| |
More information on the Farm Bill and how you can help improve it:
[Continuation from e-News article]
Why Calls to your Senators are Vital NOW:
The Senate Agriculture Committee's Farm Bill proposal is far better
than the House Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) in some ways, but weaker in
others. The Senate floor debate can have a major impact on the final
shape of this Farm Bill--and is therefore our last good chance to have a significant impact. Calls to all Senators--not just those on the Ag Committee--are vital.
A number of specific amendments will soon be offered, which, if
adopted, become part of the Senate Farm Bill. Some of these would
strengthen key provisions related to conservation, fair and open
livestock markets, sustainable production of bioenergy crops, and other
issues; whereas other amendments could weaken it.
Once the full Senate passes its Farm Bill, a "Conference Committee" of
key Senators and Representatives will reconcile differences between
Senate and House versions to develop a final 2007 Farm Bill. Thus,
it is vital that the Senate send the best possible Farm Bill to
Conference, and that the Senators on the Conference Committee carry
this message to the Committee's deliberations: American farmers
and other citizens want a sustainable, pro-family-farm bill--one that
includes a good Livestock Title; a robust Conservation Title including
a nationwide Conservation Stewardship Program for working lands;
adequate and secure funding for organic farming research, beginning
farmer and rancher programs, and rural development programs; and other
key provisions.
How to Place a Call:
If you do not know your Senators' phone numbers in Washington, D.C.,
call the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202.224.3121 and ask for each
Senator by name and state. (Two calls). When you reach your Senators' offices, ask
for the staff person in charge of Farm Bill issues. If you get the
staffer's voice mail, leave your name and your message.
In preparing and making your call, choose one or two issues that seem most vital to you, or with which you are most familiar. If
you are a farmer who is directly impacted by any of the above issues,
your comments are particularly effective! If you or another farmer you
know has directly benefited from any of these programs, or would be
directly affected by the outcome of any of these Farm Bill issues, TELL
YOUR STORY! This is the most effective kind of advocacy.
MORE ON SPECIFIC ISSUES:
Conservation:
The Senate Agriculture Committee's bill mandates and funds a nationwide
Conservation Stewardship Program (= Conservation Security Program or
CSP) as part of the Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives Program
(CSIP). In contrast to the House Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), which would
terminate additional CSP enrollments, the Senate Ag Committee's
proposal would enroll some 80 million acres in CSP over the five-year
life of the 2007 Farm Bill (at least 13 million each year). This is
a huge win, and can be attributed in large part to the strong showing
of grassroots support for Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom
Harkin in his push for a fully funded CSP. Yes, you DO make a
difference every time you call Members of Congress on the Farm Bill.
One highly disappointing development is that a reasonable payment
limitation of $250,000 per contract that had been proposed for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP, now also part of the
CSIP) in Harkin's initial mark, was removed. An amendment within the
Senate Ag Committee restored the current higher limit of $450,000. This
will funnel more EQIP funds into cleanup of animal waste pollution by
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and reduce by thousands
the numbers of family farms that benefit from EQIP funding.
Action: tell your Senators you support the current CSP
proposal to enroll 80 million acres by 2012. Register your concern that
the high payment limit for EQIP would reduce the number of small and
midsize farms served by the program. Watch farm bill advocacy websites
(below) for news and action alerts regarding any floor amendments that
would reinstate a reasonable EQIP payment cap.
Livestock Title:
The Senate bill includes a Livestock Title, very similar to the
Competition Title that the Rural Advancement Foundation International
and many other groups have advocated for years. The Livestock Title is
designed to promote fair and open markets, and includes a ban on packer
ownership of livestock, a voluntary arbitration clause, and other
grower rights protections in contract agriculture, and language
clarifying a USDA mandate to regulate poultry packers under the Packers
and Stockyards Act (PSA).
This win may either be reinforced or weakened during floor debate. Amendments that would strengthen the Livestock Title include:
· Enzi Captive Supply Reform Act Amendment
(S. 1017) that prevents packers from manipulating prices through
livestock they own or control through contracts;
· an amendment to clarify that the PSA
protects individual farmers from unfair trade practices, whether or not
the plaintiff can prove "competitive harm";
· an amendment to clarify that PSA does not
include a loophole allowing price manipulation for "legitimate business
justifications."
Amendments may also be offered to weaken or strike the entire Livestock
Title or key parts of it, such as the Voluntary Arbitration Provision
or the Packer Ownership Ban. A strong showing of grassroots support for
an effective Livestock Title will hopefully thwart these efforts by
special interests to undermine it.
Action: Urge your Senators to support the
Livestock Title and the three amendments to strengthen its provisions,
and to oppose any amendments that would weaken or remove any of its key
provisions.
Commodity Title (renamed "Producer Income Protection Title" in Senate bill):
Like the House bill, the Senate version lacks any effective reform of
the Commodity Title, thus missing an opportunity to curb subsidies to
corporate megafarms and to save funds for conservation and rural
development. However, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Byron Dorgan
(D-ND) will offer a floor amendment setting firm payment limits at
$250,000 per farm per year. The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
considers the Grassley-Dorgan Amendment the most important amendment
expected from the Senate floor, because its full implementation could
save substantial funds that can be redirected into other priority
programs. In their words, Grassley-Dorgan would "close loopholes, and
shift the savings to rural development, beginning and minority farmers,
conservation, nutrition, and anti-hunger programs." The vote appears
very close on this amendment.
