WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, a senior member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry, today delivered the following remarks to the Kansas Farm Bureau’s Annual County President’s meeting in Washington D.C.:

“This week we’re working through the budget, dealing with BSE, Japan, the WTO, and amongst that we’re starting to talk seriously about the next farm bill.

“Before we go any further, I am pleased that the Budget Committee took our advice, and did not include cuts to agriculture programs. This is an important hurdle. I am committed to reducing the federal deficit, and sacrifices have to be made. However, I don’t like the idea of farm country having to shoulder the an unfair part of this effort.

“Folks, I don’t have to tell you that we’ve got our work cut out for us. From higher input costs for fuel, fertilizer, international trade commitments, and urbanization there are a variety of challenges before us. I’m not up here to preach doom and gloom. We’ve weathered storms in the past – and we’ll ride this one out, we just have to work together.

“One of the biggest challenges we face is the future of agriculture. I don’t have to tell you that it’s difficult to convince young people to come back and run the farm. We need to create a reason for our young people to return to the farm instead of going to work in Kansas City, Denver, Dallas or some other large city. We need to convince young people farming is a viable career option.

“One of the biggest threats to the future is the growing cost of staying in the business. Many face the decision of getting out of the business now while it still has some value and equity rather than to continue battling the high fuel and fertilizer costs.

“I am pleased with the Energy Bill that we passed last year. This is a long-needed, important first step towards decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. It will help in the long-term stability and reduction of prices for farm fuel, fertilizer and irrigation. And, it is important for our national security. The new energy bill encourages the use of alternative energy – such as ethanol, hydrogen and biodiesel. It creates incentives and tax credits for producers and consumers of alternative fuels.

“Kansas plays a unique role in ethanol and wind energy. Kansas is home to seven operating ethanol plants, with several more coming on line soon. As interest in wind energy grows, we need to look to communities like Montezuma, Beaumont and Spearville to utilize these alternative energy resources that decrease the cost of fuel and build local economies.

“I support exploration for oil and natural gas across the United States. I support exploration on a small portion of about 2,000 acres in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I also support drilling for natural gas in the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico. In this area alone, we have access to 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that is readily accessible and could hit the marketplace soon. That’s enough gas to heat 5 million homes for 15 years.

“However, decreasing our dependence on foreign fuels is only part of the solution. We also have to think constructively about the next farm bill. I am confident that we’ll be able get a solid and predictable bill. But, we won’t be successful unless we start thinking outside of the box and face reality.

“There are a whole host of factors that will come into play over the next two years.

“The first of these, the Doha Round trade negotiations, has already come into play. In December at the Hong Kong Ministerial, Rob Portman and the posse over at USTR agreed to work with the EU and the other major economies to finalize goals for agriculture by April 30.

“This comes in addition to the changes we’ve had to make to our cotton program as a result of the Brazil cotton case. We’ve gotten rid of the controversial Step-2, and we have taken steps to limit the terms of our export credit program. And we’ve made these changes in advance of any substantiative changes in the EU CAP policy and reform to State Trading Enterprises (STE’s).

“Two of the biggest decisions that must be made are the impact these discussions will have on our food aid donations and the classifications of what will be considered either green, blue, or amber box payments. These decisions could go a long way in determining what our next farm program looks like. I have long said that the U.S. should be willing to look at and consider changes to our farm programs. But, we should not unilaterally disarm.

“We must also anticipate future challenges to our programs from international trading partners. We cannot wait around for another Brazil Cotton Case. In Hong Kong we agreed to mutually eliminate export subsidies by 2013. But, we will not be able to move forward in negotiations unless other countries are willing to make real reductions in their spending on agriculture programs and increase access to their markets.

“I am also concerned with efforts by the EU and others to make US food aid programs cash donations instead of commodity donations. I know some view these programs as commodity dumps for low-priced U.S. grain. But that is simply not the case. In many instances, the U.S. programs are the difference between many people throughout the world, especially Muslim nations, having a meal each day. Often, without these programs, U.S. programs are the only alternative to schools funded by radical extremists where they teach hatred of America and everything we stand for.

“Another factor affecting the Farm Bill will be this Administration. Secretary Johanns has nearly completed his wagon tongue listening tour across farm country. During the tour, he would stop at places like the Kansas State Fair to hear ideas and concerns from producers about the next Farm Bill. While it is still early to know whether USDA will offer their own plan for the next Farm Bill – you can be certain that they will have some opinions on the matter.

“The other major driving force in the Farm Bill debate will be the budget. We may actually be looking at declining money in 2007 as we move forward on trying to balance the budget. In short, we’re not going to have the money like we did in 2002. This means that policy, not dollar signs, matters most.

“Now, more than ever, it is important that all we all work together to come up with common sense policies that can be sold in Congress. I know that many of you are already part of this effort. I am pleased with the efforts of the different commodity groups in the state joining arms with to discuss the next farm bill. I look forward to hearing more about the priorities and recommendations of this farm bill posse.

“And while we’re at it, I might offer a few observations as we inch closer to the next bill.

“In 2002, I was waving the warning flag as we focused too much on money and not enough on policy. Particularly the counter-cyclical system based on price. This system doesn’t do much good if you suffer a complete crop loss, while prices were above target levels.

“What I’m saying is we need to take another look at direct payments – they should be bigger. Not simply to deal with the difficulties of the counter-cyclical, but also in light of the attacks on our farm programs within the WTO. Direct payments are much less controversial and maybe an option for continuing our farm programs in the international market.

“And, with this discussion, we will face the inevitable debate regarding limits on payments to producers. This is a major change to the existing Farm Bill and should only be considered within the context of the next Farm Bill debate.

“The recent effort to include a reduction in payment limits during budget reconciliation didn’t pass muster. But, don’t be fooled the debate on this issue long from over. There are many in Congress that have reservations about continued spending on farm programs.

“Another major decision that needs to be made is the proper balance between commodity and conservation programs. It is a constant struggle in Congress as to whether a majority of the funds should go to commodity or conservation programs. We really need to think about how these programs fit together. Conservation programs are receiving more interest and attention from Congress in every Farm Bill, and I expect that to continue into 2007.

“I also encourage you to think about the investments we can make through agricultural research and rural development. I constantly hear about the need to continue to improve our crop varieties and disease resistance along with the need for an improved rural infrastructure.

“Yet, in every Farm Bill I’ve ever been involved in, there has always been a point where the farm and commodity organizations and many of us in the Congress have said, ‘Take the money out of research and rural development and put it into the commodity programs.’”

“There is no doubt that the next Farm Bill will not be an easy task. It never is. But, I am confident that if we can work together – that we can get a good, solid bill in 2007. We will persevere.”