|
|
|
|
|
Campaign for a Just Food and Farm Policy2002 Farm Bill Report
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Additional Spending Totals for 10 years (2002-2011) |
|
Title |
Total |
Percentage |
||
|
Commodities |
56.7 |
68% |
||
|
Conservation |
17.1 |
20% |
||
|
Trade |
1.1 |
1.3% |
||
|
Nutrition |
6.6 |
7.9% |
||
|
Rural Development |
1.0 |
1.2% |
||
|
Research |
1.3 |
1.5% |
While the final bill is vastly more expensive, and wasteful, than any other farm bill in history, the final package was hotly debated and not all negative. True, both the House and Senate rushed through the creation of their initial versions of the bill with scant hearings and little consideration of alternative means of constructing farm programs. Few alternative bills were introduced or debated. In the end the feisty action of our own campaign and the work of our partner groups in the progressive farm and sustainable agriculture movements made both final committee action and the floor debates in both Houses far more democratic than in the 1996 debate.
Due to these united efforts, the Campaign for a Just Food and Farm Policy and our allies in the small farm movement can claim many wins in this farm bill, though they do not offset the negative impacts that this bill will have on independent producers, rural communities, the food supply, and hungry people across the globe.
WINS: Almost all of the language our Campaign supported on equity and nutrition issues was adopted. Likewise, many new and improved provisions for rural development, conservation and research were adopted, including new marketing programs, increased funding for Community Food Projects, and greater equity in funding for the 1890 Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions and 1994 Indian Tribal colleges. A detailed summary of these wins is included below.
Coupled with our legislative wins is the success of this campaign in educating and engaging independent, small, minority and family farmers, and consequently, the whole of Congress, in the 2002 Farm Bill debate. Throughout the entire process of this campaign, from grassroots research of agriculture policy to its development and implementation, small, minority and independent producers, rural communities and farmworkers have been the driving force behind our work. They have connected with each other, their communities and Congress to share their perspectives on food and farm policy and influence the legislative process. Our communities have gained confidence and influence both locally and nationally as experts on key issues related to food and farm policy, sustainable agriculture, equity, and the long term food security of U.S. and global communities.
LOSSES: This bill does almost nothing to significantly address the fundamental concerns of small, family and independent producers related to market access, market price, unsustainable over-production or food reserves. Instead, it continues to promote the rapid industrialization of agriculture and fails entirely to address issues of corporate concentration in the areas of agriculture production or retail food sales. The House-Senate conference committee that drafted the final bill rejected the ban on packer ownership of livestock that was strongly supported by both the full Senate and the full House, and would have limited corporate agribusiness' rising control over the pork and beef industry. Changes to the commodity programs do nothing to limit overproduction and balance supply with demand. New limits on payouts to agribusiness or wealthy landowners were watered down in conference. Under this new farm bill, agribusiness will continue receive taxpayer support to mass-produce commodities and drive down world food prices. Even more than in the past, they will then be encouraged to dump the excesses they cannot sell into poor countries under the guise of "food aid," replacing and displacing local producers.
Closing Thoughts on our Continuing Campaign
View a side-by-side comparison of the new legislation to the 1996 farm bill.
In the 2002 Farm Bill, the US Congress for the first time enacted provisions that address the root causes of the long-standing discrimination by USDA and require structural changes to address and root out these inequities. Congress also strengthened the first program created to assist minority producers.
Minority Farm Outreach and Assistance Program (formerly Section 2501)
The Minority Farm Outreach and Assistance Program, first created as section 2501 of the 1990 Farm Bill, supports the organizations and institutions that have for many years assisted small and minority farmers gain access to USDA credit, commodity, conservation and other programs.
Programs provide technical assistance on farm management, production and marketing to minority producers through community-based organizations and educational institutions that have experience working with minority producers and know their needs. This is the only program created by Congress to address discrimination by USDA in serving minority producers who historically receive fewer USDA payments, fewer and lower-valued loans, and less outreach and training. For many minority producers, this is the only resource available to receive training and access to USDA programs and services.
