NSAC Policy Associate Helen Dombalis and Farmer Jack Hedin

Earlier this week, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) organized two Congressional briefings on the economic potential of local food systems and the programs and policies that are needed in the farm bill to realize this potential and to support this critically important agricultural sector.  The briefings were hosted by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1), the lead sponsors of the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (S. 1773, H.R. 3286).

For the past year, UCS has been working to shine a spotlight on the economic benefits of local and regional food systems.  Just as importantly, UCS focuses on how smart policies that support the expansion of local food systems can provide much-needed investments in rural communities, create jobs and support family farms, and help increase U.S. production of healthful food.

For example, the recent report Ensuring the Harvest found that if fruit and vegetable consumption increased to meet the USDA’s “MyPlate” dietary guidelines, local food sales could increase to as much as $14.5 billion a year and generate as many as 189,000 new jobs.

Over the course of two briefings, one each for the House and Senate, the panel of speakers delivered hard facts and figures on local food systems, real life experiences and knowledge, and the ins and outs of the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA).  The briefing was moderated by UCS’s Ricardo Salvador, Senior Scientist and Food & Environment Program Director.  The panel featured the following speakers:

Jeff O’Hara, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist, Union of Concerned Scientists
Dr. O’Hara is UCS’s leading researcher on the economics of local and regional food systems and is the author of two recent reports on local foods, Ensuring the Harvest and Market Forces.  Jeff’s presentation focused on the economic success of local and regional food systems in recent years as well as the potential for additional growth and job creation that could be aided by smart policies like those included in LFFJA.

Jack Hedin, Featherstone Farm, Rushford, Minnesota
Mr. Hedin is the owner of Featherstone Farm, a 250 acre diversified and certified organic farm located in southeast Minnesota.  The farm produces 50 varieties of fresh market fruits and vegetables for distribution to food stores, wholesalers, and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) members throughout the region.  Jack is also an ally of NSAC and was recently in DC for a series of meetings with NSAC and House and Senate staffers.  During the briefing, Jack spoke directly to his on-farm experiences in Minnesota, the financial challenges posed to diversified and organic farmers like himself, and the need for improved credit and risk management tools to be included in the farm bill.  Specifically, Jack spoke about the need for a whole farm risk management insurance product, a provision in the farm bill recently reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Bernadine Prince, Co-Executive Director, FRESHFARM Markets; President – Board of Directors, Farmers Market Coalition
Ms. Prince is the co-founder and co-executive director of FRESHFARM Markets, which operates 11 producer-only farmers markets in the Washington metropolitan area with more than 110 farmers and producers from five states who farm more than 9,000 acres.  Bernadine is also the Board President for the Farmers Market Coalition, an NSAC member group which seeks to strengthen farmers markets’ capacity to serve farmers, consumers, and communities nationwide.  Bernadine’s briefing presentation focused on the incredible growth of farmers markets and the critical role that programs like the Farmers Market Promotion Program have played in the success and growth of local markets.

Helen Dombalis, Policy Associate, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
NSAC Policy Associate and lead advocate for local and regional farm and food policy, Helen delivered an overview of the key provisions, programs, and funding included in LFFJA as well a comparison to the draft farm bill that recently passed the Senate Agriculture Committee.  Click here for specific information on how local food policies and programs fared in the Senate bill.

Nearly 50 staff, members of the media, and outside stakeholders attended the two briefings.  In addition to the presentations, each briefing also featured a lively Q&A session with panelists.

For more information on UCS’s work on local food issues, recent reports, and priorities and the farm bill, please visit their website.

            Rep. Pingree and Russell Libby

Chairwoman Jean Schmidt (R-OH) opened the hearing by stating, “In order for us to reauthorize and craft responsible farm programs, it is our duty and responsibility to ensure that every dollar spent is a wise dollar spent.   Investing wisely in specialty crops and ensuring that nutrition programs are being administered effectively is critical at this time.”

