EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Concurrent Sessions:

Since the 1930s, farmers’ planting decisions to a significant extent

Discussions led by

Ron Knutson, Texas A&M University;

John Keeling, American
Farm Bureau Federation;
Daryll Ray, University of Tennessee

have been determined by the government. That is, if farmers were going
to obtain deficiency payments, they had to plant within their acreage
base.

The idea of decoupling payments from prices and production was
facilitated by favorable marketing conditions. Farmers wanted the
flexibility to take advantage of those conditions.

Flexibility raises the very important question of what will be
produced where. In 1996, weather adversities led to substantial shifts in

1996 Farm Bill:
Implications for...
FARMERS

production patterns, shifts which would not have been possible without
flexibility provisions. The outlook for the future suggests:

■ Greater strength in export demand for corn and soybeans, as
incomes in the rest of the world rise.

■ Greater shifting in cropping patterns, as farmers respond to
ever-changing price incentives.

The key for farm survival in this environment will be the ability to
manage risk.

Discussions led by

Roberta Moseley, Rutgers University;
Yvette Jackson, Food & Consumer
Service, USDA;

John Schnittker, Public Voice

The 1996 farm bill reauthorized the Food Stamp program, which
began in 1961. But the effects the 1996 welfare reform bill had on Food
Stamps went beyond reforms to deep cuts, to save federal dollars.

Food Stamps never were intended to be a family’s only source of
food supply. While the program never has reached all the people who
are in need, it has served as a major safety net to ward Offhunger and
help safeguard the health of low income children and families.

1996 Farm Bill:
Implications for...

CONSUMERS

A big concern under the welfare reform bill is treatment of legal
immigrants—who work and pay taxes, but mostly will be ineligible for
Food Stamps until they become citizens. This change could affect 1
million people a month and have a big economic impact in some states.

For able adults without children, the new time limit on Food
Stamps is harsh. The bill does not require states to provide training∕jobs
or to help those willing to work, but living where jobs aren’t available.

Through adjustments in the basic benefit level, elimination of the
standard and homeless shelter deductions, and other changes and caps,
the new welfare bill makes the Food Stamp program less responsive to
changes in the economy. This may force recipients to choose between
food for their children and other daily living expenses.

The president wants to soften the bill’s impact, particularly for the
elderly, disabled and families with children. To make the changes easier
and fairer, states will not be penalized for mistakes made in the first 120
days after they begin to implement.

The timing still may be particularly bad, because the American
public is facing at least several years of higher food prices. We haven’t