsidized crops that account more than half of all farm spending and — presto!! — the calculator tells you how much money could instead be used to feed hunrgry kids, help the environment, promote healthy food choices, or expand the production of energy on farms.

Consider this tasty recipe.

Reducing the direct payment rate for corn from 28 cents a bushel to 20 cents a bushel would produce nearly $3 billion in savings but would reduce the expected direct payment for most corn farmers by about $50 a month.

As the Ruminant has noted, "direct" payments were created to wean farmers off subsidies but have now become a sort of entitlement. Some farmers don't like the payments because they drive up the cost of renting and buying land, squeezing out smaller producers.

Now, thanks to the federal ethanol mandate, corn and soybean prices have roughly doubled in the last few years. So, there's no better time to cook up a new Farm Bill that will help meet America's hunger, health, energy and environmental priorities.