TPMCafe
« TPMtv Guide: Tuesday, June 5 | Home | Responding to Comments: Reform, Small Farmers, Trade and Energy Independence »

Reforming the Farm Bill -- Where We Go from Here

user-pic

Thank all of you for your interesting and insightful questions and comments. I will be addressing as many of them as I can over the coming week. But for now, I’d like to touch on a set of questions: Why is a Congressman whose district is not predominantly rural trying to change federal farm policy? What can a Congressman who doesn’t sit on the Agriculture do to affect the Farm Bill? And what can readers do to get involved in the process?

First, like many “urban” or city members of Congress, I actually represent many farmers. They grow high value products; there are nurseries and tree farms, fruits and vegetables. In fact, most of America’s cities are on or around very productive land. And as I touched on in my first post, federal food and farm policy affects all Americans. First, everyone who eats (an inclusive group indeed) is affected by our food and farm policy. As Michael Pollan explains well in The New York Times magazine in April:

The resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system – indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root.


In addition to having an impact on the price we pay for and our access to Twinkies and carrots – and everything in between – federal food and farm policy also has a profound impact on our environment, on our energy market, on our trade policy and the way we interact with the rest of the world. In short, it impacts us all: Whether we live in the country, the suburbs or cities large and small.

The second question is an interesting one. In the past, the almost 400 members who weren’t on the agriculture committee mattered little in shaping the bill. The process started to change during the 2002 Farm Bill when there was much more activity. I worked with other non-committee members to limit overly generous payments to a few so there would be more support for the many being shortchanged. We even won some “motions to instruct” the conference committee, only to have them ignore these statements of policy.

The refusal of the agriculture committees to listen to us last time has encouraged more to work harder and earlier in the process for the bill. Naturally, this bill will have to be passed by the entire House, not just the Agriculture Committee. And we will be ready. I’m working for more opportunities to amend the bill on the floor, or even have a vote on an entire substitute bill, as occurred the last time we took up a Farm Bill.

Even before a farm bill goes to the floor, I and other members will have the chance to work to improve it. For instance, my office is working with my fellow members of the Ways and Means Committee to explore ways to ensure that new Farm Bill programs are paid for by reforming commodity subsidies and that any new money goes for nutrition, conservation, and rural development programs. By making that key alteration, we will have a better and fairer food and farm policy.

As for the final question – what can you, the American voter, do? This may be the most important question. Your role is at least as critical as mine. To start, get informed on this issue. I have set up a website – FoodandFarmBillofRights.com – that has information about the farm bill, as well as links to other sites that are doing a great job of tracking this issue.

After getting informed, get involved. Over at FoodandFarmBillofRights.com I am asking for signatures for a petition to deliver a strong message to members of Congress that America deserves a farm policy that serves all Americans, provides for a safe and healthy food supply, and sets the right priorities for the 21st century.

You can also use this site to contact your Representative in the House directly and find out what their farm and food policy is. Find out what staff member is responsible for the issue and meet with them. Have a local food and farm forum that involves your farmers, hunger advocates and environmental community. Give basic information for the customers at your farmers markets.

Whether your intent is fairness for family farmers and ranchers, protection of healthy locally grown products, enhancement of the environment, promoting organic or sustainable agriculture, or fighting hunger and poor nutrition, this is your #1 challenge and opportunity this year.

We can get a better farm bill. And I hope that through the rest of the week we can delve in depth into the specific ways we can achieve this.


5 Comments

| Leave a comment

Dear Congressman Blumenauer,

Please do your best to make sure that industrial hemp is included in the 2007 Farm Bill.

Industrial hemp deserves a mention in Farm Bill programs that support sustainable agriculture and bioenergy.

At Farm Bill hearings in May before the Senate Agriculture Committee, it was noted that industrial hemp could be a feedstock for the production of bio-based nanocomposite materials that could substitute for fiberglass and petroleum-based composites. Research on this technology is currently being conducted with Farm Bill funding under the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, and industrial hemp has already replaced fiberglass in the commercial production of millions of cars and other vehicles.

