The American Soybean Association (ASA) repeated its concerns that farm legislation reported by the House Agriculture Committee last week does not provide equitable income support for soybean producers. ASA endorsed the continuation of full planting flexibility, and the decision to include soybeans and other oilseeds as program crops. However, the fixed payments, target prices, and payment yields included in the House bill could distort production decisions in favor of crops already in greater surplus.

“We are concerned that this policy would negatively affect soybean production at a time when domestic and world demand for soybeans is rapidly expanding,” said ASA President Bart Ruth of Rising City, Nebraska. “Soybean growers look forward to working with the Senate to develop a counter-cyclical income support program that is not tied to outdated bases and yields.”

On Friday, the House Agriculture Committee approved the “Agricultural Act of 2001” (H.R. 2646), which would replace the 1996 Farm Bill that is set to expire after 2002 crops. The House bill provides that producers of traditional program crops, like corn, receive their current loan rates, the target prices they had prior to 1996, and their 2002 Agricultural Marketing Transition Act (AMTA) payment. Producers would have a one-time option to update their base to the 1998-2001 period, and to include oilseed crops as part of their income support under the bill.

Oilseeds have never been classified as "program" crops, and are not eligible for AMTA payments to support farm income. In place of other benefits, oilseed producers have depended on the marketing loan program. They have received an oilseed payment as part of the Market Loss Assistance provided in the last two years, but it has been less on a per bushel basis than the Supplemental AMTA payments made to program crop producers.

ASA commended the Committee for reauthorizing non-recourse Marketing Assistance Loans and for restricting multi-year support to crops eligible to be planted on base acres. ASA also was pleased the Committee reauthorized the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and established a voluntary conservation incentive program. However, ASA opposed the decision to increase the cap on CRP to 40 million acres because additional funding should be targeted at improving conservation on lands currently used for agricultural production.

Regarding export programs, ASA had urged the committee to establish a minimum annual funding level of $43.25 million for the Foreign Market Development Program. The Committee approved $35 million a year through 2011. ASA had called for increased funding for the Food for Progress programs, and the Committee increased transportation and administration funding. ASA was pleased the Committee increased annual funding for the Market Access Program from $90 million to $200 million a year through 2011.

ASA also supports continuation and funding of the Research Initiative for Future Agricultural Systems, for which the Committee set a program level of $120 million per year through 2011. ASA had also urged authorization of a Biotechnology in Agricultural Trade program, to expand public and private sector efforts to educate and inform developing countries about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology. However, the Committee took no action on this proposal.