Obama Gets Farm Bill Right

The federal farm bill that President Bush vetoed and that the Congress has enacted despite him is, to be sure, a flawed document. For instance, there are still too many of the wrong kinds of subsidies directed to agribusiness interests and hobbyists rather than working farmers.

But with its web of programs designed to feed the poor, conserve natural resources, keep working farmers on the land and aid rural communities, this farm bill came to present a necessary compromise.

Of the roughly $300 billion in spending authorized by the measure, two-thirds of the money goes for nutrition programs such as food stamps. Another $30 billion pays for environmental initiatives. Farm subsidies account for around $40 billion in spending, and many of the subsidies -- though certainly not enough -- actually go to aid small farmers who employ responsible agricultural practices.

The measure also extends new protections to African-American farmers who experienced discrimination at the hands of the US. Department of Agriculture, implements a country-of-origin-labeling program long advocated by consumer groups and provides new assistance to initiatives that are designed to get fresh, locally-grown food to school kids, the elderly and people living in institutions.

That's why the House voted 316-108 to override the president's veto, and that's why the Senate will do the same in short order.

Perhaps a lame-duck president can afford to be, in the words of Senate Agriculture Committee chair Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, "aloof and out of touch with the country."

Perhaps Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president who acknowledges his ignorance when it comes to the real-life economic challenges facing working Americans, thinks he can get away with supporting George Bush's stance.

McCain, who is a more militant supporter of corporate-friendly trade policies even than Bush, objected to what he described as the farm bill's "flawed policies that distort the markets." Translation: The measure was too good for Main Street and not good enough for Wall Street.

The man McCain is likely to face in the November election, Democrat Barack Obama, embraced a different set of priorities.

"By opposing the bill, President Bush and John McCain are saying no to America's farmers and ranchers, no to energy independence, no to the environment, and no to millions of hungry people," argued Obama.

"The bill places greater resources into renewable energy and conservation. And, during this time of rising food prices, the farm bill provides an additional $10 billion for critical nutrition programs. I am also pleased that the bill includes my proposal to help thousands of African-American farmers get their discrimination claims reviewed under the Pigford settlement," said Obama.

Most House Republicans (100 of 194 who voted) agreed with the senator from Illinois, as did the vast majority of Democrats (216 of 230).

"Twenty-five percent of my state is now in need of food assistance," explained Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, a Republican who rejected the position taken by the president and McCain. "I work for them, not for the president."

Serious progressives, who recognize the role that the farm bill plays in maintaining social and economic safety nets in the U.S. and abroad, acknowledge this. That's why more than one thousand activist groups urged the House and Senate to reject the Bush administration's veto -- which was motivated entirely by the president's determination to set farm policies that serve a failed free-trade agenda and the multinational agribusiness corporations that are the sole beneficiaries of that agenda.

In a letter to members of Congress, the organizations that urged support for the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 wrote: "Communities across the nation, from urban to rural, have waited too long for this legislation. The Conference Report makes significant farm policy reforms, protects the safety net for all of America's food producers, addresses important infrastructure needs for specialty crops, increases funding to feed our nation's poor, and enhances support for important conservation initiatives."

"This is by no means a perfect piece of legislation, and none of our organizations achieved everything we had individually requested," the groups continued. "However, it is a carefully balanced compromise of policy priorities that has broad support among organizations representing the nation's agriculture, conservation, and nutrition interests."

Among those declaring that a vote to override the president's veto was "absolutely essential" were the nation's largest progressive farm organization -- the National Farmers Union -- along with the National Farmers Organization, the National Grange, the American Agriculture Movement and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives. Anti-hunger groups such as America's Second Harvest-The Nation's Food Bank Network, the National Coalition for the Homeless, the National Head Start Association and MAZON-A Jewish Response to Hunger signed on, as did YMCA of the USA and YWCA USA. So, too, did organizations representing African-American, Latino, Hmong and women farmers, advocates for organic growers and consumers, farmworker groups, the Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group and ACORN.

These groups are not naive or unrealistic. They recognize the imperfections in the new farm bill.

