| About NESAWG | |
 |
Who we are Members Accomplishments Contacts |
| Issues & Activities | |
 |
Overview Farm Bill 101 News |
| Resources | |
 |
Publications NEFOOD-L Email List Useful Links |
 |
Get Involved |
FARM BILL 101
- What were the major wins and losses in the Farm Bill?
- What are the main implications of the Farm
Bill for farmers in the Northeast?
- Where can I go to learn more about the Farm Bill?
- Unraveling the Agricultural Appropriations
Process
- Who are the key congressional players from the
Northeast in the ag appropriations process?
- How can I or my organization get involved in the appropriations process?
- Farm Bill implementation process
- Where can I go for background information and
updates on the implementation process?
- How can I or my organization get involved in the implementation process?
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 13, 2002, replaces the 1996 Farm Bill and serves as the backbone of nation's federal farm policy.
Recognizing the considerable impact of federal policy on small farms and farmers, NESAWG has worked hard over the past several years to educate people and organizations in the Northeast around Farm Bill issues and to encourage them to play an active role in moving federal policy in a more sustainable direction. We are very concerned about the increasing control exerted by corporate agri-business over the nation's agricultural policy and see the curbing of this power as a critical step in the shift to a safer, fairer, and more sustainable food system. We were sorely disappointed that the 2002 Farm Bill failed to deliver any meaningful reform in this respect. Nevertheless, we found some consolation and encouragement in the creation of the Conservation Security Program and other new measures that take small steps in the right direction (see below for a complete list of Farm Bill wins and losses).
Although the ink on the final bill has dried, Farm Bill implementation has only just begun. NESAWG will continue to work with its members and partners on implementation process to throughout the coming year.
Click here to find out how you or your organization can get involved
What were the major wins and losses in the Farm Bill?
(as compiled by the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture)
In late February, partners within the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture developed a summary of what the National Campaign would actively fight for in the farm bill conference committee. The following summary of our wins and losses in this farm bill is built upon this summary. We had many major wins, and a few stinging losses.
The National Campaign does not support the farm bill that has passed the House and Senate because we feel the huge subsidies for the biggest farming and factory livestock operations are glaring examples of corporate welfare policy that will hurt farm and ranch communities and is not in our true national interest.
However, the sustainable agriculture movement achieved some major victories and had a profound impact on the quality of the farm bill debate. The issues that were the biggest sources of debate real payment limitations, contract agriculture reforms, prohibition against large meatpacker ownership of livestock, the important new Conservation Security Program were our issues. We won the Conservation Security Program and many other important provisions, and we will continue to fight for those issues we lost. The farm bill fight is not over yet.
Thanks to all of the groups that have graciously shared their farm bill summaries among one another including the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform, the Campaign for Family Farms, the Community Food Security Coalition, Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group/Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, National Family Farm Coalition, and Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural.
Farm Bill Victories
Conservation Security Program Support the higher funding for conservation in the Senate farm bill, especially the Conservation Security Program. The Conservation Security Program is a visionary new farm program that bridges a gap between commodity programs and land retirement programs, providing financial incentives for conservation on working lands, needed support for family farms and ranches, and environmental benefits such as clean water and air for all Americans, both rural and urban alike.
WIN: Full Conservation Security Program will be established as an entitlement program, making it the first conservation program to be on par with commodity programs (i.e. if a farmer or rancher qualifies, she or he can participate in the program).
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Provisions To secure a new generation of farmers and ranchers, support the beginning farmer and rancher development program, credit program reforms and targeted incentives in the Senate bill. There are twice as many farmers over age 65 than under age 35, and in the 140 years of USDA's existence there has not been a USDA program for new farmers or ranchers (except FSA loan programs). $15 million per year mandatory spending on this program is a small but vital investment in the future of U.S. agriculture.
WIN: The farm bill establishes the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program but funding will be discretionary (we'll have to fight for it in annual appropriations process). The farm bill also reforms the credit title to improve programs for beginning farmers and ranchers, and the bill includes cost-share assistance to help beginning farmers and ranchers participate in conservation programs.
Value-Added Market Development Program Support Senate provisions that make the Value-Added Market Development Program work for small and mid-size farms that are trying new and alternative ways to increase farm income. Support $75 Million per year in mandatory funding for this program and support the Senate policy language.
WIN: Hard-won language was adopted to allow the Value-Added Market Development Program to include how an item is produced (e.g. grass-fed, free range, organic, etc.) to qualify as value-added.
Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling Adopt Senate provisions requiring mandatory labeling of meat, produce, peanuts and farm raised fish by its country of origin to allow U.S. consumers to know and choose the origin of their food.
WIN: Country of origin labeling will be voluntary this year and next, but will become mandatory for all beef, lamb, pork, wild and farm-raised fish, peanuts, and produce (fruits and vegetables).
Food Stamps for Legal Immigrants Support restoration of food stamp benefits to legal immigrants in the Senate farm bill.
WIN: This provision is in the farm bill.
USDA Equity and Justice Reforms Support provisions that increase accountability and transparency in all USDA programs and services, including support for the USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.
WIN: The farm bill authorizes the creation of a USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and puts in place important reforms for County Committee election procedures. The USDA will also be required to better track and evaluate participation by limited resource and socially disadvantaged farmers in USDA programs.
Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Support Senate provisions to strengthen and expand support for Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (often referred to as Section 2501) and the Indian Extension Program.
WIN: Funding increased (but still discretionary) for Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and historically black land-grant colleges and other minority-serving land-grant institutions, including the Indian Extension Program.
National Organic Certification Cost Share Program Adopt the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program in the Senate bill that would provide assistance to small farmers who choose to implement environmentally sound practices in compliance with the USDA's National Organic Program. $3.5 million per year.
WIN: The final conference agreement kept the Senate farm bill language allowing a maximum federal cost share of 75% and the maximum payment made to a producer or handler under this provision is $500. However, the conference report cut funding for the National Organic Cost Share Program to $5 million total over the life of the farm bill. This is in addition to $1 million already made available through the crop insurance bill for the Northeastern states.
Community Food Projects Support House increased funding for assistance to Community Food Projects beginning at $4 million and moving to $7.5 million.
WIN: Community Food Projects will receive $5 million in mandatory funding per year for the six years of the Farm Bill. The farm bill also improves the program by allowing for planning grants for comprehensive, multi-stakeholder solutions including policy councils, mini-grants and support for a national clearinghouse on "Innovative Programs to Address Common Community Problems.
Purchase of Locally Produced Foods Adopt Section 458 of the Nutrition Title in the Senate bill providing for Purchase of Locally Produced Foods.
WIN: Institutions participating in the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs are encouraged to purchase local foods where practicable, and a seed grant fund was authorized at $400,000 for 200 institutions. This funding will need to be appropriated by a separate appropriations bill.
Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs Support provisions in the Senate bill that provide $15 million for the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program this year and raise funding for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program to at least $25 million.
WIN: The WIC FMNP will receive an additional $15 million in the current fiscal year 2002 to substitute for funds that were withheld to support caseload in the regular WIC Program. Along with the $10 million released in January, this infusion of funding will take the program to a $25 million funding level, thus allowing current states and tribes to expand their programs and potentially allowing five new jurisdictions (Arizona, Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos in New Mexico, Hawaii, Montana, and Puerto Rico) that applied for federal funds this year to join the FMNP. The Senior FMNP is authorized for the full six years of the bill, with mandatory funding of $15 million per year. For fiscal year 2002, an additional $5 million will be provided which, on top of the $10 million distributed in early March, will bring total funding for this year to $15 million.
Farmworker Assistance Adopt Senate provisions to increase funding for emergency grants to assist low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
WIN: Removes restrictions on the amount of money that can be put into emergency grants to assist low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the case of disasters and authorizes up to $10 million dollars for grants to nonprofit organizations, coalitions and institutions to train farmworkers in new technologies and specialty skills necessary for high value crops.
Farmers Market Promotion Program Support the $25 million mandatory funding in the Senate bill for the Farmers Market Promotion Program.
WIN: The Farmers Market Promotion Program is established in the farm bill to make grants to eligible entities to establish, expand and promote farmers' markets but the funding is discretionary (we'll have to fight for it in the annual appropriations process).
Farm Bill Losses
Real Payment Limitations Support payment limitations in the Senate bill because they set real limits, close loopholes and restore a measure of fairness, integrity and equity to farm programs. We are concerned about the amount of farm income that is dependent upon government payments. We need to close loopholes, and enforce real limits (as the Senate bill does), and go in the direction of farmers getting a fair price from the marketplace.
LOSS: Despite that fact that these payment limitation provisions were passed by a large majority on the Senate floor and the House voted by a large margin to urge the House conferees to support the Senate provisions, these real payment limitations were dropped from the farm bill.
Ban Against Meatpacker Ownership of Livestock Adopt Senate provisions banning ownership of livestock by large meatpackers to limit their market power and price manipulation, and improve market competition for cattle, hogs and lamb.
