Like many, I have followed the Farm Bill debate with great interest. The Farm Bill is important for most of us because it directly or indirectly affects the food we buy. My family cares for more personal reasons: I’m a farmer.

The Farm Bill that recently passed the House of Representatives expanded funding for many important national priorities. It rewards conservation, supports local farmers, promotes healthy diets and supports farm-grown energy. Unfortunately, it also continues outdated dry bulk commodity price-support programs that distort the market and make agriculture vulnerable to challenges in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

When the U.S. Senate takes up this legislation this month, it needs to insist on a bill that eliminates subsidy payments to deceased farmers and non-farmers and increases funding for conservation, specialty crops, local healthy diets, and farm-produced energy. And it needs to provide a true safety net for commodity producers with market-based revenue protection rather than the current price-only supports set by Congress.

Most of these steps should be no-brainers. All our farmers need help with environmental costs and economic development. The Farm Bill should clearly support proper nutrition and reliable supplies of local food. And reducing our nation’s dependence on foreign oil by encouraging our farmers to grow energy should be an obvious call. But the irony is that the House Farm Bill forgoes the better protection of a market-based revenue program even though that protection would actually cost less and help pay for these other needs.

Farm support should go to farmers when they need it – when revenue drops because of events like droughts, as well as when prices fall. The Durbin-Brown Farm Safety Net Improvement Act (S.1872) provides such protection. Because it covers crop failures, it builds in the cost of the periodic disaster relief generally provided by Congress between Farm Bills. So it costs less.

Not only does it save money, it also works better. Because it is market-based, Durbin-Brown keeps agriculture out of trouble in WTO and decreases risks of trade retaliation against such U.S. exports as airplanes, software and Pacific Northwest wheat. Moreover, our state’s wheat farmers, a mainstay in Eastern Washington, would actually fare substantially better in the years ahead than they do under the current system.

The savings from a market-based revenue protection program can be used to cover the cost of providing much-needed help for specialty crops, conservation and nutrition. And they can provide real encouragement for farmers to help our nation substantially reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Such a new Farm Bill would help all our farmers. And it would be good for all our families, whether we live on farms or rely on them for food. Washington Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell can influence this legislation. They need urgently to hear from every citizen of Washington.