home about us policy center join us resources events site map support us
 
CAMPAIGN

PRESSROOM
 

Provisions Supported in the Farm Bill

May, 2002 - The House and Senate have each passed very different versions of the farm bill. Then agriculture committee members met in conference committee of to hammer out the final version of the law that will govern family farmers and shape the food system for the next five to ten years. TAKE ACTION to protect key provisions that support small, independent farmers and ranchers, minority and woman producers, hungry families and low-income consumers, Farmworkers and the environment.

Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program - Section 2501

Transparency and Accountability from USDA

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at USDA

Nutrition

WIC and Seniors Farmer's Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)

Community Food Projects

Institutional Buying of Locally Produced Foods

Food Stamps

Ban on Packer Ownership of Livestock

Commodity Payment Limitations

Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program - Section 2501

Both the House and Senate farm bills included an increase in funding authority for this program to $25 million. The Senate version also included new language to strengthen the program by allowing other agencies and programs with in the USDA to fund and coordinate collaborative outreach efforts. Both sides, however, continue to make this an authorized program, meaning Congress has to appropriate money each year for this program. Despite the current $10 million authority, the bill has never been funded above $3 billion. The campaign is supporting the Senate language for this program and wants funding for the program to be made mandatory.

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. Minority farmers receive fewer payments, fewer and lower-valued loans, and less outreach and training. The 2501 Outreach Program was created by Congress to proactively address these inequities, and is one of the few efforts to focus on these gaps. Further research shows 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.

Talking Points:

  • Increased mandatory funding is needed for this program to reach the countless number of farmers and ranchers who are in need of support.
     
  • Allowing other agencies to coordinate outreach efforts through this program will increase minority producers' access to all services and programs of the Department.
     
  • This is the only program that has been created by congress to address discrimination by USDA of minority producers.
     
  • African-American producers are loosing land at a rate much higher than that of other producers, this is the only program that attempts to address minority land loss in a meaningful way.

  • [Top]

Transparency and Accountability from USDA

Failure to address inequities in USDA programs and services in any comprehensive fashion has led to litigation and costly settlements for the Department, but still almost nothing has been done to make structural changes to resolve discrimination and civil rights abuses and prevent future problems. A provision in the Senate Bill authored by Senator Lugar and supported by Senator Harkin creates the tools necessary to make the outreach and services delivery efforts more transparent and hold USDA accountable to farmers, ranchers, taxpayers and Congress.

The new language:
 
1) requires the department to report to Congress and the public the number of producers who participate in each farm program, noted by gender, race and ethnicity, and
 
2) ensures more democratic and open participation of minority producers in county committee elections and better representation on the committees themselves through: establishing uniform and democratic procedures for nominating and electing county committee members; such as requiring that the opening and counting ballots be done after the election is completed and in a public forum. The new measure also requires the Secretary to issue a report to Congress on changes in program participation and the outcomes of elections.

We are urging the conferees to include these provisions in the final bill in order to ensure more equitable service and improved access for minority, women and other small farmers and ranchers to all programs of the Department.

Talking Points:

  • Revealing this information to the public regarding both of these measures is vital for making outreach efforts more transparent and holding USDA accountable to farmers, ranchers, taxpayers and Congress.
     
  • Much of this data used to be public until recently.
     
  • There is no cost for releasing this data, the Congress and the public have a right to this information.
     
  • The poor records of some counties for holding unfair county committee elections should not be used to pull down the entire system. Reporting and releasing data on committee elections and program participation will allow counties where outreach efforts are not successful and county committees are not effective to be identified and corrective actions taken.
     
  • Greater transparency and creating standard procedures allows people to see how the system should operate everywhere and empowers them to act as community monitors for the system.

  • [Top]

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at USDA

The Department of Agriculture has been an endless source civil rights abuse and discrimination for producer and its employees. Despite ongoing promises and statements from the Department declaring a commitment to address past and on going complaints, abuses continue unabated and complaints go unaddressed. The Senate farm bill included a provision to establish an Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at USDA who would oversee all civil rights compliance monitoring and enforcement, assure that all complaints are fully settled, and allow the Department to better fulfill their commitment to assure that all services are delivered equitably and all employees are treated fairly. We are urging all conferees to follow the leadership of Senators Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and to support the establishment of this much needed position at USDA.

