Late Thursday night, the House Agriculture Committee unanimously passed a farm bill that can only be described as astoundingly unresponsive to widespread calls for reform. That bill may be considered by the full House as soon as this week. Now that the farm bill is out of committee, Nancy Pelosi is the most important player in the process. Speaker Pelosi and the House Rules Committee have to choose - and that choice will say much about how they intend to govern. It brings to mind a question Al might ask - Does the House leadership stand with the people or the powerful?

Speaker Pelosi will effectively decide the outcome of the floor debate. That debate should be held after all Americans have the opportunity to make their voices heard regarding the farm bill that has been passed by the Agriculture Committee- and that means delaying floor consideration of the farm bill until after the August recess. After that, the Speaker has three options.

Option 1: She can live up to the repeated promises of the newly elected majority and allow for a full, open, and honest debate. Option 2: She can short-circuit debate, severely curtail or eliminate the number of amendments for floor consideration, and generally run the House in the same fashion as her predecessors. Option 3: She can support real reform on the central issue of farm policy- ending million-dollar subsidy checks to mega-farms.

The third option appears to be highly unlikely. Here is Pelosi's three part statement regarding the just-passed-out-of-committee farm bill:

"The Farm Bill represents a critical first step toward reform by eliminating payments to millionaires,

Not so fast. The Committee's sham reform proposal lowered the adjusted gross income limit on farm program payments to a still-astonishing $1,000,000. And if you're married the limit is $2,000,000. Are we supposed to be pleased by this? Who in their right mind thinks this is actual reform?

Contact Pelosi and tell her to reject the Ag Committee's false reform.

Earlier this week, the Blog for Rural America was offered the opportunity to interview Representative Ron Kind (D-WI), the most vocal and active House member pushing for major changes in the farm bill. Of course, our answer was "name the time and we'll be on the phone." So yesterday John Crabtree, Dan Owens, and Brian Depew of the Center for Rural Affairs spent thirty minutes talking to Representative Kind about the farm bill, his own farm proposals, and general farm and rural policy. Our reaction can be summed up fairly succinctly: Don't underestimate Ron Kind.

The Center for Rural Affairs is NOT endorsing Kind's legislation. However, we always like to evaluate all proposals on their merits, and we hope our elected representatives do the same. And on principle, we can say that we strongly condemn some of the political machinations encountered by Rep. Kind's legislation - every bill should receive equal and fair consideration. Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way. While we are not endorsing, we must say that we enjoyed speaking with the Congressman. Given our experience with a few other politicians (who shall remain unnamed), Congressman Kind's forthrightness and willingness to answer our questions was surprising and gratifying.

As background, we'll lay out a little of the Congressman Kind's farm bill history.

During the 2002 farm bill process, Representative Kind offered an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives that would have shifted a portion of farm program money into conservation programs. The House Agriculture Committee viewed this as a major affront to its power, and fought the amendment vigorously. Kind lost, but his amendment received 200 votes- far more than most thought possible and a very real shock to the Agriculture Committee and entrenched farm bill interest groups. Included in those 200 voting for this limited reform were two fairly important folks in the current farm bill process- Nancy Pelosi (now Speaker) and Steny Hoyer (now Majority Leader).

Fast forward to the present, and Representative Kind is back with two much more comprehensive 2007 farm bill proposals: FARM 21 and The Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007. FARM 21 is the more significant of the two, and would completely upend current farm policy. It would move from farm payments based on production to a "farmer savings account" model. Using the money saved, FARM 21 would also provide substantial funding increases for conservation, rural economic development, local foods, and other priorities. The text of both bills is available on Thomas, and two of Rep. Kind's related press releases are here and here [pdf].

Again, Kind is not a member of the House Agriculture Committee, which means he will almost certainly offer his bills as amendments on the floor. And just like 2002, House Agriculture Committee members of both parties have some very harsh things to say about Kind's proposals, statements that clearly reaffirm their level of worry:

"If the Ron Kinds and other reformers of the world are successful, what they will do, in my opinion, is destroy agriculture."- Chairman Collin Peterson, (D-MN)

"It's a threat to everyone," he said. "I'm frightened as to what Mr. Kind can do to rural America on the floor of the House."- Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK)

And harsh quotes are not the only way the House Agriculture Committee is trying to derail Kind's proposals. The FARM 21 proposal was offered as an amendment in a House Agriculture Subcommittee hearing last Tuesday- simply so the subcommittee could make a strong statement by unanimously voting it down. Clearly, the House Ag Committee views Ron Kind as a serious threat to their interests and institutional prerogatives. As well they should.

Join us below the fold for quotes and analysis of our discussion with Congressman Kind.

 Dan Owens is a Rural Policy Organizer at the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Nebraska. This is part of Farm Bill blogging.

The big news this week in the farm bill debate was the release of Environmental Working Group's new farm subsidy database, and rightfully so. Yet again we were reminded of the vital need for strong, effective farm program payment limitations. Earlier this week I wrote about the King of Farm Programs, Maurice Wilder. The King received $3,217,158 in farm program payments from 2003 to 2005. But it's important to remember that not everyone is like The King.

There are many family farmers who get upset every time the EWG database is in the headlines. And one of them posted an excellent comment on EWG's own blog, Mulch. It is reprinted, unedited, in full here:

Mr. Cook,

You forgot to state that also in this new database is the average income in the area and how many children are in poverty. You have it on my database page. I am a 25 year old farmer that started farming corn and soybeans at age 19. Not with Dad or family or anyone. I have an established business now but I own no real estate. Equipment payments consume most of my income. My equipment loan would be the same as a new business start-up loan to all you non-farm people.

I do not live a life of luxury, I work hard to keep the lifestyle I have. Can you please put on my database page that I employ the father of two poverty stricken kids. I give him a paycheck, food, money for the kids'; Christmas. I also can't control where that paycheck gets spent. I also utilize no-till practices and grow food-grade white corn. Yes, remember farmers grow food, not grocery stores. So if you think I make $50K a year and ignore the 5,900 kids in poverty in my area you are wrong. So could you please post the information I gave you next to my name in your database. I don't care if the world knows how much subsidy payments I have received. I just don't like the personal attack on every subsidy recipient you have done.

Respectfully,

Adam Michael Betzer Sleeth  

I love this comment, and it goes to the heart of the issues around progressive farm bill reform. Yes, farm programs have serious effects that should be acknowledged, and if you ask me unlimited farm subsidy checks are just all-around evil.

Today the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released their latest and greatest version of the (in)famous farm subsidy database. The database can be accessed through their MULCH blog.

The new database also utilizes Google Maps to map recipients of farm program payments. Whether you live in a rural or urban area, you are guaranteed to be surprised by the number and size of recipients that live in your area.

For the first time ever, the database incorporates additional data provided by the USDA that more accurately tracks farm program payments to individual beneficiaries. Prior to this, individual recipients could hide behind multiple "pass-throughs" -- partnerships and corporations set up to exploit farm program loopholes and blow right by existing payment limits.

Ever since EWG released the first version of their database, big commodity groups have been claiming that EWG somehow "distorts" the data for its own purposes.

Right. Ignore those comments, and look at the data for what it is: yet another illustration of the urgent need for payment limits in farm programs. Of course, the first question everyone asks is: Who gets the most money from farm programs? Who's The King?

As revealed in the new data, the current answer to that question is one Maurice Wilder, resident of Florida. Mr. Wilder received a total of $3,217,158 in farm program payments from 2003-2005.

Who is Maurice Wilder, you may ask?

In my last post, I wrote that our elected representatives create blatant loopholes within payment limits to cater to a small number of individuals. I also wrote that the majority of rural Americans - and farmers - want strict payment limits of the type embodied in the Dorgan-Grassley bill. And to speak the language of political junkies and policy wonks everywhere, there are multiple polls to prove it.

In 2005, a Kellogg Foundation-sponsored poll conducted in Iowa, Kansas and Minnesota found clear preferences for a strict $250,000 cap on farm program payments, which is the proposed cap in the Dorgan-Grassley bill reintroduced two weeks ago. All three states are considered farm states, and both farmers and non-farmers were surveyed. You can find the poll here. A quote from the poll summary:

[By] more than a two-to-one margin (67 percent to 31 percent) voters in these states support limiting direct payments to single farms to no more than $250,000. Interestingly, support is higher among farm income households and Republicans than among voters as a whole.

Since farm income households certainly understand farm programs and their impact, one might assume that their higher support for strict subsidy limits is significant. Not only do voters in these states support strict payment limits, they are willing to take that policy preference into the voting booth:

a majority of voters in each state describe themselves as more likely to support a member who supports limiting direct payments to single farms to no more than $250,000 and at least a third describe themselves as "much more likely" to support such a member.

Going further, voters in these three states strongly endorse programs that create rural jobs, conservation programs, and nutrition programs.

See the first poll chart below the fold:

This is my second of three posts on payment limits. The first can be found here. A comment left on the first post:

I'm struggling with an Eiger-like learning curve here with the actual issues. But, as a possible rallying point for public opinion, it seems to me that Grassley-Dorgan scores as being explainable to Sixpack in a soundbite:

Capping the subsidies hits at corporate welfare for the fat cats while protecting the family farm.

With some decent visuals, that's 20 seconds tops on the nightly news.