Industrial hemp meets the definition of a bioenergy crop under S. 1403, the Farm-to-Fuel Investment Act of 2007. Industrial hemp is "an annual plant that can be used as feedstock for bioenergy production and is grown in a resource-conserving crop rotation." Rotating industrial hemp with soy reduces fertilizer and pesticide use. Biodiesel Magazine says hemp seed biodiesel has "amazing properties," and hemp stalk could be used as a feedstock for biomass ethanol.

Converting working land to sustainable industrial hemp production should qualify farmers for the Conservation Security Program. Planting industrial hemp is a way to control erosion, eliminate pesticide use, and conserve water usage.

Environmentally-friendly industrial hemp production is a shining example of the sustainable farming and renewable energy the Farm Bill could encourage in US agriculture. So, why doesn't the Farm Bill include a provision on industrial hemp? Please support the inclusion of industrial hemp in the Conservation and Energy Titles of the 2007 Farm Bill.

Sincerely,

Tom Murphy
National Outreach Coordinator
Vote Hemp
http://www.votehemp.com/
tom@votehemp.com

Congressman, words like "reform" and "fair"
are subjective, and trying to read and understand a Congressional Bill is not for the faint of heart. Tell me the top 3 reforms you wish to accomplish and explain in laymen's terms what they will do.

 In fact, most of America’s cities are on or around very productive land.

Yes indeed.  Those of us who mess about in urban history recognize that access to water for transportation and fertile land for agriculture determined where most cities were established in the first instance. 

This brings up another issue upon which representatives of urban/suburban areas and rural areas can find common ground.  All acres are not created equal.  Suburban Sprawl takes some of the most arable land first.  It also increases the carbon footprint and decreases a sense of neighborliness (coincidentally, one of the values perennially associated with rural communities).  So any program which enhances agriculture on the fringes of cities, making it competitive with development in terms of land value is a win/win situation for the culture as a whole. 

aMike

Lots of links to information about sprawl are available courtesy of about.com.

It is frustrating for family farmers to have Big Agribusiness and commodity groups as the sole voices representing "farmers." Family farmers do not like the commodity title either as it is right now. However, it would be very misguided if Congress simply got rid of all subsidies and shifted that money to nutrition, conservation, or other nice-sounding things. Without a fair price for farmers, and truly free, open and competitive markets, you will be doing nothing to make the system better, and in some cases, you could be doing irreparably worse damage. We could eliminate the $20 billion in subsidies if we set a price floor for commodities and combined it with a grain reserve. Making ADM and Cargill pay for commodities (instead of taxpayers) also would then slow down sprawl, factory farms, and all the other things progressives want.

But I greatly fear any commodity title reforms coming from Representatives with little input from family farmers.

Congressman Blumenauer,

Thank you very much both for your work on this issue, and for taking the time to stop by here.

While I think your F&FBoR is a great start, there's two things I would like to emphasized, for which the farm bill may or may not be the best place.

First, when it comes to providing more local, healthy food, I'm all for market-based reform. Farmer's market-based, reform, that is. Y'all in Portland know the benefits that farmer's markets can bring better than anyone, but too many people write off the success of Portland's local food movement to the incredibly rich soils of the Willamette valley. I'm here to say that even on the red clay of the NC piedmont, a market structure built in Durham with federal funds is already overcrowded with vendors and people on Saturdays. We could probably build two more and fill those up too. Creating a central market for agricultural products is a millinias-old economic development strategy, and helps to provide fresh food to the urban population as well as a much mure substantial cash stream for the local farmers. Again, given your district, I'm sure you know all this already. But please, don't be shy about pushing it.

Secondly, there's the issue of the transportation of farmed goods. I'm not sure this belongs in the farm bill, but I'd rather see the government help farmers by removing inefficiencies in the food supply rather than just providing subsidies. A federalized rail system to help move commodities from their growing regions to market more efficiently could be just as beneficial as farm subsidies, but without concentrating the benefit in the hands of large conglomerates the way the current system does, and could save energy and reduce greenhouse emmissions at the same time. Rail is a great and energy efficient way to move agricultural freight, but our current system is trapped in the 19th century, dominated by a handful of squabbling companies who jealously guard their rights of way. Again, probably a bigger issue than the farm bill, but very important to farmers and consumers none the less.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »



Book Club Calendar


Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address