Schmidt highlighted the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) because it has no baseline funding going forward.  She cited SCRI as a “critical element” of specialty crops, and one that promotes health– “A diet with more specialty crops is more nutritious.”

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-ME) echoed the interrelated nature of nutrition and specialty crops as both “important links in ensuring that all families have the option of putting fresh and good food on their tables.”  According to Pingree, thinking about how to link nutrition programs to farmers involves expanding local markets.

“When farmers sell to local markets, they get to keep a bigger share of the dollar.  It’s a win for farmers and it’s a win for our families,” said Pingree.

The first panel included five witnesses involved in production and packing of specialty crops.  As a whole, members of the panel stressed the importance of both SCRI and the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBPG) which fund food safety, education, research, and marketing efforts that advance the competitiveness of specialty crops.  Several witnesses, asked for changes or more funding for the program.  Jerry Lee, the Environmental Services Manager of Monrovia Growers, suggested the Committee “support your Senate counterparts’ efforts to expand funding for this program and allow the opportunity for multi-state proposals.”

Russell Libby, the Executive Director of Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, was the only one of the first panelists to discuss organic specialty crops.  Libby also referenced the Senate farm bill, asking the House to consider funding the National Organic Certification Cost Share at the level included in the Senate bill.  He warned that without the program “farmers here at home will opt not to certify, and organic companies will have to source from overseas instead of from American farmers to meet strong consumer demand.”

Libby also asked to expand organic production through a more efficient National Organic Program, through streamlined inclusion in programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program, and through the development of a workable organic crop insurance program.

During the question and answer portion of the hearing, Rep. Pingree inquired about  potential barriers to farmers, especially those concerning beginning and organic farmers and farmers selling into local markets.  Generally panelists agreed that farmers needed access to capital to aggregate product and scale up supply networks.

During his round of questioning, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) pointed out that cutting nutrition assistance programs also meant cutting benefits for farmers.  Phil Blalock, the Executive Director of the National Association of Farmers Market Nutrition Programs, made a similar point in the second panel.  He discussed the role the Farmers Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program play in supporting agriculture, explaining that these programs “increase income to small family farmers by increasing use and awareness of farmers markets.”

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, provides benefits to recipients through an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card.  With the transition from paper to electronic benefits in the mid-1990s, SNAP purchases at farmers markets declined due to a lack of equipment and technology to accept and process these electronic benefits.

The USDA funding, made available by Congress through the Fiscal Year 2012 agriculture appropriations bill, will work to reverse this trend and boost SNAP sales at local food outlets.  While there are over 7,100 farmers markets in the U.S., a mere 1,500 of these currently have the capacity to accept EBT.

On a press call, USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan explained that the philanthropic community and organizations like NSAC member Fair Food Network and NSAC partner Wholesome Wave are largely to thank for the available EBT technology at some markets.

In looking at the limited capacity to process EBT at farmers markets, Merrigan said that she asked herself “Why couldn’t it be all of them?”  USDA estimates that the $4 million will significantly expand this number, hopefully adding 4,000 additional markets to the list of those accepting EBT.

The funding will be distributed to States and weighted more heavily towards States lacking large numbers of EBT-capable markets.  It will then be up to the discretion of the States to administer the funding.

Later this year through a Federal Register notice USDA will announce a period during which the Agency will accept public comments on disbursements of these funds in future years.

NSAC strongly advocates for expanding EBT access at farmers markets and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing outlets such as community supported agriculture programs (CSAs) and farm stands.  Not only does ensuring EBT capability expand access to healthy, fresh food for low-income Americans but it also bolsters economic development.  When farmers sell directly to consumers, they are able to retain a larger share of the dollar that can then be reinvested in the local community.

The Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act contains key EBT provisions aimed for inclusion in the final 2012 Farm Bill.  NSAC supports inclusion of all of the provisions of this bill in the 2012 Farm Bill.  We will be alerting members and readers to opportunities to work for this goal as the farm bill moves to the Senate floor and to the House Agriculture Committee, both of which may happen in June.