A new Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights would have the authority to keep the Secretary and the Congress informed on the status and challenges of achieving equity within the USDA system, to take action on complaints, to perform proactive reviews and training, to find out why complaints continue to be generated, and to recommend changes that will root out discriminatory behaviors from the structure and function of USDA.

Talking Points:

  • Currently the Civil Rights Office at USDA lacks the authority to impact employee reviews or pay adjustments of employees for discriminatory actions.
     
  • After well-documented discriminatory actions on many levels, USDA still lacks any proactive and clear system of compliance monitoring or setting clear standards for employees and their managers.
     
  • Currently there are separate class action lawsuits pending or being filed against the Department by Asian, Hispanic, African-American and other groups of minority employees. Likewise, there has been class action lawsuits filed by Asian, Hispanic, American Indian and women producers against the department for discrimination.
     
  • On average civil rights complainants must wait an average 474 days for their case to be investigated.

  • [Top]

Nutrition

The Senate farm bill contains many critical measures for increasing food access and enhancing food security for low-income consumers - including Farmworkers, seniors and children - through many different programs. Conference committee leaders announced a tentative spending outline for the farm bill that notes $6.4 billion for nutrition programs. While this is below the Senate recommendation of $8.2, it is nearly double House farm bill spending levels and is being noted as a reasonable compromise for the two bills. There are many nutrition measures that we are supporting related to both food stamps and other nutrition programs. Though funding is tight, it is vital that all of these measures are adopted in order to improve public nutrition as well as benefit the independent producers who can offer the greatest response to food security needs.
[Top]

WIC and Seniors Farmer's Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)

Allows women, children, and seniors who are on public assistance to purchase local fresh produce from independent family farmers. This is a critical program for many low-income producers who without it would lose a valuable source of income, and possibly 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.

Talking Points:

  • The Senior FMNP was a pilot program in 2001 and was immensely successful 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.
     
  • Supporting local farmers is the only true way to ensure food security for a community. Relying on food that is transported from all regions of the world creates a dependency for those who are in need of food and those producing food.
     
  • 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.
     
  • Support the Senate Farm Bill provision that includes $15 million in funding for the WIC FMNP this year (FY 2002).
     
  • Support authorization of the Senior FMNP in the final Farm Bill with consideration for raising the funding level to at least $25 million annually.

  • [Top]

Community Food Projects

This is a federal program aimed 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. When a non-profit has been accepted for this grant, it is awarded a one-time infusion of funds for a period of one to three years to bring components of the food system together to improve food security in the community. We urge the conferees to reach an agreement between the two bills by providing graduated funding for this program from $4 million to the House level of $7.5 million over the life of the farm bill.

Talking Points:

  • Fewer that 20% of applicants for this program receive funding because the funding levels are unable to meet demand.
     
  • The success of the Community Food Projects continues to grow as more and more communities are able to establish community gardens in low-income neighborhoods, start agricultural micro business ventures, coordinate seed banks and equipment cooperatives, and provide nutrition outreach that is culturally appropriate.
     
  • Senate language for CFP that allows for mini-grants, planning grants and reduced match requirement must be supported to extend the reach of this program.

  • [Top]

Institutional Buying of Locally Produced Foods

The Senate bill includes a measure that requires USDA to advise institutions participating in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program to purchase local produce for these programs. All of these measures support food and farm policy that is beneficial to both farmers and low-income food insecurity communities. The program offers small grants to cover the initial costs of implementing this policy. We urge the conference committee to adopt this provision from the Senate bill.

Talking Points:

  • School lunches are changing rapidly. More and more fast food is available to children and is contributing to the alarmingly high rate of child obesity. Having fresh and nutritious vegetables available to children is necessary for adequate nutrition that supports the development of healthy bodies and healthy minds.
     
  • This program also supports small family farmers by giving them access to a market that they are frequently shut out of.
     
  • Just as school food service agencies are beginning to shift to purchasing local fresh products from farmers, the USDA has ended the Farm to School Pilot Program.
     