But they live and work in the real world, where feeding hungry children, preserving precious wetlands and maintaining a diverse and competition system for producing food matters more than satisfying the free-trade fundamentalists at the WTO, getting on the right side of elite "think tanks" or currying favor with the even more elite editorial boards of The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

McCain will get credit for his stance from those newspapers, and others who are fooled by a "maverick" who always seems to end up on the side of the wealthiest and most powerful.

But it is Obama -- not McCain, and certainly not Bush -- who has approached the farm bill fight with the humane, honest and realistic view that Americans have right to expect from a president.

"This bill is far from perfect," the senator from Illinois admits. "I believe in tighter payment limits and a ban on packer ownership of livestock. As president, I will continue to fight for the interests of America's family farmers and ranchers and ensure that assistance is geared towards those producers who truly need them, instead of large agribusinesses. But with so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good."

Comments (25)

1. Flawed is an understatement. Perhaps Democrats should double check to make sure all the bill got printed.

   Posted by srjenkins at 05/21/2008 @ 10:47pm

2. Farm bills always make me sleepy.

   Posted by Benchrest at 05/21/2008 @ 10:50pm

3. I worry about Obama's "ban on packer ownership of livestock" without some more specific clarification. It's one thing to make sure Tyson isn't running their own packing house, but in my state (Ohio) we have exactly ONE state inspected custom poultry processor--that is, one that will process other people's poultry. To be able to sell my chickens in stores or even at local farmers' markets, they have to be processed and packed in a state inspected facility. I have to drive my chickens two hours away for processing so I can sell them four miles away.

   The processor is a small, family-owned and operated place. The family also raises chickens and goats. If the feds told them they had to choose between raising animals or butchering them, they might well decide to shut down, which means my only option for staying on the right side of the law would be driving five hours away to a USDA facility in another state. Figuring in gas costs, I'd probably have to charge $10 a pound or more for my free-range chicken if I did that.

   Too often when the federal government says they're going to "help" small farmers, they do things that drive us into ruin. The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is one such thing. The USDA says they want to protect us from bird flu and mad cow by forcing farmers to install RFID computer chips in all our animals and filing reams of forms every time one of our animals cross a property line. All this does is force the little guy out of the game, further concentrating control of our food supply into the hands of big agribusiness, thereby *increasing* the risk of spreading disease.

   Posted by frijolitofarm at 05/22/2008 @ 12:56am

4. oops,

   http://harpers.org/archive/2005/04/0080501

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2008 @ 12:57am

5. frijolitofarm

   le deseo ¡mucha suerte!

   viva el granjero.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2008 @ 12:59am

6. For heavens sake, get out into the dirt once in awhile. The plague of immunity problems & allergies sweeping the nation might be related to our increasing distance from the earth. Drink some goat milk. Eat a range egg. And if you can't raise them yourself, go to a farmer like frijolito & support the real American dream .

   Posted by Sorelish at 05/22/2008 @ 01:38am

7. Is Obama the only one who supported the bill? Or is this just another opportunity for this 'fair and balanced' blog to do a plug for Obama?

   Posted by kevin99999 at 05/22/2008 @ 09:51am

8. Posted by kevin99999 at 05/22/2008

   He's the Democratic nominee for President....McCain the Republican nominee...

   who ELSE do you want mentioned?

   Posted by Mask at 05/22/2008 @ 11:10am

9. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/22/2008

   Your ESP needs a little fine tuning. What I object to the most about our current ME policy is our strategic objectives.

   From that position, most, if not all tactics developed and implemented in support of the achievement of a bad strategy are necessarily wrong, including fighting a war in Iraq.

   My desire not to subsidize the petrochemical segment of our energy economy does not equate with an assertion that I automatically support any or all farm subsidies.

   Nuance my friend.

   Posted by canaar at 05/22/2008 @ 12:25pm

10. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/22/2008

    Our ME policy... we must destroy in order to save, Huh?

    Posted by Sorelish at 05/22/2008 @ 12:25pm

11. "Drink some goat milk. Eat a range egg. And if you can't raise them yourself, go to a farmer like frijolito & support the real American dream."

