The American Soybean Association (ASA) told Members of the House Agriculture Committee today that the draft Farm Bill Concept Paper that they are considering is not equitable to oilseed growers. ASA President Tony Anderson testified before the Committee on behalf of soybean growers as well as the National Sunflower Association and the U.S. Canola Association.

The concept paper recommends oilseed loan rates be reduced, and establishes target prices and fixed payments at levels that do not reflect the value or historical price relationship of oilseeds to “program” crops. However, the paper proposes that program crops, like corn, receive their current loan rates, the target prices they had prior to the last Farm Bill and the 2002 Agricultural Marketing Transition Act (AMTA) program payment.

“The proposal forces producers to choose between base periods that lock in unequal benefits, resulting in sharply reduced income protection for most oilseed producers and the likelihood of increased, base-driven production of program crops,” said Anderson, a soybean grower from Mount Sterling, Ohio. “We ask the Committee to consider approaches, such as counter-cyclical income supports, that are equitable.”

Oilseeds have never been classified as “program” crops and are not eligible for payments under the AMTA 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 several recommendations in its Farm Bill Concept Paper. For example, ASA supports maintaining the non-recourse Marketing Assistance Loans as well as the decision to restrict multi-year support to crops eligible to be planted on base acres. ASA also endorsed the level of funding proposed for the Emergency Food Assistance Program and various national rural development programs addressed in the Concept Paper.

Regarding conservation programs, ASA encouraged the reauthorization of a variety of programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the establishment of a voluntary conservation incentive program. It does not support raising the cap on the CRP to 40 million acres because additional conservation funding should be targeted at improving conservation on lands currently used for agricultural production.

Regarding export efforts, ASA urged the committee to establish a minimum annual funding level of $43.25 million for the Foreign Market Development Program and increased funding for the Food for Progress programs. ASA called on the Committee to increase annual funding for the Market Access Program to $200 million rather than the $180 proposed in the Concept Paper.

Oilseed producer organizations also supported continuation and funding of the Research Initiative for Future Agricultural Systems. ASA urged authorization of a Biotechnology in Agricultural Trade program, to expand public and private sector efforts to educate and inform the populations and governments of developing countries about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology.