USDA Interim Rule for the Conservation Reserve Program
July 30th, 2010
On Wednesday, July 28, USDA issued an interim rule to implement provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) which were not implemented under two previously issued CRP interim rules. The interim rule is effective immediately. USDA is taking public comments on the interim rule, due by September 27, 2010, that will be considered when the agency develops a final rule for the CRP.
The interim rule makes the following changes:
- Provides a definition for pollinator to mean “ . . . an insect or other animal that carries pollen from one flower to another” and authorizes the development of habitat for native and managed pollinators and the use of conservation practices that benefit native and managed pollinators on CRP land. The Farm Service Agency will work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the State Technical Committees to develop conservation practices standards and habitat characteristics for pollinator habitat and beneficial conservation practices. The 2008 Farm Bill included a measure, championed by NSAC, that encourages USDA to provide for pollinator habitat and conservation practices that benefit pollinators in the USDA conservation programs.
- Makes eligible for CRP enrollment land on which alfalfa and other multi-year legumes have been grown in an approved rotation practice. This land is now included as land on which an agricultural commodity has been grown, an eligibility test for the CRP.
- Adds incentives for Indian tribes and for limited resource farmer and ranchers.
- Adds a preference for accepting CRP bids from owners of land who are also residents of the country where the land is located or residents of a contiguous county.
- Allows for a waiver of land in the continuous CRP, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, the Farmable Wetlands Program or the State Acreage for Wildlife Enhancement Program from the statutory cap that limits combined CRP and Wetlands Reserve Program acreage to 25 percent of total land in the county, if the county government agrees.
- Clarifies the limited harvesting and grazing activities that may be allowed on CRP land.
NSAC supports most of these provisions, particularly those for pollinator habitat, incentives for Indian Tribes and limited resource farmers and ranchers, and the eligibility of land with alfalfa and legumes in rotation. We will request some additional clarification on the limited harvesting and grazing activities to ensure that the various activities provide for adequate protection of natural resources and promote use of haying and grazing activities that can enhance the protection of natural resources.
USDA Extends Comment Period for GIPSA Proposed Rules
July 30th, 2010
Bowing to pressure from a group of large-scale livestock and poultry packers and processors and House Agriculture Committee members who are aligned with them, USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) announced on July 26 that it is extending the public comment period on proposed rules for the Packers & Stockyards Act by 90 days. Public comments are now due by November 22, 2010.
As NSAC reported last week, the proposed rules implement the directive of Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill that USDA issue administrative rules to clarify and strengthen the measures of the Act that protect farmers and ranchers. The proposed rules would clarify conditions for livestock and poultry packers and processors compliance with the Act. They would also provide farmers and ranchers with a fairer marketplace and conditions for livestock and poultry production.
GIPSA has posted a question and answer document for the proposed rule. The document addresses in detail many of the questions raised in the House Agriculture Committee hearing. One example is the potential effect of the proposed rules on the use by packers and processors of forward contracts, formulas, and livestock buying based on a grid. GIPSA emphasizes that these practices will still be allowed, with premiums and discounts offered to producers also allowed. The proposed rules, however, would require that packers and processors document the reasons for offering the premiums and discounts and treat all livestock sellers of the same type and quality of animal equally.
Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act Update
July 30th, 2010
The Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act, first enacted in 1999, requires USDA to establish a program of information regarding the marketing of cattle, swine, lambs, and the products of this livestock. The Act requires that the information, including price and volume information, be provided in a format that can be readily understood by producers; improves the price and supply reporting services of the Department of Agriculture; and encourages competition in the marketplace for livestock and livestock products.
On July 28, the House Agriculture Committee approved H.R. 5852, a bill to extend the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act for five years until September 30, 2015. Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) have introduced S. 3656, a companion bill to H.R. 5852, which has not yet been approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee. In addition to extending the Act, H.R. 5852 and S. 3656 would:
- require USDA to enter into a negotiated rulemaking with pork processors and producers for a rule establishing mandatory reporting of wholesale pork cuts in order to increase transparency for producers in the pork industry: and
- instruct the USDA Secretary to establish an electronic price reporting system for dairy products by September 30, 2011.
Section 11001 of the 2008 Farm Bill directed USDA to conduct a study on the effects of requiring hog packer and processing plants to supply USDA with information on the price and volume of wholesale pork cuts. Currently, wholesale pork price reporting is voluntary unlike swine, cattle, boxed beef, lamb, boxed lamb imports, and boxed lamb markets where price reporting for qualifying packers is mandatory under the authority of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999. The study was completed in November 2009. The overall conclusion of the study was that switching from voluntary to mandatory reporting for wholesale pork prices would benefit pork producers and consumers. The study also recommended that USDA consider wholesale price reporting for various segments of the market such as enhanced pork products and separate reports for formula and forward pricing methods.
The 2008 Farm Bill also directed USDA to improve its website for providing information required by the Act and to carry out a market news education program. At a July 20 hearing of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry of the House Agriculture Committee, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulation Edward Avalos announced the establishment of a new website for cattle marketing, dubbed the “Cattle Dashboard,” which can be viewed here. The website provides cattle marketing information for different regions and states, with information including negotiated cash prices and weighted average prices, all purchase types, and head counts. This Cattle Dashboard is the prototype which USDA will use for developing market information websites for other livestock and livestock products.