The bill that the Senate Agriculture Committee voted out of committee last week now makes its way to the Senate floor and hopefully will be taken up by the House later this spring.  While there were some key highlights included on commodity program reform, organic agriculture, and local food, there was not much headway made on sustainable agriculture research priorities in the current bill that came out of the Senate.

A detailed breakdown regarding what research provisions were (and were not) included in the draft bill presented to the Committee by Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Ranking Member Pat Roberts (R-KS) is available in this earlier post.  This post focuses on amendments to the bill pursued before and during Committee markup last week.

Seeds and Breeds

We were pleased to see that Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) filed and offered an amendment in support of classical breeding during the Senate markup.  Her amendment proposed to allocate 5 percent of total funding within the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) to projects involving classical plant and animal breeding – which closely mirrors the report language included in the 2008 Farm Bill which clarifies Congress’ intent in making public breeding a research priority in the newly created competitive grants program.  Despite this congressional mandate and the tremendous demand for more research on conventionally bred and locally adapted seeds and breeds, USDA has failed to sufficiently address the nation’s public breeding needs.  Ultimately, Sen. Gillibrand withdrew her amendment and we were disappointed to see no improvements to the AFRI program in the Senate bill voted out of committee.

Beginning Farmers and Local Food

There were no major revisions to beginning farmer research priorities, aside from one small change made to the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program which added military veterans to the 25 percent set-aside which currently funds projects that meet the needs of socially disadvantaged and limited resource farmers and ranchers, as well as farmworkers aspiring to become farmers.  For more details on other beginning farmer related provisions, see our previous blog post.

On the local food research agenda, we were pleased to see that the local and regional food data collection initiative included in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act was left intact from the draft farm bill presented by Chairwoman Stabenow (D-MI) and Ranking Member Roberts (R-KS) that was released prior to mark up.  We were disappointed, however, to see that there was no money provided to this new initiative, and will be working with other champions in the Senate and House to hopefully obtain mandatory funding to kick start this program.  For more details on other local food related provisions, see our previous blog post.

Horticulture and Organic

There were no changes made to two key mandatory programs that fund research on specialty crops and organic agriculture.  The Specialty Crop Research Initiative received a total of $200 million over the life of the farm bill and its funding levels are made permanent into future farm bill cycles at $50 million per year.  The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative maintains the funding levels included in the mark – $80 million over the life of the farm bill, or $16 million per year plus an authorization for $25 million per year in appropriations.  This is 20 percent decrease in annual funding, and NSAC will be continuing to advocate for additional resources to support organic research as the farm bill process moves forward.  For more details on other organic provisions, see our previous blog post.

Other Research Provisions

Sen. Leahy (D-VT) filed an amendment that included an authorization for the Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers, a public health reporting requirement for USDA programs and policies, and re-establishing the Agricultural Science and Technology Review Board which has historically provided oversight of federally funded technology development related to agriculture.  We are happy to report that the IPM Centers authorization made it into the final manager’s amendment presented at markup.  Sadly, however, the other two provisions included in Sen. Leahy’s amendment were not accepted.  We will continue to work on them as the farm bill process moves forward.

Another disappointment in the research title was the so-called “sun setting” of the provision that authorizes the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program.  SARE has until now functioned under a permanent authorization.  While not an imminent threat in any way, this change now makes the future of this incredibly successful program somewhat more precarious, as sustainable agriculture stakeholders will need to ensure that the program gets reauthorized in every future farm bill.

There were no other changes in the Research Title from what was included in the draft mark released prior to markup.

One issue which NSAC was especially frustrated was not included in the final bill was a proposal to clarify the eligibility requirements within AFRI.  The statute clearly states that USDA should solicit applications from wide variety of eligible applicants, including private organizations, federal agencies, and research foundations, in addition to public and private colleges and universities.   However, the statute has been interpreted we believe in a manner contrary to the intent of Congress, to restrict eligibility for integrated projects to only academic institutions.  The ball is now in Congress’ court to clarify whether the program will be competitive or non-competitive.  We hope before the farm bill process is concluded the farm bill will restore all of AFRI to fully competitive status.