    Posted by Sorelish at 05/22/2008

    OK, so how do you propose the poor urban dweller get to those small farms when the closest one is more that an hour away and there's no city transportation?

    Posted by ACook at 05/22/2008 @ 1:07pm

12. ACook-Why don't those poor urban dwellers stop trashing their own backyard and start growing things in their own back yard?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/22/2008 @ 1:16pm

13. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/22/2008

    So a GOOD investment for you is dumping 3/4ths of a TRILLION into propping up a nearly-worthless Shiite government friendly to Iran (oh, and 4000+ dead GIs)...

    and a BAD investment for you is 300 Billion for....Americans? (oh, and NO dead GIs)

    Ah-ha.

    Posted by Mask at 05/22/2008 @ 2:27pm

14. WHEW! NO MCAMNESTY TRACTORS!

    Looks like the farmers will be ok. At least the farm industry won't end up like steel or textiles--driven out of business by sellouts like McAmnesty. Also, there won't be any need for tractor manufacturers to make special tractors like in the early-1980's ag depression--ones without seats and steering wheels--for farmers who had lost their asses and didn't know where to turn. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    Posted by StraightTalkHawk at 05/22/2008 @ 2:51pm

15. OK, so how do you propose the poor urban dweller get to those small farms when the closest one is more that an hour away and there's no city transportation?

    Posted by ACook at 05/22/2008

    Sucks for us doesn't it....

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/22/2008 @ 2:58pm

16. OK, so how do you propose the poor urban dweller get to those small farms when the closest one is more that an hour away and there's no city transportation?

    Posted by ACook

    read this:

    http://harpers.org/archive/2005/04/0080501

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2008 @ 3:18pm

17. Thank you for this article which has a different focus than many of the articles in this whole farm bill debate. This is our national farm and food policy. Congress has just completed the most democratic farm bill debate since 1990. In 1996 the Farm Bill passed the House as an amendment to a budget bill framed on Rep. Gingrich's so called Contract for America. That bill decoupled direct payments from production management and set the stage for the high direct payment levels. In 2002, the bill passed, which was to go to the House floor the week of September 11, 2001, passed without much debate and highly closed proceedings. In 2007-2008, the doors were open to all the groups, including of course big ag, but also all of us in the smaller and poorer pockets of ag. Not everything anyone wanted was achieved but if 1054 groups signed onto the letter National Farmers Union put together, many groups were enough engaged to feel that something important was secured. In addition to the language in the bill to help better complete some resolution of a decades old discrimination against African American producers, the 2008 farm bill had more than every before for all producers of color, and at least opened the door at USDA for farmworkers. Below is a letter signed on by more than 50 organizations in support of the conference report containing these provisions and a short list of some of the more overlooked, technical yet critical positions to move forward, more than ever before, the cause of equity in our agriculture system. Not perfect, but an important start,

    Posted by lpicciano at 05/22/2008 @ 4:10pm

18. Part 2- Equity in the Farm bill

    For further information, please contact Lorette Picciano, lpicciano@ruralco.org, or Savi Horne, Policy Team Chair, savi@landloss.org.

    2008 Farm Bill Conference Report: Vote Yes for Equity

    May 12, 2008

    Dear Member of Congress:

    As supporters of the Farm and Food Policy Diversity Initiative, we write to urge you to vote in favor of the House and Senate Conference report accompanying H.R. 2419, the 2008 Farm Bill Reauthorization. The Diversity Initiative policy package was developed by and represents the unified rural and urban agricultural interests of African American, American Indian, Latino, Asian American and other small farmers and ranchers all across the United States.

    This sector of the agriculture economy has experienced significant land loss and decreased rural economic opportunity as a result of inadequate policies at the United States Department of Agriculture. The conference report, retaining many critical elements of the diversity proposals secured in the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill, takes critical steps in the right direction to remedy these problems. These groups also strongly support the related urban food, community food, nutrition, and sustainability features of the bill.

