Freedom to Farm should not mean freedom from income. MFA supports fair trade. But to have fair trade, as we have continually said, there must be a level playing field. We cannot sell agricultural products at or below production costs simply for the privilege of accessing foreign markets. We cannot continually make concessions to the Japanese, the Europeans and the Chinese while requiring nothing in return from them. The free market is a powerful, efficient force--one the United States should support and participate in. But too often in this society, we focus on short-term solutions to long-term problems. We inadvertently encourage over-production through inattention to U.S. farm policy while benefiting one segment of agriculture at the expense of another.

And farm policy (or lack thereof) lies at the heart of this current mess. We must demand our senators and representatives on both the state and national level get busy constructing a coherent approach to agriculture's problems. That approach must address the current controversies swirling around agriculture. We must have a long-term plan for agricultural policy that focuses on the issues defining agriculture today--issues such as trade inconsistencies, tax reform, food safety, state and federal regulation masquerading as environmental considerations, debt, credit, research, and livestock and crop strategies. We must demand that the government decide which federal agency is responsible for agricultural policy and regulation. Is it USDA or EPA? I'm afraid I already know the answer.

Just this past January, EPA issued a proposal called the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Just the title should give you an idea of how complex and onerous the ensuing regulations will be. The proposal is the latest in a long list of actions that make EPA a working partner in the operations of more and more farmers and ranchers.

And that's just the beginning of a relationship that can and will get ugly. Congress and the Administration need to explain, define and justify this new federal intrusion into private enterprise. Isn't it ironic that government has no problem creating far-reaching regulation but develops an attention deficit disorder when it comes to creating an effective governmental approach to agricultural policy?

To improve agriculture's position, the federal Export Enhancement Program must not only be continued, it must be expanded. The program is structured to help U.S. farmers and ranchers compete against the subsidized agriculture of foreign nations. It is an unfortunate, but necessary, piece of federal legislation that can help level the field. Again, free trade must be fair trade. Otherwise, U.S. producers continue to subsidize the farmers of other nations. And that subsidy occurs at the financial expense of our farmers and ranchers. The practice is unacceptable.

Freedom to Farm has some outstanding features--mainly the freedom for producers to decide what to plant where. The absence of federally mandated supply-management plans is refreshing. Voluntary approaches are most definitely the best incentives for achieving governmental goals whether those goals are to lessen soil erosion, improve water quality or extend wildlife habitat.

But by most standards, Freedom to Farm, as it currently stands, is failing agriculture. Consider that in just the past three years, $72 billion has gone to farmers and ranchers under the guise of emergency economic assistance. It's inane to substitute disaster payments in lieu of meaningful farm program structure. After all, emergency assistance is no substitute for sound policy, and it's irresponsible to pretend that it is acceptable. Still, this year looks to be no different than the previous three. Farmers and ranchers are still suffering from historically low grain prices, inflated fuel prices and high fertilizer prices. Based on current prognostications from respected agricultural economists (is that an oxymoron?), prices for commodities are not expected to rise significantly, nor are input costs expected to fall significantly.

Consider, too, that congressional testimony by USDA noted that "assuming no supplemental assistance, net cash farm income in 2001 is projected to be at its lowest level since 1994 and about $4 billion less than the average of the 1990s." Because we have no substantive farm program, I see no way to keep from at least one more year of emergency assistance. But legislators need to notice that agriculture is far too important to national security and stability to be treated as an afterthought.

Policy decisions become even more important when you consider agriculture has missed the economic prosperity enjoyed by the rest of the country throughout the 1990s. Farmers and ranchers deserve more than emergency payments to stave off creditors. They deserve prosperity, and our leaders must work to structure an environment where that can occur.