CapitalPress.com
6
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
November 23, 2018
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O ur V iew
New farm bill comes down to a SNAP
F
arm groups are anxious to
have a farm bill passed by
the lame duck Congress.
That still seems possible, but a
contentious difference between
the House and Senate versions
of the bill regarding nutrition
programs seems to be one of the
big holdups.
It’s no surprise to us that it is
the welfare program that is again
holding up the farm bill.
The 2014 Farm Bill expired
at the end of September. Both
House and Senate agriculture
committee leaders had vowed that
new legislation would be passed
in time to replace it.
The House passed its bill June
21, and the Senate followed a
week later with its own version.
That left more than three months
for a conference committee to
work out the differences and get a
bill passed before the deadline.
There are some major
differences between the bills. The
Senate bill, for example, sought
The U.S. Capitol
to limit the amount of payments
available to any one farming
operation. The House bill, on the
other hand, made it easier for
more family members within a
farming operation to qualify for
payments.
But one of the most
contentious differences is
in provisions regarding the
Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, the $70
billion-a-year welfare program
formerly known as food stamps.
The House bill tightens
work requirements for SNAP
recipients, forcing most adult
recipients under 60 who don’t
have children under 6 years old to
prove each month that they have
worked or participated in a work
program or are exempt. It passed
with only a two-vote margin and
without a single Democrat vote.
No such provisions were
included in the Senate version.
Republicans on the Senate
O ur V iew
Give thanks for the
miracle of agriculture
T
he subject of food always sparks a lively
conversation these days. Everyone seems to
have a unique perspective on what’s right —
and wrong — with our food. No matter how food
is produced, someone will have something to say
about it: How and where it’s grown and what’s
in it.
And that’s fine. The marketplace ultimately
sorts that out.
But one thing you never hear is that there’s
not enough food. Think about it. Every day, 326
million people in the U.S. eat three meals. That’s
356,970,000,000 meals this year. And last year,
and the year before, going back as far as anyone
can remember. Any hunger that has ever existed
in the U.S. was not because of a lack of food
production.
Often a discussion about agriculture circles
around to the “food system.” We’re not real sure
what that is. In our eyes, food is not produced by
a “system,” it’s produced by farmers and ranchers,
2.1 million of them, who get out of bed every
morning to work the land and tend the herds and
flocks. Together, they cultivate and graze 922
million acres to raise about $400 billion worth of
crops and livestock each year.
An interesting factoid is that the amount of food
produced in the U.S. has gone up as the number of
farmers and ranchers has gone down.
That’s not a “system.” That’s a miracle. Yet
everyone seems to take the bounty for granted.
Most of the public still believes food comes from
the supermarket or that Old MacDonald grew it.
The fact is, most farmers and ranchers devote
their lives to producing food and fiber. They use
technology, the latest research and innovative
production techniques to do it. Most of them grew
up on a farm or ranch. They learned farming not
only at a land-grant college or university but from
their parents and grandparents.
That’s why there’s more to farming than
meets the eye. Yes, it’s a business, but it’s also a
way of life that has been passed down through
generations, all the way back before the founding
of the republic. In fact, farming can be traced back
12,000 years to the beginnings of civilization.
This week Americans celebrated with a day of
thanks. For family, for shelter and for the many
blessings we enjoy in this great nation.
We all have much for which to be grateful.
Among them is the fact that we in the U.S. are
the beneficiaries of a miracle. We live in a land of
plenty, and we have farmers and ranchers to thank
for it.
Letters policy
Write to us: Capital Press welcomes letters to the editor on issues of interest to farmers, ranchers and the agribusiness community.
Letters policy: Please limit letters to 300 words and include your home address and a daytime telephone number with your submission.
Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commentary
submissions should also include a photograph of the author.
Send letters via email to opinions@capitalpress.com. Emailed letters are preferred and require less time to process, which could result in quicker
publication. Letters also may be sent to P.O. Box 2048, Salem, OR 97308; or by fax to 503-370-4383.
Ag Committee say the work
requirement is a nonstarter in
the Senate, where 60 votes are
required to close debate and bring
a measure to a vote.
So once again, it appears the
nutrition program has brought
progress on the bill to a halt.
Decades ago Congress decided
to put food stamp and school
lunch funding into the farm bill.