For more information on which research provisions were included in the draft mark, see our previous blog post.

The Senate Agriculture Committee voted the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act — the proposed name for the 2012 Farm Bill — out of Committee on Thursday, April 26.  The markup and negotiations that immediately preceded the markup resulted in some improvements in the bill for local food systems and rural development, though there is still work to be done to ensure the final bill fully captures the economic opportunities to be gained in these areas of our nation’s agriculture and food policy.

What follows is a breakdown of provisions offered last week that were (and were not) included in the Farm Bill that emerged out of the Senate Committee markup.  A previous blog post on local food and rural development summarizes the provisions as presented in the original draft bill that was released on Friday, April 20.  We will not repeat that information here, but refer interested readers back to the earlier post.  This post focuses on changes adopted immediately before or in the Committee markup.

Nutrition Title

Two amendments were filed that could have bolstered opportunities for schools and other institutions to procure food from local farmers and ranchers.  The first was filed by Sen. Brown (D-OH), the Senate lead sponsor of the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (S. 1773).  The second was filed by Sens. Casey (D-PA) and Leahy (D-VT).  Ultimately, neither of these amendments were offered during markup.  NSAC will continue to pursue Farm to School provisions during the Senate floor process and on the House side.

Thanks to an amendment offered by Sen. Leahy and passed out of committee, the bill now includes a provision that would make it easier for SNAP recipients to participate in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs.  NSAC supports this provision and will advocate for it to remain in the final Farm Bill.

Chairwoman Stabenow (D-MI) championed a new program, with a total of $100 million in  mandatory funding over five years, to encourage purchases of fruits and vegetables by SNAP consumers at retail outlets, including farmers markets.  The grants are modeled after the successful work of Fair Food Network’s Double Up Food Bucks program.

Also noteworthy is the addition of the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) – it was not in the original bill presented on April 20 but was included in the revised version on April 25 and included in the bill voted out of committee.  The initiative, which aims to improve access to healthy food in low-income communities, is authorized to receive up to $125 million (no time period is provided for) in discretionary funding through the annual appropriations process.

Rural Development Title

As our earlier post noted, the original bill did not include any mandatory funding for the Rural Development Title.  Unfortunately, despite the efforts of Sen. Brown and others, this sobering fact did not change during the markup process.  The Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program and the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP) remain without any mandatory funding.

Brown did offer an amendment to put $25 million each into these two programs plus $100 million to fund water and wastewater projects.  He withdrew the amendment when it was not clear whether $150 million in mandatory funding was still available, given the changes made to the overall bill during markup, above the net $23 billion savings figure the Committee agreed to save over the next decade relative to current law.  Chairwoman Stabenow indicated her support for the Brown amendment, which will re-emerge in some form when the bill comes to the Senate floor.

No-cost policy changes proposed in the Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act to strengthen and improve a variety of rural development programs were not included in the Senate Committee bill.  The same holds true for the research and extension title.

Overall, the bill that was reported out of Committee last Thursday supports key pieces of the suite of unique programs that serve the organic sector.  Most of the organic provisions included in the draft bill presented by Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI and Ranking Member Pat Roberts (R-KS) we reported on early last week remained unchanged in the package that the Committee approved.  Several organic amendments were filed before the markup, and two of them were included in the bill passed out of Committee.

Overview of Organic Provisions

The bill reported out of Committee maintains the mandatory funding levels included in the Chairwoman’s mark for organic programs.  Funding for national organic certification cost-share remained at $11.5 million per year, for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) at $16 million per year, and for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI) at $5 million over the life of the bill.  The bill also provided $5 million in mandatory funding for technology upgrades at the National Organic Program (NOP).

The modifications to OREI priorities and to ODI that we reported on last week remained in the bill, and the no-cost policy changes to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program organic provision that NSAC supported sadly were not made.