That's about it. If somebody really wants me to go way into the policy weeds and explain the details of payment limitations and how they work (or don't work), please put up a comment to that effect and I'll do my best. But as a concept, the issue of payment limitations is very simple. A producer can receive up to this much money and no more.

Setting a limit or cap (or whatever you want to call it) on farm program payments is an issue that has been around at least since the late 1960s. It has always been controversial, and it has most often broken down as a North vs. South (plus California) fight rather than along party lines. But at its heart, the fight over payment limits is a philosophical disagreement about the purpose of farm programs.

I happen to believe that farm programs should be focused on helping farmers.

For over 20 years progressive farm activists have fought to stop government subsidies that destroy family farming. The current system of unlimited subsidy checks for large farms increases land prices, puts family size farms at a disadvantage, and ultimately undercuts rural communities.

Politicians from rural areas have been slow to recognize this, however. Instead, rural politicians wax eloquent about saving family farms while repeatedly passing farm programs that subsidize their demise.

The hypocrisy has been bipartisan.

With a few notable exceptions, northern representatives have given lip service to reforming farm programs, but folded when confronted by the opposition of large farm interests from the South. Elected officials who should know better typically justify unlimited payments as a necessary evil, to maintain the "farm coalition" and get as much money as soon as possible for farm payments.

This is a profound mistake.

Yesterday, I was in Slayton, Minnesota (pop. 2,000) talking to a large group of community leaders. It was inspiring to see so many people who were concerned about the future of rural America and how dedicated they were to improving that future.

During the much-needed breaks in the day-long meeting, the hot topic revolved around Worthington, MN- a town of 11,000 or so about 30 miles south of Slayton. Worthington is home to one of the area's largest employers- a Swift meatpacking plant. Many scorn such plants, but they do provide substantial income to the area; just maybe not as much as they should.

On Tuesday, it was announced the Swift meatpacking company was purchased for $225 million. Cash. By a Brazilian company. This was the topic du jour in Slayton, and there was general surprise that a Brazilian company could buy out one of the top meatpackers in the United States. From the Greeley Tribune (where Swift is currently headquartered):

A South American company has bought Greeley-based Swift & Co., which could make the operation the largest beef processor in the world.

Swift, the world's third largest processor of fresh beef and pork products, was sold Monday for $225 million in cash to JBS Friboi, Latin America's biggest beef processor, which also will assume some $1.2 billion in Swift debt and transaction expenses.

Even more distressing was the news that JBS Friboi is not particularly interested in the US operations of Swift. They really want Swift's Australian operation, which can export to Asia, a serious growth market. Currently, Brazilian beef cannot be exported to Asia due to the existence of hoof and mouth disease in Brazil. That disease has been eradicated in Australia. Here's the JBS CEO:

Acquiring Swift ``is a major step for our group in establishing a global presence,'' Batista said in a statement. ``More importantly, Swift will provide us with access to the Pacific region.''...

Analyst Jonathan Feeney:

``Swift Australia clearly was too important for JBS to pass up, with a once-in-a-lifetime chance to access Pacific markets where most of the world's population growth is happening,'' he said.

Of course, JBS Friboi made all the appropriate noises about keeping plants open, but in their press release is this line:

Swift would retain its organizational identity, customer and supplier relationships and substantially all of its employees and leadership team

Substantially. Huh.

This is the inevitable result of globalizing our food system. We already have processed food with tens (if not hundreds) of ingredients that nobody knows the origin or quality of. Who knows how many countries are involved in the production of an average TV dinner? This is what happens when you treat food as just another commodity to be freely traded around the world. Jim Harkness, President of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, says it better than I can in a recent editorial:

Our food system's increasing dependence on imports is no accident. Import dependency is a defining characteristic of an industrial food model driven by U.S. farm and trade policies over the last half century on behalf of agribusiness. U.S. farm policy has encouraged the mass production of only a few cheap crops largely used as food ingredients, animal feed and exports. U.S. trade policy has aggressively pushed for the removal of trade barriers paving the way for the global food trade.

This is free-trade economics at work. We shouldn't be surprised. Free trade is neither inherently evil nor inherently good. But let's be honest about where our current policies are taking us. If we continue down the path we're currently on, consolidation and concentration of food processing and production is the inevitable outcome.

And in fact, if you ask mainstream agriculture economists, they are completely honest. Erica Rosa, an ag economist with the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Denver:

"Given the economy and the nature of that type of industry, it is something that we will see come more and more," predicted Rosa.

But Rosa isn't alarmed. She compared the macro-economic forces driving global meat packing consolidation with those that have driven consolidation within the auto industry.

"Consolidation is something that is not unfamiliar in any type of industry," Rosa explained.

Speaking for myself, I am alarmed. I'm alarmed at allowing the same macro-economic forces that drive the auto industry to control the future of an industry responsible for providing the food that literally keeps us alive.