The thinking goes that urban
legislators don’t really care much
for commodity subsidies, crop
insurance and dairy pricing,
but they do care about nutrition
programs that impact their
constituents. Lumped in with
the welfare programs urban
legislators do care about, the farm
expenditures seem like small
potatoes that aren’t worth a fight.
We admit there was probably
some logic behind that thinking.
But in practice, the thing that
was supposed to grease the skids
seems to always throw the farm
bill off the rails.
How — and why — to
save the family farm
By DOUG KRAHMER
and BRUCE TAYLOR
For the Capital Press
Oregon farmers and
ranchers face many chal-
lenges. In a global economy,
they often cannot be assured
of a decent price. In a chang-
ing climate, they might get
too much or too little water
in any given year. Added to
that, they often face uncer-
tainty over how their land
will pass to the next gener-
ation.
Farmland in Oregon is
changing hands — fast.
Two-thirds of Oregon’s
agricultural lands — more
than 10 million acres — will
change hands in the next 20
years, according to research
from Oregon State Univer-
sity. The same research tells
us that up to 80 percent of
Oregon farmers and ranch-
ers may not have a succes-
sion plan.
In this transition, produc-
tive agricultural lands may
be may be subdivided into
parcels too small to keep in
production. Or they may be
converted to non-farm uses
like residential or commer-
cial development. Oregon
won’t just be losing agricul-
tural land — we will be los-
ing our farming heritage and
important habitat for native
fish and wildlife.
All of that’s bad for farm-
ers, bad for our economy,
bad for our environment,
and bad for quality of life.
Last year, a bipartisan
coalition in the legislature
came together to solve this
problem by creating the Or-
egon Agricultural Heritage
Program to help farmers
and rural communities plan
for the future. The new pro-
gram aims to provide grants
that help Oregon’s farmers
and ranchers plan for gen-
erational succession, and
protect or enhance the ag-
ricultural and conservation
values of their land.
The next step happened
10 months ago, when the Or-
egon Agricultural Heritage
Commission was formed —
made up of 12 leaders rep-
resenting Oregon’s farming,
ranching, conservation and
tribal communities. Since
then, they have volunteered
hundreds of hours develop-
ing the program.
But one of the key pieces
of this puzzle is unfinished:
the Oregon Agricultural
Heritage Program will re-
main an empty promise un-
til the Legislature funds its
implementation. If we want
to provide reliability for Or-
egon’s farms and ranches,
and the rural communities
Guest comment
and fish and wildlife that
depend on them, we need to
invest in their future.
Investing state funds in
our agricultural heritage
will also mean that Oregon
can finally access the grow-
ing pot of federal Farm Bill
funds available to protect
U.S. ag land. Each year, Or-
egon leaves millions of fed-
eral dollars on the table be-
cause we do not have a state
grant program to match this
USDA funding. Dedicating
state funds to Oregon’s agri-
cultural heritage will help us
access these federal invest-
ments for our communities,
families, and fish and wild-
life. It will also demonstrate
the state’s commitment to
our rural communities.
Working lands support
many different kinds of fish
and wildlife habitats. Sage-
brush habitat on large ranch-
es is critical for sage grouse.
Flood-irrigated hay mead-
ows in southeast Oregon
sustain seasonal wetlands
for migratory birds. Oak
woodlands and savannas
support almost 200 species
of wildlife.
And streams and rivers
crisscross most working
lands, providing fish hab-
itat and wildlife corridors.
Keeping farmers and ranch-
ers who are good stewards
of these lands in business
through generational chang-
es will help maintain these
important habitats.
Gov.
Kate
Brown
showed her support for this
program by convening the
work group of agricultural
and conservation interests
that developed the Ore-
gon Agricultural Heritage
Program. The legislature
showed its support last ses-
sion by providing funding to
set up the Oregon Agricul-
tural Heritage Commission.
We now need our governor
and legislators to invest $10
million in the 2019-2021
state budget to finally put
this program to work. This
is an investment in our ag-
ricultural heritage, working
lands and wildlife, local
economies, and Oregon’s
way of life — big changes
are coming, and we need to
act now.
Doug Krahmer is chair-
man of the Oregon Agricul-
tural Heritage Commission.
Bruce Taylor is vice chair-
man of the commission.