The Rural Coalition and the Missouri Action Research Connection of the University of Missouri conducted research with minority farmers and found that the majority of producers who participated in this study had little to no knowledge of the USDA programs that were available to farmers and ranchers. Further research showed that farmers who have received assistance from institutions or community-based organizations funded by this program have higher rates of participation and understanding of USDA programs. The 2002 Farm Bill significantly improves and strengthens this program by:
Full text on pages 401-402, section 10707 of the bill
[Equity]
Transparency and Accountability from USDA
County Committees - County committees have been an on-going source of discrimination for minority farmers and ranchers. Many farmers are unaware of the critical role county committees play in allocating farm program benefits and getting information to farmers about programs. Election procedures for committee members are inconsistent from county to county, and are open to manipulation by a small group of insiders. To address these inconsistencies and increase accountability from USDA the 2002 Farm Bill:
Greater transparency and new standard procedures will enable minority farmers and the groups that represent them to learn how the system should operate everywhere, and empowers them to act as community monitors for the system.
Full text on pages 403-405, section 10708 of the bill
Equity in USDA Program Participation - Poor outreach and training to minority and women producers has apparently limited their access to USDA programs. However, for years, data has been unavailable to assess and identify gaps in services by USDA at the county and state level. In order to better monitor outreach and service delivery trends, and identify gaps in service, the 2002 Farm Bill:
The better availability of data down to the county level on actual participation rates will also empower farmers and their advocates to serve as community monitors and to help assure that USDA provides equitable service everywhere.
Full text on pages 403-406, section 10708 of the bill
[Equity]
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at USDA
As noted above, the Department of Agriculture and its agencies have been an endless source of civil rights abuse and discrimination. The inability of USDA to properly address these discrimination and civil rights issues in a timely and strategic manner for either employees or producers has been a constant source criticism and subject of many lawsuits against the Department.
Currently, the Civil Rights Office at USDA lacks the authority to impact employee reviews based on discriminatory actions or to be proactive in rooting out discrimination. In addition, the same USDA unit responsible for human resources at the Department, the Assistant Secretary for Administration, also oversees the civil rights office responsible for employee as well as program discrimination. The 2002 Farm Bill addresses this conflict of interest and lack of influence by creating a new Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at USDA who will report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. The new Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, who must be confirmed by the Senate, will have the authority to
Full text on pages 398-399, section 10704 of the bill
[Equity]
Increased and More Equitable Funding for 1890s, 1994s and Minority Serving Institutions
The Campaign for a Just Food and Farm Policy worked closely throughout the Farm Bill debate with our colleagues in the 1890 (Historically Black) and 1994 (Indian Tribal) Land Grant Colleges and the Hispanic Serving Institutions which serve minority producers. These institutions have long been inequitably funded compared to the larger 1862 Land Grant Institutions, and substantive funding increases were long over-due to improve the ability of these institutions to achieve their missions. The 2002 Farm Bill included a variety of measures aimed at increasing and making more equitable the funding for these institutions, including:
Full text on pages 314-316, sections 7201 & 7203 of the bill
[Equity]
House Agriculture Committee Hearing on Equity
During the House
floor debate on the House version of the Farm Bill, House Agriculture Committee
leaders agreed for the first time ever to hold a full committee hearing on equity in
agriculture, in return for postponing consideration of transparency and
accountability provisions (which were later added by the Senate and approved in the
final bill). The House also agreed to restore direct farm lending, which had been
suspended by the House Agriculture Committee in their bill. The Equity hearing is due
to be held sometime later this year.
[Equity] [Top]
USDA has long served as a critical credit source, and lender of last resort for farmers. Unfortunately, minority, woman and other small farmers frequently struggle against inequitable and unfair lending practices from the Department. The 2002 Farm Bill includes provisions which restore credit access and reverse somewhat the draconian provisions adopted in the 1996 Farm Bill which barred farmers who had ever received any debt forgiveness from USDA from ever receiving a new USDA loan. The 2002 Farm Bill:
Full text on pages 221, 223 and 413, sections 5310, 5319 & 10814 of the bill
[Top]
The farm bill includes very little to benefit farmworkers beyond the restoration of food stamp benefits for legal immigrants noted below. The 2002 Farm Bill contains a few provisions that will benefit a small number farmworkers, including:
The Emergency Grants to Assist Low-Income Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers
Unlike farmers, farmworkers affected by disaster typically do not receive any benefits for lost work. The new Farm Bill modifies an earlier program designed to provide emergency funding during disaster to farmworkers, by increasing funding for this program to "such sums as are necessary," removing the previous limit of $20 million. Grants are awarded to public agencies or non-profit organizations that provide services to low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers under the following conditions:
Full text on page 368, section 10102 of the bill
Grants to Train Farmworkers in New Technologies and to Train Farmworkers in Specialized Skills Necessary for Higher Value Crops
This new program authorizes up to $10 million dollars for grants to nonprofit organizations, coalitions and institutions working with farm workers to provide training in new technologies and specialty skills necessary for high value crops.
Full text on page 248, section 6025 of the bill
[Top]
The nutrition title of the 2002 Farm Bill encompasses many programs that have the most potential to directly impact and enhance food security for low-income consumers - including farmworkers, seniors and children. The various programs are designed to fill gaps in our food system and assure everyone in the US has access to food. In addition to improving public nutrition and operating as the nation's safety net for hunger, such programs can support independent producers who can offer the greatest response to food security needs. Below are the summaries of various provisions for the nutrition title in the 2002 farm bill.
Food Stamps Benefits for Legal Immigrants
Another of the draconian provisions of the undemocratic 1996 Farm Bill was to bar legal residents who are not citizens eligibility to receive benefits under the food stamp program. Many of the legal immigrants who would otherwise qualify economically for food stamps are farmworkers who significantly contribute to the agriculture industry, yet struggle to feed their own families. This irony is a saddening example of the injustices in our food system. The restoration of food stamp benefits for legal immigrants, which was a key shared priority that achieve historic cooperation among the Congressional Black, Hispanic and Asian Caucuses, with key bipartisan support in the Senate, was one significant step towards ensuring fair and equal access to food in the United States. Food Stamp victories in the 2002 Farm Bill include:
Full text on page 207-208, section 4401 of the bill
WIC (Women, Infants and Children) and Seniors Farmer's Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)
These programs allow women, children, and seniors who are on public assistance to purchase local fresh produce from independent family farmers. Many low-income consumers often have limited access to nutritious fruits and vegetables. The program allows them to purchase fresh foods directly from producers who without the program would lose a valuable source of direct income that helps them sustain their farms. This program allows food stamp dollars to be recycled back into farmer's pockets - allowing the tax dollars spent on food stamp and WIC programs to serve a double benefit - feeding hungry families as well as increasing and ensuring small farm income.
The Senior FMNP was a pilot program in 2001 and was a huge success. In its first year 14,600 independent fruit and vegetable farmers received $32.5 million in additional income from increased sales as a result of FMNP. Many people living on fixed incomes are forced to make the difficult choice between eating healthy foods and buying their prescription medications. FMNPs provide low-income citizens with healthy food that they may otherwise not be able to afford. The farm bill incorporates the following:
Full text on pages 207-209, sections 4307 & 4402 of the bill
Community Food Projects
This Community Food Security program provides funds to carry out multi-purpose community food projects designed to meet the needs of low-income people, increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs, and promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues. This competitive awards program, provides grants to community based organizations for a period of one to three years to institute a plan that will improve food security in the community. Current funding allows fewer than 20% of the applicants for this program to receive funding. The 2002 Farm Bill:
Full text on pages 200-202, section 4125 of the bill
Institutional Buying of Locally Produced Foods
This program encourages institutions participating in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program to purchase produce that is grown locally. The link between school food administrators and local farmers is crucial and policy that supports these relationships increases food security in communities, improves childhood nutrition, and sustains local agriculture and family farmers by giving them access to a market where they are frequently shut out. The program offers small grants to cover the initial costs of implementing this policy. The 2002 Farm Bill:
Full text on pages 205-206, section 4303 of the bill
[Top]
Increased spending for Rural Development was shamefully low, and largely concentrated in grants to regional and state agencies for infrastructure development, business development and industrial enterprise. New funds were also made available to support independent agriculture enterprises and small business development in rural communities. Historically, independent and family farmers have been the economic foundation of rural communities. Unfortunately, today rural communities are becoming the dumping ground for industry that is too unattractive or expensive for urban areas. Prisons and industrial and agriculture factories are the new economic foundation for rural communities as independent and family farmers are losing their markets, their farms and their land. Programs in the bill that support the agricultural foundation of rural communities are:
Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Program
Full text on pages 302-304, section 6401 of the bill
Rural Business Enterprise Grant
Full text on page 234, section 6014 of the bill
[Top]
Some have claimed this farm bill to be the most environmentally beneficial bill since the Clean Water Act. While there is a great increase in funding (80% over past spending levels), it must be noted that more than 50% ($9 billion of the $17.1 billion) of conservation spending will go to the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). This program now allows an individual operator (including the nation's corporate factory farms) to receive $450,000 in payments over the life of the bill. In addition, the conservation impact of the overproduction stimulated on all farms by the bill's commodity programs is not addressed with this program.
A provision to provide $10 million in additional outreach funds to help minority farmers gain access to the program and counter still low rates of participation in conservations programs was removed from the farm bill in final negotiations. Whether this program will be accessible to minority and other small farmers remains a real question. Without attention to the needs of these farmers when the regulations are written, and without effective outreach, minority farmers will be unlikely to benefit to the same extent even as their more mid-sized counterparts.
Conservation Security Program
This program provides financial incentives to producers to implement conservation practices on their farms. It provides much needed support for family farms and ranches, and environmental benefits such as clean water and air. The Conservation Security Program:
Full text on pages 94-109, sections 2001-2006 of the bill
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
The EQUIP program offers cost share assistance to producers to make their farms more environmentally sustainable. The battle to maintain the integrity of this program for the small farmers who need it, and keep it from becoming a major subsidy for the largest factory livestock production operations was lost in the House and Senate. Small changes were made to limit benefits to mega-farms.
Producers are now subject to a $450,000 payment limit over the 6 year life of the bill (previous regulations would have allowed some large operations to collect more than $1 million in EQIP payments to subsidize their waste management costs).
Full text on pages 125-130, section 2301 of the bill
[Top]
One of the most hotly debated provisions of this farm bill was Mandatory Country of Origin labeling for certain food products. Many small farmers in the U.S. favored this provision, citing consumer preferences for purchasing food "Made in the U.S." over imported products. In response the 2002 farm bill:
The Rural Coalition has taken a neutral position on this provision as we represent both small and independent producers in the U.S. and in Mexico, who are frequently pitted against each other. The small farmers in the U.S. and campesin@s Mexico who we represent are fighting the same battle against corporate interest,s and feel that country of origin labeling should be second to "farm of origin" labeling, which would allow consumers to support a global independent agriculture movement, and select fewer corporate foods and more local alternatives.
Full text on pages 414-417, section 10816 of the bill
[Top]
The new Farm Bill was continues farm programs for six years, until 2008. This shorter farm bill term, down from the ten years advocated by House members, is an important concession to democratic participation. Since the last real farm bill debate in 1990 (the 1996 farm bill was never really debated either in committee or on the floor), the majority of members of the House Agriculture Committee had been replaced by new members, leaving little experience in farm programs on the committee responsible for writing farm policy.
The vigorous debates on the House and Senate floors engaged a larger number of members than have been involved in farm policy in many years. The stark differences of position between agriculture committee members and their counterparts in the rest of Congress point out the need for full debates and more education of all members of Congress on our food and farm policy.
The six-year extension will mean more members who were educated in the 2002 Farm Bill will benefit from that experience when the next Farm Bill is debated. It also means that the coalitions and alliances that so influenced this farm bill will remain unified and will be more prepared to make the significant changes that still need to be made in farm policy before another full decade passes.
[Top]
The top ten percent of the nation's largest farms will receive 60% of the payments while the lowest 50%, including most minority, women and other small farmers, will receive little or no support in the new commodity programs.