    More than in any previous farm bill, the specific provisions of the conference report represent major changes in agriculture policy that will assist these producers with their efforts to continue participation in the food, fuel, and fiber production in this country at a level that adds to the sustainability of local economies and contributes to local food systems.

    Sincerely,

    Farm and Food Policy Diversity Initiative Rural Coalition/Coalición Rural, Washington, DC Intertribal Agriculture Council, Billings, MT National Latino Farmer and Rancher Trade Association, Washington, DC North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers Land Loss Prevention Program, Durham, NC Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, East Point, GA Organización en California de Lideres Campesinas, Pomona, CA National Hmong American Farmers, Inc., Washington, DC Farmworker Association of Florida, Apopka, FL National Congress of American Indians, Washington, DC American Corn Growers Association, Washington, DC American Agriculture Movement, Washington, DC National Farmers Union, Washington, DC Indian Nations Conservation Alliance, Twin Bridges, MT Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Washington, DC National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, Pine Bush, NY National Catholic Rural Life Conference, Des Moines, IA National Center for Appropriate Technology, Butte, MT Rural Advancement Fund, Orangeburg, SC Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, Oklahoma City, OK Agricultural Missions, Inc., New York, NY Land Stewardship Project, White Bear Lake, MN Cornucopia Institute, Cornucopia, WI Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society, LaMoure, ND Hispanic Farmers and Ranchers of America Inc., Las Cruces, NM Amanecer, Inc., Hillsboro, NM Court St Joseph #139, Catholic Daughters of the Americas, Corning, NY Church Women United of Chemung County, NY Church Women United of New York State Ladies of Charity of Chemung County NY Past Regents Club, Catholic Daughters of the Americas, Diocese of Rochester, NY Horseheads Grange #1118, Chemung County, NY Pesticide Action Network North America Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation, Brinkley, AR Food First, Oakland, CA Empire State Family Farm Alliance, Inc. Rural Development Leadership Network, New York, NY Black Farmers & Agriculturalists Association, Tillery, NC Concerned Citizens of Tillery, Tillery, NC United Methodist Appalachian Ministry Network, Hagerstown, MD Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice, Pleasant Hill, TN Caney Fork Headwaters Association, Pleasant Hill, TN Rural Advancement Foundation International – USA, Pittsboro, NC Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility, Pleasant Hill, TN California Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Sacramento, CA National Immigrant Farming Initiative, New York, NY Flats Mentor Farm, Lancaster, MA Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, Madison, WI Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA The Minnesota Project, St. Paul, MN Northeast States for Agricultural Stewardship, Dresden, ME Southwest Indian Agriculture Association, Phoenix, AZ

    Posted by lpicciano at 05/22/2008 @ 4:12pm

19. Part 3- Equity in the Farm bill

    Farm and Food Policy Diversity Initiative c/o Rural Coalition/Coalición Rural 1012 14th Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Ph: 202.628.7160 Fax: 202.393.1816

    For Further Information contact: Savi Horne, Policy Team Leader, savi@landoss.org or Lorette Picciano, Coordinator at lpicciano@ruralco.org.

    Farm Bill Wins on Equity

    The Farm Bill Conference Report includes many provisions that open new opportunities for American Indian, African-American, Latino, Asian-Pacific and other small farmers and to secure equitable access to all programs of the Department. The bill also supports nutrition and community food programs and establishes a farmworker coordinator.

    Equitable Access to Programs - The conference reports includes many measures that would significantly help expand and accelerate the growth, resources and viability of socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers and farmworkers, and hold USDA accountable for equitable service, including:

    Conservation Programs o Assistance to Improve Access to Conservation Programs, Sec. 2704, provides set-asides in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and beginning farmers and ranchers (5% each).

    o Increased payments within EQIP, Sec. 2503, provides cost share rates of up to 90% and advance payments up to 30% for socially disadvantaged, limited resource, and beginning farmers and ranchers.

    o Conservation Reserve Program Transition Incentives Program, Sec. 2111, which provides $25 million over 10 years to encourage owners of CRP land to sell or rent to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