LOSS: Despite being passed as an amendment twice on the Senate floor and growing bi-partisan support in the House, the farm bill conferees dropped this provision.
Contract Agriculture Reforms Contract farmers need basic standards in fairness: adopt the Senate contract reform provisions to permit farmers to share terms of contracts with family and trusted advisors, and prohibit forced arbitration clauses.
LOSS and WIN: The most significant contract ag reform prohibition against the use of forced arbitration clauses in contracts (or giving farmers a choice in resolution of disputes with industry arbitration or lawsuit) was dropped. However, in a partial win new reforms that will allow producers to share contract information with family and key advisors, and that will give the Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards Administration oversight over pork production contracts, are in the farm bill.
Rural Entrepreneurs and Microenterprise Assistance Program Adopt the Rural Entrepreneurs and Microenterprise Assistance Program in the Senate bill because it helps low and moderate income individuals acquire the skills and financing necessary to establish new, small businesses in rural areas and receive continuing technical assistance as the individuals begin operating their new businesses. Support $10 million per year mandatory funding of this essential program.
LOSS: Included in the Senate farm bill, this provision was dropped by the conferees.
Organic Research Program Adopt the Organic Research Program in the Senate bill that would provide federal funds for research on production practices that protect land and water resources and help producers access growing markets. - $45 million total
LOSS and WIN: The farm bill will not establish the Organic Research Program but we did win funding for the Organic Research Initiative which will include organic breeding, marketing, and policy research as priority areas within USDA Research, Education and Economics programs make available $3 million (mandatory) annually for grants.
EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) Issues surrounding this program were not included on our list of issues created back in February because the battle to maintain its integrity and keep it from becoming a major subsidy for the biggest factory livestock production operations was lost in the House and Senate. In the end, hard work throughout the movement kept the program from becoming a complete giveaway with no effective limitation on payments. EQIP now has a $450,000 per producer payment limit over life of the bill (6 years). This is obscenely high, but the movement fought an attempt by the conferees to effectively remove limits whereby some large operations would be able to capture more than $1 million in EQIP dollars to subsidize their waste management costs. Our position is that if big industry insists on further concentrating livestock production and producing animals in massive confinement operations, they should pick up the tab for meeting environmental standards -- not the taxpayer.
What are the main implications of the Farm Bill for farmers in the Northeast?
Dairy Programs
Two programs in the 2002 Farm Bill of most interest to dairy producers are the extension of the Price Support program, and the new Milk Income Loss Contract program, also called the Dairy Deficiency Payment program:
- The Milk Price Support program, which was set to expire May 31, 2002, is extended from June 1, 2002 to December 31, 2007. The program supports the price of milk through the purchase of cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk. It prevents the wholesale prices of these products from falling below a certain level (CCC purchase price).
- The Dairy Deficiency Payment program is new. It provides direct payments to dairy producers whenever the Class I price of milk in Boston falls below $16.94 per cwt. The payment rate is equal to 45 percent of the positive difference between $16.94 and the Boston Class I price. The payments are limited to the first 2.4 million pounds of milk for each farm operation in a given fiscal year.
Dairy farmers are eligible for the new Dairy Deficiency Payment program if they have an approved conservation plan.
Other programs in the Farm Bill of interest to dairy producers include:
Grain Programs
The new Farm Bill provides income support to wheat, feedgrains, and oilseeds producers through three programs: 1) direct payments, 2) counter-cyclical payments, and 3) marketing loans.
- Direct Payments are available for producers who enter into an annual agreement with USDA. These payments replace the old production flexibility contract payments, or AMTA pay-ments. The amount of the new Direct Payments is equal to the product of a) the payment rate, b) 85 percent of base acres, and c) the payment yield for the farm.
- Counter-cyclical Payments are new and are designed to provide an income safety net for coveredcommodities. The payment amount is equal to the product of a) the payment rate, b) 85 percent of baseacres, and c) the payment yield for the farm. The payment rate under this program is equal to the Target Price less the direct payment (described above), less the higher of the commodity price or loan rate.
- Marketing Loans allow producers of designated crops to receive a loan from the Government at a commodity-specific loan rate per unit of production by pledging their crop as loan collateral. After harvest, a farmer may obtain a loan for all or part of the new commodity production.
New Conservation Programs:
The 2002 Farm Bill has increased emphasis on conservation and agri-environmental programs. Two new areas are a new Conservation Security Program, which pays farmers to implement practices that address resource issues of concern, and a greatly expanded Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) program.
The objective of EQIP is to encourage farmers and ranchers to adopt practices that reduce environ-mental and resource problems through 1- to 10- year contracts providing education, technical assistance, and financial assistance. More specifically, this program provides livestock producers cost sharing programs for animal waste management systems. The 2002 bill significantly increased EQIP spending.
- The EQIP program now allows up to 90 percent cost-sharing for limited resource or beginning producers. A 75 percent limit continues for others.
- Annual payment limits, which were $10,000 per year under the previous Farm Bill, were removed. The new Farm Bill provides for a total payment cap of $450,000 per producer - regardless of the number of farms or the number of conservation contracts - over the six-year life of the new legislation.
The Conservation Security Program:
Conservation Plans for Working Lands
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 became law in May of 2002. This farm policy will shape American agriculture for the next six years. The largest new program in the farm bill is the Conservation Security Program, an innovative conservation program that will provide farmers and ranchers with annual payments for implementing conservation plans on their working lands, beginning in 2003.
(CSP information courtesy of The Minnesota Project.)
ELIGIBILITY Any agricultural producer-an owner, operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper who shares in the risk of producing any crop or livestock-is entitled to develop a conservation security plan. The plan must meet the approval of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and must contain:
- Identification of designated resources and land to be conserved
- A description of selected tier level and practices to be implemented for resource conservation
- A schedule for conservation plan implementation
Tier 1 Contract:
- Maximum annual payment of $20,000
- Partial farm enrollment
- 5 year contract, renewable for 5 to 10 years with upgrade
- Must address at least one significant resource of concern for the enrolled portion of land
- Maximum annual payment of $35,000
- Whole Farm enrollment
- 5 to 10 year contract, renewable for up to 10 years
- Must address at least one significant resource of concern for entire operation
- Maximum annual payment of $45,000
- Whole farm enrollment
- 5 to 10 year contract, renewable for up to 10 years
- Must apply a resource management system that addresses all resources of concern for entire operation
Annual payments are determined by the total of the following three amounts:
1) Base Payment uses the 2001 average national per-acre rental rate for a specified land use.
- Tier 1: 5 percent of rental rate. Total base payment may not exceed 25 percent of the tier limit or $5,000
- Tier 2: 10 percent of rental rate. Total base payment may not exceed 30 percent of tier limit or $10,500
- Tier 3: 15 percent of rental rate. Total base payment may not exceed 30 percent of tier limit or $13,500
- Land management and vegetative practices
- Land-based structural practices
- Includes multiple conservation practices that exceed minimum tier requirements
- Addresses local conservation priorities in addition to the required resource of concern for the operation
- Participates in on-farm research, demonstration, or pilot projects
- Participates in watershed or regional conservation plan with 75% of producers involved
- Carries out assessment and evaluation of activities covered in the conservation security plan
- Conservation practices that may be implemented under a Conservation Security Contract:
- Nutrient management
- Integrated pest management
- Water conservation and quality management, including irrigation
- Grazing, pasture, and rangeland management
- Soil conservation, quality, and residue management
- Invasive species management
- Fish and wildlife habitat conservation, restoration, and management
- Air quality management
- Energy conservation measures
- Biological resource conservation and regeneration
- Contour farming
- Strip cropping
- Cover cropping
- Controlled rotational grazing
- Resource-conserving crop rotation
- Conversion of portions of cropland from soil depleting to soil conserving use
- Partial field conservation practices
- Native grassland and prairie protection and restoration
- Other practices approved by USDA
Private agricultural land is eligible, including cropland, grassland, prairie, improved pastureland, rangeland, and forested land that is part of a farm.
EXCLUDED PRACTICES
No payments will be made for animal waste storage or treatment facilities.
RESOURCES OF CONCERN
Each state NRCS office will identify state and local resources of concern. Every conservation security plan must address at least one resource of concern, and Tier 3 plans must address all that are applicable to their operation. The resource of concern must be addressed to a level that meets appropriate non-degradation standards - meaning that the combination of practices in the plan must solve the problem so that resources are sustained.
Note: Additional requirements are specified in the law, and rules now under development will contain further details. Contact your NRCS office for more information or consult their website to learn the latest about CSP implementation.
Where can I go to learn more about the Farm Bill?
The Official US Department of Agriculture's Farm Bill site: http://www.usda.gov/farmbill
Food First has written an excellent background article on Farm Bill and its implications in the US and abroad: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2002/s02v8n3.html
UNRAVELING THE AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS
Once an agricultural bill such as the Farm Bill is signed into law, it does not automatically mean that all the programs that are part of the bill will be funded. To understand which and how programs are funded is to untangle a Gordian knot of congressional red tape and procedures: the only way to succeed is to slice through it.
The agricultural appropriations process follows a seasonal cycle which is normally predictable but always subject to changes in the political climate. Typically, the appropriations season is kicked off by the President's unveiling his proposed appropriations bill for the following fiscal year. This usually happens around the first week in February, shortly after the State of the Union Message. Shortly thereafter, both houses' Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittees, the two bodies with the most say over ag funding, begin holding hearings which continue into the spring. Also during the spring, the two houses' Budget Committees decide how much money to give to the two Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittees to divvy up. In recent years, this has become a huge snarl, as budget assumptions were hotly contested, leaving appropriators without a clear idea of how much money they would have to disburse.
At some point, the House and Senate Subcommittee chairs (currently Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia) ask their members to submit to them a very confidential letter detailing their agriculture appropriations priorities for that fiscal year. This represents a crucial and strategic moment for the sustainable agriculture movement; it is essential that the two chairs know our priorities and include them on their list. Each chairman then composes a "chairman's bill" that gets voted on in subcommittee in what's called a "mark-up," followed by the full Appropriations Committee and then the floor with the House traditionally going first.
After the houses have acted, they meet to sort out the differences between the bills in a House-Senate Conference, whose timing can vary from mid-summer to sometime in September. Since the approps bills are all supposed to be signed in time for the next fiscal year to begin (ie. October 1), one would think that this would happen by September 30. In reality, the process often drags into the end of the year.
Who are the key congressional players from the Northeast involved in the ag appropriations process?
There are currently three lawmakers from the Northeast serving on the Senate and House ag. appropriations committees:
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Congresswoman Rosa Delauro (D-CT, 3rd district)
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY, 26th district)
For a complete listing of NE Congressional Delegation committee assignments and contact details, see NESAWG's Guide to Contacting Members of Congress (available as a PDF file or in HTML).
How can I or my organization get involved?
There are many ways! You've already taken the first step simply by taking the time to learn more about the process. Further steps include signing up for occasional (2-3 per year) appropriations e-mail action alerts and assisting NESAWG and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture in their grassroots mobilization around agricultural appropriations. Contact NESAWG staff ([email protected]) to add your name to the growing list of concerned citizens who are helping to create a sustainable food system in the Northeast.
IMPLEMENTATION
One way to think of the Farm Bill implementation process is to recall the dark bedroom closet of our childhood nights: we didn't know what was lurking inside and we didn't dare open it up for fear that wicked things would jump out at us.
Our fear of Farm Bill implementation is not completely unfounded. As pieces of legislation go, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, as it is known officially, truly is a monster. Lasting 10 years, spanning 421 pages of text, and costing upwards of $180 billion dollars, the act covers ten separate titles: commodity programs, conservation, agricultural trade and aid, nutrition programs, farm credit, rural development, research, forestry, energy, and miscellaneous provisions. Within each title, there are a number of different subprograms that are managed and administered by various federal and state bodies. These bodies develop the rules, technical procedures, eligibility requirements, and timetables pertaining to disbursement of program funds. If there's any truth to the saying 'the devil is in the details', then the implementation process offers a number of hiding places for devilish things.
If we're afraid of what might be hiding inside, there's only one way of dealing with our fear: we must open up the process, illuminate it, and, if necessary, shoo the bad things away. When we begin looking more closely as the different titles and programs that are part of the process, we see that we need not fear the unknown. There are resources available to us to help us understand the process better and opportunities for political, technical, and grassroots influence if we look for them. In realizing this, we see that the only monsters haunting the implementation process are the ones we, by our lack of energy and vigilance, allow.
Click here to learn how you can get involved in NESAWG's work on Farm Bill implementation issues.
Where can I go for background information and updates on the implementation process?
The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture has created a web-based matrix of the main programs that are part of the implementation process: http://www.sustainableagriculture.net
USDA's official website containing information on Farm Bill implementation, title by title: http://www.usda.gov/farmbill
The Farm Bill Network offer regular updates about implementation issues on its website: http://www.fb-net.org
How can I or my organization get involved in the process?
In the case of existing programs, you can get involved by insuring that those programs that support small farmers and sustainable farming methods are fully funded through the agricultural appropriations process. In the case of new programs, such as the Conservation Security Program, there is a public comment period during which you can provide feedback to let public officials know what you like about the program and what you don't. NESAWG and its partners will be providing information about these opportunities for grassroots input via its website and e-mail alerts. If you are not already on our e-mail list, you can sign yourself up here.
