Peterson Seeks 2012 Farm Bill Proposals

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) says his overall goal over the next 18 months is to "develop, with the money we have, the best risk-management safety net we can for the average-size commercial family farmer."

In an interview with Informa Economics, Peterson also said that he believes it is unfair to winter wheat producers and growers of some southern crops that farm bills often are signed into law long after those farmers have planted crops covered by the new policies. The clear implication is that Peterson may try to complete work on the 2012 farm bill in the fall of 2011, although, as he pointed out, "I have the Senate to work with."

Asked about the possibility of moving from the current set of farm programs and policies to a whole farm revenue assurance program, Peterson said, "That's something that has been brought up by people but I think it's going to be a tough sell" in spite of the fact that it would "lower our costs and it would lower farmers' costs."

The chairman pointed out that the average crop revenue election ( ACRE ) program held promise as an economic safety net for farmers, but that if it's going to survive, "it is going to be substantially changed from what it is." The reason, he says, is that the program as currently designed is too complicated and because ACRE needs to be based on economic conditions at the county rather that the state level.

Asked if going to a county level for ACRE would be cost prohibitive, Peterson said, "It is unless you significantly rearrange the programs." For one thing, he suggested, Congress could pay for a county-level ACRE option by moving away from direct payments which currently total $5.2 billion annually.

Shifting away from direct payment also would go a long way toward resolving the problem of farm program payment limits, he said. In the chairman's view, most of the controversy generated by payment limits comes about because of direct payments. "That's what generates all the opposition because we make payments to people that aren't farming [such as] people who own land [but] who live in New York City ."

The chairman made it clear that he rejects the idea that Congress should side with small farmers over large farmers, or vice-versa. "We have no idea how big a farm should be," said Peterson. "If you can make it work economically, and you're producing, we're for you. So the safety net should follow production. If you produce a lot more, you're going to get more of the safety net, you have more risk. We shouldn't be artificially interfering in that."