    Credit Programs o Settlement of Civil Rights Claims, Sec. 14001, calls upon the Secretary to resolve all civil rights claims and class actions brought against the department by socially disadvantaged producers in a fair and expeditious manner.--including the Keepseagle (Indian producers, filed 11/24/1999), Garcia (Latino producers, filed 10/13/2000), Love (Women producers, filed 10/19/2000) class action suits.

    o Pigford Claims, Sec. 14012, provides a new avenue for court consideration of late filed or unresolved claims in the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree with funding of $100 million, and authority for additional funds, for resolution of these claims of African American producers. Authority to file a claim under this section terminates 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Act. o Moratorium on Foreclosures, Sec. 14002, places a moratorium on loan acceleration and foreclosure proceedings if a claim of discrimination is involved. Also waives interest and offsets accrued during the moratorium period and requires that the USDA Inspector General issue a report on SDFR loan foreclosure proceedings within a year of the legislation's enactment.

    o Inventory Sales Preferences, Sec. 5302, restores priority to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers when USDA sells inventory property.

    o Better Lending Terms, Sec. 5002 and 5004, gives priority to socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers in credit programs (Sec. 5002), as well as lower interest rates, better lending terms, and higher maximum purchase price on first time land purchases (Sec 5004).

    o Loans to Purchasers of Highly Fractioned Lands, Sec. 5501, allows FSA loans to be extended to individual Indians to purchase "highly fractionated" parcels of land according to the Indian Land Consolidation Act amendments of 2004.

    Outreach and Accountability

    o 2501 Socially Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher Outreach and Technical Assistance Program, Sec. 14004, provides $15 million annually in mandatory funds for this important program and strengthens its ability to assist socially disadvantaged producers to participate in agriculture programs. The program is relocated to the Office of Outreach and Advocacy.

    o USDA Offices on Indian Reservations and Extension Indian Reservation Program, Sec. 14001, strikes the requirement that tribes to provide office space for USDA offices on Indian Reservations and to EIRP agents, and directs extension agents to be placed in areas "where there has been a need demonstrated."

    o Office of Outreach and Advocacy, Sec. 14013, establishes a coordinated function on small, beginning and socially disadvantaged producers at USDA. The Office of Advocacy and Enterprise includes two branches:

    o A Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Group, which includes the 2501 program, the Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers, the Farmworker Coordinator, and the functions and duties previously assigned to the Office of Outreach and Diversity under the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and

    o A Small Farms and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Group, which will include the Office of Small Farms Coordination, the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, and the Advisory Committee for Beginning Farmers and Ranchers.

    o Farmworker Coordinator, Sec. 14013, establishes a farmworker coordinator within the Office of Outreach and Advocacy with specific functions and purposes, including serving as a liaison to community-based organizations working with farmworkers and coordinating entities, and administering the emergency program previously authorized to ensure that farmworker needs are met during disasters and other emergencies.

    o Improved Transparency and Accountability for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, and USDA Oversight and Compliance, Sec. 14006, requires the Secretary to compile annual application and participation rate data for each county or parish and state in the United States, organized by race, gender, and ethnicity. The section also provides authority necessary to agencies to collect the data to respond to the section. Sec. 14007 requires the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to use the aforementioned data collected on socially disadvantaged program participation in the conduct of oversight and evaluation of civil right compliance.

    o Census of Agriculture, Sec. 14005 also requires accuracy in the Census of Agriculture.

    o Receipt for Service or Denial of Service, Sec. 14003, mandates that the USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Rural Development programs provide, upon request, a receipt to producers who request service noting the outcome of their request and any further action needed.

    o Minority Farmer and Rancher Advisory Committee, Sec. 14008, establishes advisory committee in Office of Outreach and Advocacy to provide advice on the implementation of the Outreach and Technical Assistance Program for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, methods of maximizing participation in USDA programs, and civil rights activities within the Department.

    Support for Socially Disadvantaged and Beginning Farmers

    o Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Sec. 7410, provides $75 million mandatory over 4 years funds the grant program for beginning farmers and ranchers, with an additional $30 million in annual discretionary authority.

    o Value-Added Producer Grant Program, Sec. 6202, provides $15 million in mandatory funds, to be available until expended, with 10% set-aside for socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers, for grants to producers to add value to their products. It also authorizes further appropriations of up to $40 million annually.