  • It is essential to have a federal policy in place that supports institutional food services for low-income persons and benefits small family farms.

  • [Top]

Food Stamps

The Senate farm bill includes critical improvements to food stamp programs, including the restoration of benefits to legal immigrants, changes in determining eligibility, simplified application process, and allowing people who have lost their jobs to receive food stamps for 6 months - instead of the current 3 months. The Senate showed over whelming support for improvements to the food stamp program, particularly the restoration of benefits to legal immigrants, which passed 96-1 on the Senate floor. A commitment to fairness and equity in food access requires that the stronger food stamp provisions in the Senate bill be preserved.

Talking Points:

  • Many of the legal immigrants who would be eligible for food stamps under the Senate provisions are farmworkers who significantly contribute to the agriculture industry, yet struggle to feed their families.
     
  • Significant barriers to enroll in the Food Stamp Program has led to low participation rates. Current estimates are that only 57% of eligible low-income people are enrolled in food stamp programs, many of those not enrolled are eligible children of legal immigrants.

  • [Top]

Ban on Packer Ownership of Livestock

The Senate farm bill includes a measure to limit meat packers from owning livestock and thereby monopolizing the livestock industry and unfairly controlling market price. Amendments on the ban were brought to the Senate floor TWICE, and passed both times! The bill prevents packers from owning livestock directly or through a subsidiary. The bill will not affect forward contracts or marketing agreements. It will not affect joint ventures unless a major packer actually owns the livestock. It also exempts: (1) cooperatives and (2) farmer controlled packers with less than 2% of the national market.

As of August 2001, Smithfield owned 711,000 sows and Cargill, Tyson, and Premium Standard Farms each owned well over 100,000 sows. Packers also use captive supplies - hogs they buy using premium long-term forward contracts that are kept secret between them and the largest producers - to control the market, reduce fair competition, and keep prices to independent producers down. The packers' goal is to take the whole industry, leaving little or nothing for independent family farmers. We are asking the conference committee to ensure that the packer ownership ban is included in the final farm bill. There is no excuse for any other position, unless they support the corporate takeover of agriculture.

Talking Points:

  • The packer ownership/captive supply trend increases the market power of a few packers.
     
  • Packers strategically use their captive supplies to drive the cash price of livestock down.
     
  • Small and medium sized producers are unable to even access the market because packer owned and contracted livestock fill packing plants.
     
  • After years of manipulated low prices and restricted market access, many family farmers are getting out of raising livestock. Leaving the entire livestock and meat packing industry in the hands of a few producer/packers who are able to charge high prices for their factory meat!
     
  • When fewer and fewer firms are producing more and more of the meat that is available to the public consumers no longer have the choice to buy safe and healthy meat products that are produced humanely and without harm to environment.
     
  • Tyson/Cargill/ConAgra/ Smithfield and commodity groups have joined together to fight this ban, because they know it threatens their control over the meat industry.

  • [Top]

Commodity Payment Limitations

The Senate farm bill included a measure to limit the amount that individuals and corporations can receive from commodity payments. Currently 80% of farm payments are going to 10% of the largest producers in the country. This means that a small group of largely corporate producers are receiving payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The new measure caps direct and counter cyclical payments at $75,000 and loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains at $150,000 and allows large farms to gain only an additional $50,000 by dividing their operation with their spouse. The bill does not allow corporations to receive payments and limits the ability for non-farming landowners to receive payments. The Senate provisions for payment limitations should adopted into law, and not that House language which leaves loop holes for corporations to avoid being affected by limits.

Talking Points:

  • Rich corporations should not be allowed to profit from programs that are intended to help struggling producers who are negatively affected by low-market prices - which just happens to be caused by over production by corporate agriculture, who drive down prices, in part knowing that they will receive government payments to cover their expenses.
     
  • Current commodity programs will continue to give larger payments to mega farms.
     
  • Payment limitations are needed in order to limit the amount of money that is spent to support rich corporations.

  • [Top]

 

Take Action to Support Equity and Fairness for Small Farmers and Hungry People in the 2002 Farm Bill!