Organic Crop Insurance

The mark did not include changes to make crop insurance more appropriate for organic farmers, and Sen. Casey (D-PA) filed an amendment to make these changes.  Sen. Casey’s amendment would have eliminated for all crops the unjustified premium surcharge that organic farmers pay for coverage of all but a dozen organic crops, and would have directed the Risk Management Agency to develop and publish a complete organic price series.

Although the amendment was filed, and these changes were included in the Senate’s version of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Committee did not vote on the amendment and it was not included in the approved bill.

National Organic Program Enforcement

Sen. Leahy (D-VT) championed an amendment to improve NOP’s enforcement authority that was included in the revised bill provided to the Committee by the Chair and Ranking Member on April 25 and remained in the bill reported out of Committee.  With an increased focus on enforcement of organic standards at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, NOP has identified areas of needed authority to improve organic enforcement.  Sen. Leahy’s amendment grants NOP stronger enforcement authority.

Specifically, Sen. Leahy’s amendment requires organic producers, handlers, and certifying agents to submit records – that will be kept confidential – associated with organic certification at the Secretary’s request, and requires those records to be kept for 5 years for most people participating in organic, and 10 years for certifiers.  The amendment allows the Secretary to carry out an investigation to verify the accuracy of the information provided, and provides USDA with authority to subpoena the records.  Through the amendment, the Secretary can also issue an order to stop the sale of a product misrepresented as organic, and suspend and revoke organic certification.  The amendment also outlines an appeals process, and provides a penalty for a person that violates an order or revocation.

Organic Research and Promotion Program

Sen. Casey also championed an organic check-off amendment.  The amendment would have provided USDA with the authority to issue an organic commodity promotion order; would have allowed organic producers that currently participate in conventional check-off programs the ability to choose whether to participate in the conventional commodity check-off or an organic check-off if one is created; and would have clarified that an organic-only producer can choose to be exempt from a conventional check-off.  The Organic Trade Association is the lead stakeholder advocating for these changes.

A much modified version of the amendment was included in the revised draft bill issued April 25 and in the bill reported out of Committee.  The bill requires USDA to submit a report to Congress that describes what the Secretary is doing to ensure that check-off activities reflect the priorities of all members in a check-off, and assesses the feasibility of creating an organic check-off.

We are thrilled to report the bill approved by the Appropriations Committee endorsed the Administration’s proposal to fund for the first time the Sustainable Agriculture Federal-State Matching Grant Program as a new component of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program.  Combined, the Committee bill provides for $22.7 million for SARE, including $3.5 million for the matching grant initiative.  The latter was authorized by Congress, along with the rest of SARE, back in 1990, but to date it has never received an appropriation.  The Committee’s proposed funding level represents a long overdue 18 percent increase in funding.

We are also glad the Committee endorsed the Administration’s proposal to increase spending for the Value-Added Producer Grants program by $1 million to $15 million.  This is still $5 million less than the long-term funding level for the program and $25 million less than the 2002 Farm Bill provided for the program, but at least a modest step back in the right direction.

In the conservation part of the bill, we are delighted the Committee chose to reject the Administration’s proposal to cut a portion of farm bill mandatory funding for the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).  We strongly oppose backdoor efforts in the appropriations bill to reduce mandatory farm bill funding for conservation and applaud the Committee for keeping CSP funding intact.

The Committee bill also steered clear of cuts to the Farmland Protection Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and several other conservation programs.  However, they did propose to cut $350 million out of the farm bill mandatory funding level of $1.75 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the same amount as in FY 11 and FY 12.  Also cut was farm bill funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, down $12 million from the farm bill level of $85 million, a smaller cut than made in the FY 12 appropriations act.

We are also pleased to report the Senate Committee did not include the legislative rider from the FY 12 appropriations act that acts to prevent USDA from doing its job to ensure fair competition in the livestock and poultry marketplace.