    Forestry o Cultural and Heritage Cooperation Authority, Sec. 8101-8107, authorizes reburial of human remains and cultural items on National Forest System land, including human remains and cultural items repatriated under NAGPRA; prevents disclosure of information regarding reburial sites as well as other culturally sensitive information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); allows the temporary closure of Forest System land for traditional and cultural purposes with Secretarial approval; allows free gathering of forest products for cultural and traditional purposes; increases the availability of Forest Service programs and resources to Indian tribes; aims to strengthen support of traditional practices in accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

    Access to Food and Nutrition

    • Food Stamps – Renames the Food Stamp program the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Sec. 4002), increases funding by $3.1 B, indexes SNAP to inflation (Sec. 4102), expands program eligibility for military (Sec. 4101), working families with childcare expenses (Sec. 4103), and excludes certain education and retirement assets (Sec. 4104).

    • Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, Sec. 4211, allows for the purchase of bison meat from (a) Native American bison producers, and (b) producer-owned cooperatives of bison ranchers, establishes a "Traditional and Locally Grown Food Fund" that allows the purchase of foods designated "traditional" or locally grown for inclusion into food packages, and supports the procurement of the foods by Native American farmers and ranchers up to 50% where practicable, and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a report to Congress, within 180 days of enactment, that assesses the nutritional value of the FDPIR food package, how foods are selected, and how the Secretary plans to update the packages, and if not, why.

    • Farmers Market Promotion, Sec. 10106, provides $33 million in mandatory funding over five years, with a 10% set-aside for EBT implementation projects, to promote farmers markets.

    • Community Food Projects, Sec. 4402, provides $5 million mandatory funding over four years to community-based projects that met the food needs of low-income individuals, increase the food self-reliance of communities, and promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and agricultural needs.

    • Geographic Preference Language, Sec. 4302, allows local schools the flexibility to specify "local" as a bid requirement in purchasing foods for school meals with school meal program funding.

    • Locally Produced Agricultural Products, Sec. 6015, provides priority for entities involved in local food distribution and marketing to receive USDA loan guarantees through the Rural Business and Industries Loan and Loan Guarantee program, and sets aside 5% of annual funds.

    • Healthy Food Enterprise Development Program, Sec. 4402, establishes a Center within CSREES to provide outreach, technical assistance, and feasibility study grants to support the development of enterprises which distribute and market healthy and locally produced foods to underserved urban, rural, and tribal communities; funded at $3 million mandatory over 3 years.

    • Specialty Crop Programs – The conference report includes numerous provisions related to improving technical assistance (Sec. 3203), research (Sec. 7311), transportation and distribution (Sec. 10403), market news (Sec. 10107) and census data (Sec. 10103) for specialty crops. These programs will benefit the socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers who comprise at least 12% of specialty crop producers. Report language in the specialty crop block grant to states program (Sec. 10109) requires each state to develop a plan for reaching socially disadvantaged producers when they apply to USDA to funds. The block grant program will receive $224 million in mandatory funding over five years.

    Equity for Minority Serving Educational Institutions The conference report supports equity for minority serving institutions including grants to Hispanic-Serving Institutions to promote and strengthen their ability to carry out education, applied research, and related community development (Sec. 7128), and the establishment of both an endowment fund to provide funds to Hispanic-Serving agricultural colleges and universities (Sec. 7129) and a leadership program to recruit and train Hispanics and other under-represented groups in forestry and related fields (Sec. 8402).

    Posted by lpicciano at 05/22/2008 @ 4:14pm

20. Let's see ... subsidies to rich farmers experiencing the best profits in years, while food prices are on the rise is GOOD. Subsidies to oil companies is BAD.

    BOTH ARE BAD.