Details of the commodity programs with associated spending levels remain unclear and will we share more information as we have it. But in general, the program focuses on payments to farmers, rather than price supports in the market place, for income. The acreage limitation and other supply control tools eliminated in the 1996 Farm Bill were not restored. Some important changes to the Commodity Title that will extend its benefits to a larger group of growers, encourage crop diversification, and help smaller dairies.
Full text on pages 11-94, Title I of the bill
The farm bill establishes a new $1.3 billion counter-cyclical dairy program whereby direct payments to farmers would be triggered when the price of Class I fluid milk in Boston falls below $16.94 per cwt of milk. When that occurs, producers in all U.S. regions would receive 45 percent of the difference between $16.94 and the lower market price. Subsidies would be capped at 2.4 million pounds of milk a year - equivalent to the output of 135 to 140 cows. (A hundredweight of milk is about 12 gallons.) The new direct dairy payment program will be retroactive to Dec. 1, 2001.
Full text on pages 75-81, sections 1501-1508 of the bill
The intention of this provision was to limit the amount of money individuals and corporations can receive from USDA commodity payments. Currently 80% of farm payments are going to 10% of the largest producers in the country. Put another way, a small group of largely corporate producers are receiving payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, while small farmers go bankrupt. Limiting payments would prevent rich corporations from taking advantage of program that were originally established to help struggling producers who are negatively affected by low-market prices.
Strong payment limitations, passed by the full Senate and supported by the full House, set real limits, closed loopholes and restored a measure of fairness, integrity and equity to farm programs. The final compromise bill, written behind closed doors in the conference committee, adopted substitute measures intended to look real, while having little effect in limiting the tax dollars that go to corporate agriculture. Instead of real limits, the 2002 farm bill:
The fight over corporate welfare in agriculture is not over. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) are committed to introducing future amendments on payment limitation reform to future appropriations bills.
Full text on pages83-87, sections 1603-1605 of the bill
[Top]
This measure was intended to limit meat packers from owning livestock, and thereby monopolizing the livestock industry and unfairly controlling market price.
The following is a clear example of how corporate agriculture overwhelmingly dominates the market:
Amendments on the ban were brought to the Senate floor TWICE, and passed both times! However, the Senate language on this provision was dropped in conference. In a press conference releasing farm bill outcomes Senator Harkin (D-IA) announced that the Senate and House Agriculture Committees would instead hold hearings and investigate the effects of packers owning livestock on the market and then "take whatever actions are appropriate." Representative Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) added, "We on the House Agriculture Committee will ask the industry, 'Where do you want to be in 10 years.'"
Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) has agreed to take the lead in offering the ban on the Senate floor as a stand-alone bill or as an amendment on another piece of legislation. Other Senators are also discussing the possibilities for offering legislation to create fair and competitive markets for family farmers, such as limiting captive supplies and shifting liability to the integrator for any environmental pollution caused by factory farms. Though a loss in the 2002 farm bill, the ongoing support for the packer ban and fairness in the market place for independent producers is a major victory!
[Top]
The conference report for the new farm bill included $10 million set aside in the Conservation Title for conservation outreach and education for socially disadvantaged, limited resource and beginning farmers. In the final moments before the report was issued, this provision and others were DROPPED because the bill was $100 million over budget. This was reportedly one of the last changes made before the bill was reported out of conference.
[Top]
Much remains to be done to amplify our wins in farm bill and continue to push for new food and farm policies that promote a more independently produced, accessible, safe and healthy food supply. The issues of global food security for all nations and people that were such an important part of farm policy and the religious and justice community agendas in past decades will become more important because of the impact ignoring them in the current debate will have.
Those who worked to promote justice and equity through out this farm bill debate must remain active and build on our wins and maintain influence in Congress. The continued involvement of grassroots organizations and food and justice supporters will sustain the power of our movement against the corporate control of our food system.
We urge all of you to stay active and teach others about our issues. As we move forward in our Campaign for a Just Food n' Farm Policy, we will focus on: the implementation by USDA of improved Farm Bill provisions; preparing for the House Agriculture Committee's hearings on equity in agriculture; securing the greatest possible funding for vital programs in the Senate and House agriculture appropriations bills; and supporting other related legislation, including on immigration and trade, that is sure to follow.