The Grassley-Dorgan Amendment poses a challenge to Southern family farm
advocates. Given the costs of production inputs and current farmgate
prices for cotton, a firm $250,000 payment limit could put a severe
financial squeeze on some mid-size family farms whose primary crop is
cotton. In the Senate bill, this impact could be mitigated somewhat by
the strong CSP, which offers farmers up to $45,000 annually to
implement the best resource stewardship practices on working lands. In
addition, some of the funds saved through payment limitations would go
into rural development and beginning farmer programs. The ideal
commodity title reform would be designed to keep mid-size family farms
of all major farm commodities in business while gradually
phasing-out incentives that drive the overproduction that has depressed
farmgate prices in the first place. Easier said than done--recent
Commodity Policy Dialogues within the sustainable agriculture advocacy
community have focused on this very challenge. For more information,
contact Scott Marlow, smarlow@rafiusa.org.
Action: Southern SAWG is not taking a position at this
time on this payment limitations amendment. We leave it up to your
judgment, conscience and considered opinion whether and how to act in
regard to the Grassley-Dorgan payment limitations amendment.
Organic Farming Research:
Organic food sales now comprise about 3% of total market share in the
US; however, the proportion of USDA research funds devoted to organic
production systems remains below 1%. While both Senate and House bills
mandate some increase in organic research funding, neither reaches 3%.
However, Senator Russ Feingold plans to introduce an amendment
requiring the federal Agriculture Research Service to increase its
commitment to organic farming systems research.
Action: ask your Senators to support Russ Feingold's amendment to increase funding for organic farming research.
Bioenergy Provisions:
The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and other National Campaign partners worked for months to develop a program to support sustainable
systems for producing biofuel crops within the context of diversified
and soil-saving cropping systems. However, the final Bioenergy Crop
Transition Assistance Program that appeared in the Senate Agriculture
Committee's final bill lacked most of the sustainability provisions and
has been described as "unrecognizable" by the Coalition.
Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Thune (R-MN) may offer an
amendment from the floor to restore some of the original intent and
content of this program.
Action: Watch for updates and action alerts from the
National Campaign. Ask your Senators to support any amendments from
Klobuchar and Thune that would restore sustainability provisions to the
Bioenergy Crop Transition Assistance Program.
Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program:
This program, funded at $5 million per year (mandatory) under the 2002
Farm Bill, has already helped a number of urban gardens, farm-to-school
programs and other community food projects get off to a good start. The
Community Food Security Coalition originally advocated for $60 million
a year to meet the enormous need and demand for this program. The
Senate Farm Bill doubles its mandatory funding to $10 million annually.
The House bill appears to be more generous at $30 million, but
the funds are discretionary, which means the program could be zeroed
out anytime the federal budget gets tight (which it already is). Thus,
the Senate proposal is best.
Action: Tell your Senators how important this program
is, both for small-scale farmers seeking to develop new market
opportunities, and for low income communities seeking to improve their
access to high quality local food. While funding at levels higher than
$10 million is highly desirable, emphasize that it is most important
that whatever funding level is set in the final Farm Bill, that funding
must be mandatory as in the Senate Ag Committee's bill.
Value Added Producer Grants:
While the House bill includes $30 million in annual mandatory funding, the Senate bill gives this program only discretionary
funds. The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has identified mandatory
VAPG funding as a top priority, and notes that passage of the
Grassley-Dorgan payment limitations amendment specifically designates
using some of the resulting savings to fund this program.
Action: express your disappointment or concern that
the Senate has not given this program mandatory funding. Emphasize that
its funding WAS mandatory under the 2002 Farm Bill, and that VAPG
grants yield a lot of sustainable rural development for relatively few
tax dollars (about 25 cents per taxpayer).
Beginning Farmer Provisions:
Thanks to amendments introduced by Senator Amy Klobuchar during
Committee deliberations, the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development
Program is authorized at $30 million, and the Beginning Farmer
Individual Development Account program is doubled from $5 million to
$10 million--but both are discretionary. Senate Ag. Committee Chairman
Harkin had advocated for mandatory funding of these programs.
Action: Urge your Senators to advocate for mandatory
funding for these two Beginning Farmer and Rancher programs. Watch for
any amendments to this effect and ask your Senators to support them.
Emphasize that the rising average age of farmers (now about 57) and
declining farmer population in the US (now around 2 million) show just
how vital these programs are.
Progress in Both Houses:
Some wins that appear pretty solid, as they are supported by both House and Senate bills include:
· A provision to allow interstate shipment of
state-inspected meat when inspection standards match USDA standards.
This improves market access for smaller farms, especially those located
near state boundaries.
· Organic certification cost share receives
mandatory funding of $22 million over 5 years (over four times the
total in 2002 Farm Bill).
· Clarification of geographic preference in
school lunch programs allows public school systems to procure food
locally and encourages them to submit plans to do so.
· National Sustainable Agriculture
Information Service (=ATTRA) permanently authorized at $5 million per
year. ATTRA can no longer be eliminated as an "earmark" program as
happened in 2007, though it still must face annual appropriations
hurdles.
· Funding set-asides for New and Beginning
Farmers and Ranchers, and for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers, in many conservation and farm credit programs, plus some
accountability provisions to help ensure equal access for all ethnic
groups and farm constituencies to USDA programs.
· Language and funding for Pigford
claims--farmers who were eligible for settlements in a lawsuit related
to past racial discrimination in USDA programs, but were denied an
opportunity to apply, would now be able to do so.
Resources for Farm Bill Advocacy:
For additional information on the Farm Bill, current action alerts, and
pointers for writing letters or making calls to Members of Congress,
visit:
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's Farm Bill Action Center at www.sustainableagriculturecoalition.org
Community Food Security Coalition at www.foodsecurity.org
National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture at www.sustainableagriculture.net
Rural Affairs at www.cfra.org
Farm and Food Policy Project at www.farmandfoodproject.org
Senate Agriculture Committee website, http://agriculture.senate.gov
|
|
|