The Committee also:

• includes a big bump up for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, a quasi-competitive research, education and extension grants program, from $264 million currently to $298 million, a 13 percent increase;
• keeps direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loan funds constant at FY 12 levels; NSAC has requested an increase for direct farm ownership loans targeted to beginning farmers and ranchers;
• allows $3 million in remaining 2008 Farm Bill funding for the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program to be spent in 2013; we had advocated for additional discretionary funding but none was granted; and
• maintains level funding or very modest increases for a variety of other programs we follow closely including ATTRA, Organic Transitions Research, IPM Regional Centers, Office of Advocacy and Outreach, Local and Regional Food Enterprise Loan Guarantees, State Mediation Grants, Conservation Operations including Technical Assistance, and others.

For more details, see the NSAC Appropriations Chart on our website, which is now up-to-date with Senate Committee action.

For general details on the bill refer to the Committee’s summary.

To read about the big conflict between House and Senate spending levels for 2013, read our earlier post.

Rural Development Subcommittee Chairman Tim Johnson (R-IL) opened the hearing by acknowledging the tight budget situation and the vast number of programs geared towards rural communities.  “It is, in part, the sheer number of programs which makes it difficult to gauge the effectiveness of current policy,” he said.

Ranking member Jim Costa (D-CA) followed, stressing the importance of USDA defining rural.  According to Costa, 98 communities, or 80% of the local loan portfolio, in California will no longer be considered rural unless rural definitions are revised.

Costa later went on to applaud the Value Added Producer Grant Program (VAPG) and suggested giving priority to collaborative projects within the program.

Charles Conner, President and CEO of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, stressed the need to streamline both programs and application processes.  He noted that VAPG was one such program that capitalized on group efforts by allowing cooperatives to access “new business opportunities that would go unexplored.”  In his testimony, Conner recommended that USDA “keep the VAPG Program viable and available to farmer co-ops, and streamline other rural development programs.”

Tri-County Council for Western Maryland Executive Director Leanne Mazer testified on behalf of the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO).   She, too, advocated for infrastructure development, as well as streamlining of policies, application processes, and reporting methods.  Mazer pointed out that in her opinion the more flexible programs such as the Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program (RBEG) and Rural Business Opportunity Grant Program (RBOG) had been hit the hardest by budget cuts.

Commissioner of Brookings County, South Dakota, Donald Larson stressed the importance of  the same lending programs– RBEG and RBOG–as well as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP) for increasing capital in rural economies.  Larson echoed the need for rural development programs such as VAPG and sited the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act (BFROA) as “a model…for the kind of initiatives necessary to invest in the next generation of American producers.”  He noted that the Local Foods, Farms, and Jobs Act  provides “important policy suggestions for the Farm Bill” that promote local and regional agriculture.

April 26, 2012

Contact:  Ferd Hoefner, 202-547-5754

NSAC Comments on Senate Farm Bill Markup and Passage

Washington, DC – The Senate Agriculture Committee voted a new farm bill out of committee today by a vote of 16-5.  The committee bill saves $23 billion over the next ten years according to budget estimates.

The committee bill includes historic reforms to commodity subsidies.  In addition to replacing automatic direct payments with a shallow loss revenue-based payment, the bill limits payments to not more than one farm manager per farm operation.  Under current law, mega farms collect multiple payments worth millions of dollars through passive investors and landowners who are counted as farm managers.

“We applaud the Senate Agriculture Committee for including common sense rules to commodity payments and ending years of abuse by closing program loopholes,” said Ferd Hoefner, Policy Director for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.  “Thanks to Senator Grassley’s (R-IA) tireless leadership, the Committee was able to make sure that hardworking farmers – not mega farms and absentee investors – are the key beneficiaries of farm programs.”

The Committee also enacted a nationwide “Sodsaver” provision to protect native grass and prairie lands.  The provision reduces crop insurance premium subsidies and tightens program rules in a manner that will reduce the taxpayer-funded incentive to destroy important grassland resources.

“By agreeing to a nationwide ‘Sodsaver’ provision championed by Senators Thune (R-SD), Brown (D-OH), and Johanns (R-NE), the Senate Agriculture Committee made sure that taxpayer dollars are not subsidizing the destruction of native grass and prairie lands,” said Hoefner.  “These lands are diminishing at a rapid rate and protecting them provides ranching opportunities and economic, environmental, and recreational benefits to rural communities.”