    It's all about constituencies for Democrats, they buy more votes with payoffs to farmers, than they do with payoffs oil companies. And, right now the citizens aren't screaming about food prices, like they are about gas prices. If you read the farm bill, it LOCKS IN and guarantees these high profits levels for years. What's so sacrosanct about small family owned farms? If they can't compete then, they are not efficient enough and should fade into the sunset, just like the family owned corner store lost out to supermarkets and the corner pharmacy lost out to big chains. Other than the votes the small farmer represents, why do we need them? Nostalgia? Nostalgia is nice, but it's not a basis for sound economics.

    Obama just toed the liberal Democratic line on this, nothing more nothing less. In spite of his mantra 'CHANGE' if his current performance is prelude to his future performance, you are going to just get more of the same. In fact, if Obmama is elected, CHANGE may be all you have left after paying the taxes that weill be reuired to deliver on his promises. That is if yo upay taxes.

    If the Farm Bill was indeed just a farm bill without all the other unrelated items tossed in to buy enough votes from Republicans, as well as Democrats, I'm sure it would have failed on it's own merits. The nutrition programs would probably passed on their own, but were need to prop up the flawed farm bill components.

    This my fellow citizens point's out the primary cause of bloated government. Bills are permitted to be amended by totally unrelated appropriations that make it impossible to vote up or down on the merits of individual programs. Almost always pork must be included to buy votes .. this amounts to institutionalized corruption. These porky items are nothing less than payoffs. No different than going directly to the beneficiaries of these porky items and handing them cash. Your Senators and Congressmen acting as the middleman. You do this in private business, and you go to jail.

    Posted by occam at 05/22/2008 @ 8:56pm

21. Let's see. A " Farm bill " of 300 Billion dollars, that has 40 Billion dollars of actual farm related expenditures...

    Is it any question why this country is becoming ungovernable? Nice job, Democrats.

    Posted by BillSanford at 05/22/2008 @ 9:36pm

22. field after field caustically laid to waste

    in a roundup ready frenzy,

    all in preparation

    for a gmo corn'n'soya blasphemy.

    row upon row

    of sterile non-food

    ready to inflate the cows and suvs.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/23/2008 @ 04:40am

23. HAPPY3

    total bullpoo.

    these subsidies have been around for a long time.

    <i> 05/13/2002 - Updated 08:26 AM ET

    Bush makes hay with Midwest by signing farm bill

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed a 10-year, $190 billion farm bill Monday that expands subsidies to growers, turning aside criticism from fellow Republicans who called the measure a budget-busting step backward in agriculture planning.

    "IT'S NOT A PERFECT BILL, I KNOW THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, NO BILL EVER IS," BUSH SAID WITH A CHUCKLE. "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT BILL. OR OTHERWISE, I'D GET TO WRITE EVERY ONE OF THEM."

    The bill rains federal largess on farm-oriented states that will be campaign battlegrounds this fall, potentially helping Bush in his quest to win back control of the Senate for the GOP -- and giving him a chance to rack up IOUs for his own 2004 re-election effort.</i>

    ¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

    like i said, happy -- total manure you spout.

    Friday, May 23, 2008 1:38:28 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/23/2008 @ 1:38pm

24. Nichols' premise is false ... that because the funding in the nutrition title of the bill is important, we have to accept the horrible provisions of the commodities title (and the outrageous extraneous provisions, such as Sen. Baucus's $250 million Montana forest land sale and the Vermont ski resort land swap involving the Appalachian Trail).

    If someone had the courage to resist southern members' push to continue ridiculous ag subsidies, the nutrition provisions could have been even better, along with more money for conservation, rural development, etc., and the bill might even have come in on budget.

    Assuming this is the best deal possible is evidence of Nichols's failure as a journalist to hold members of Congress accountable for their behavior. The commodity and agribusiness lobbies won out over rural people, and all Americans, once again.

    I'm not voting for McCain, and I can't stand Shrub, but they were right on this legislation, if not always for the right reasons.

    Posted by aaronfischbach at 05/23/2008 @ 2:44pm

25. happy 2.3

    i think farm subsidies are ridiculous.

    i was objecting to your partisanship in this matter.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/23/2008 @ 10:11pm