While the Committee made progress on these commodity and crop insurance issues, there are several outstanding gaps in the proposed changes to the farm safety net.

“By failing to place limitations on crop insurance subsidies and to re-attach soil erosion and wetland conservation requirements to crop insurance programs, the Committee has failed to do the full reform that is needed.  We intend to continue to press these issues as the bill moves forward,” continued Hoefner.

The Committee also made progress on critical programs that underpin economic growth.

“The leadership of Chairwoman Stabenow (D-MI) and Senators Brown (D-OH), Leahy (D-VT), Harkin (D-IA), and Casey (D-PA) ensured that programs that spur economic growth in rural communities built on gains from the 2008 Farm Bill,” noted Hoefner.  “The Committee reauthorized critical local food and organic programs, such as the Farmers’ Market and Local Food Promotion Program and National Organic Certification Cost Share.”

Despite progress, there were glaring shortfalls and omissions in the Committee’s draft.

“Sens. Harkin (D-IA), Johanns (R-NE), Casey (D-PA), and Nelson (D-NE) championed various beginning farmer provisions, but the bill lacks a cohesive strategy to assist the next generation of American farmers,” said Hoefner.  “Most noticeably, the Committee failed to provide adequate funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, thus limiting critical resources that new farmers need to succeed.”

The Committee did not fund the rural development title, nor did it make needed improvements in farm to school programs.  It also limited the funding for programs targeted to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

“We regret the Committee’s decision to limit funding for minority farmers in the new bill, and will work to see that funding restored,” said Hoefner.  “We also echo Sen. Brown’s (D-OH) concluding statements: without a strong investment in rural development programs we will miss the opportunity to truly make this bill a jobs bill,” said Hoefner.

“Overall, the bill released out of Committee is an improvement over last year’s draft bill,” said Hoefner, “but there is a still a ways to go to produce a bill that expands opportunities for family farmers to produce good food, sustain the environment, and contribute to vibrant communities.  We look forward to working with the Committee and the full Senate to ensure further progress toward that end.”

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities.

###

Today, the House Appropriations Committee set its own discretionary spending allocations, but rather than abide by the spending caps agreed to by both the House and Senate in last year’s Budget Control Act, it lowered them an additional $19 billion.

On the Senate side, the allocation allows the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to provide discretionary funding of $20.785 billion for USDA and FDA programs.

The House allocation, as it passed today, caps House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee discretionary spending on USDA and FDA programs at $19.4 billion, roughly $1.4 billion below the Senate level.  (The House Democrats put forth an unsuccessful amendment to peg the agricultural allocation at $21.1 billion).

To put this $1.4 billion in perspective, the entire discretionary spending appropriation in FY 2012 for the Food Safety Inspection Service was $1 billion.  The difference is also more than all discretionary spending for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and over half of all rural development spending in FY 2012.

As the House and Senate move forward with their respective agriculture appropriations bills, they will be moving on very different paths.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to mark up its agriculture appropriations bill tomorrow morning.  We do not know much about the Chairman’s mark, which has yet to be released; however, funding levels for most programs are expected to be very close to if not the same as last year’s levels.

On the House side, the future of the agriculture funding bill is much less clear.  The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has yet to set a date to mark up its bill.  An allocation this low complicates matters, making it extremely difficult for the members of the Subcommittee to do their work.  Moreover, President Obama has said that he will veto any spending bill that does not conform to the levels set out in the Budget Control Act.

More likely than not, the House’s unwillingness to abide by the agreement struck in 2011 will lead to a rancorous and drawn out fight over vastly different spending bills come the end of the fiscal year.  We hope that, instead, the two chambers are able to reconcile their bills in conference at the Budget Control Act level and pass something that supports and enhances rather than undermines important rural development, research, conservation, and beginning farmer programs.

Stay tuned for a detailed analysis of the FY 2013 Senate Agriculture Appropriations Bill after it is released tomorrow.