Legislative Roundup: Farm Credit Funding Passes, Other Food and Farm Legislation Could Move
July 28th, 2010
[Friday July 30 update to story below -- A measure to fund the Pigford II class action settlement between USDA and black farmers is now expected to come to the Senate floor early next week as a stand alone measure. The Food Safety Modernization Act (S 510) is now not expected to be taken up before the Senate leaves for summer recess at the end of next week, though it may come to the floor in September. Whether the Senate takes up the child nutrition reauthorization bill next week is still an open question.]
As is often the case as the summer congressional recess approaches, there is lots of activity on Capitol Hill. With so many moving pieces of interest to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and NSAC member organizations, we are issuing this brief update.
Supplemental Appropriation – Farm Credit Funding, BCAP Cut
On Tuesday, July 27, the House approved a $59 billion war supplemental spending bill by a vote of 308-114 and sent it to the President for his signature. The bill includes $950 million in Farm Service Agency (FSA) farm loan program funding to help meet emergency farm lending needs. The loan funding and several other USDA-related provisions are offset by a $50 million funding cut to the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). NSAC was a strong proponent of the farm loan funding and the offset.
The war supplemental has been pending for months. The bill has bounced back and forth between the House and the Senate, with major disputes centering around how many emergency domestic spending initiatives to tie to the war and foreign aid spending, the centerpiece of the bill. In the end, the Senate’s smaller domestic package prevailed.
The bill includes $33 billion for war operations, $6 billion in foreign aid, $5 billion for domestic disaster relief, and $13 billion in mandatory funding to help Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
The NSAC-supported credit package includes $350 million for direct farm operating loans, $300 million for guaranteed farm ownership loans, $250 million for guaranteed farm operating loans, and $50 million for subsidized guaranteed farm operating loans.
The limitation placed on BCAP, an important farm bill renewable energy program, is warranted in our view based on runaway spending and misplaced priorities, as this program was being implemented by the FSA. With a cap on program spending, the agency will need to continue to give thought to focusing the program to support the most important biomass crop projects possible.
Pigford Settlement Funding
Included in the most recent House-passed version of the supplemental appropriations bill, but deleted from the final product, was $1.15 billion for the Pigford II settlement between USDA and black farmers. That measure was originally attached to a tax extender bill that has not made it through the legislative gauntlet yet, and then it was stuck onto the supplemental in the House.
Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says he will try to add the Pigford settlement funding, and another class action settlement between American Indians and the Department of the Interior over the government’s mishandling of trust accounts, onto a small business bill the Senate is considering on the floor this week. It is not yet clear whether this third attempt to find a vehicle for the two settlement accounts will be successful. NSAC supports the funding and the quickest possible resolution of the matter.
Ag Disaster Aid
Speaking of the small business bill, Senate Agriculture Chair, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), has secured the agreement of the Majority Leader to attach her emergency agricultural disaster funding measure to the small business legislation. That measure was also attached to the tax extender bill earlier in the year, but now is seeking a potentially faster moving vehicle. A vote is expected later this week.
The measure includes $1 billion for bonus direct commodity payments for farmers who suffered a greater than 5 percent loss in production, a provision that has proved controversial, yet remains in play. The measure also includes specific disaster funding for cottonseed, aquaculture, Hawaiian sugar, livestock, and specialty crop producers.
Food Safety and Child Nutrition Bills
As regular readers will know, food safety and child nutrition reauthorization legislation has been chugging along slowly for the past two years. With time running out on this session of Congress, it is not yet clear if a way will be found to pass these bills and get them signed into law this year. The measures are both among the most bipartisan bills pending in Congress, which, all other things being equal, should improve their chances of passage. Nonetheless, netiher has proceeded smoothly, and both are looking for Senate floor time before the August recess begins.
The Senate food safety bill (S. 510) was voted out of Committee late last year, but has been stalled since then due to behind the scenes negotiations over amendments ranging from family farms and local food systems, to banning the use of the chemical additive BPA in food containers, to the re-importation of drugs from Canada.
The House passed it’s companion bill a year ago and has been waiting for final Senate action before they can proceed to a conference committee to settle on the final form of the legislation. Even if the Senate passes a bill soon, it is unclear whether enough time remains in this session for what could be a long conference negotiation.
The pending Managers Amendment to the Senate bill contains a number of provisions strongly supported by NSAC. NSAC also supports two amendments still being negotiated by Senator Brown (D-OH) and Senator Tester (D-MT), though we will withhold final judgment until negotiated text is closer to being agreed upon.
A child nutrition bill was approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee in March and a companion bill by the House Education and Labor Committee in July. Both bills include mandatory funding for the Farm to School program. The Senate bill costs $4.5 billion over 10 years and is paid for through offsets, including the controversial proposed cut to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The House bill costs $8 billion over 10 years, but House Democratic leadership is still in the process of looking for funding offsets and have thankfully indicated to us they will not scale back farm bill conservation programs to pay for the child nutrition increase.
While further House action on the bill is not likely until September, Senate Majority Reid said this week that he would explore whether floor time might be made available for the Senate nutrition bill. Senator Lincoln intends to take to the floor each day to explain to her colleagues the importance of taking up the bill. Her floor statement from Tuesday, July 27 is posted here.
We will continue to provide readers with new information on the food safety and child nutrition bills as it becomes available.
Conservation Reserve Program General Sign-Up Announced
July 27th, 2010
On Monday, July 26, USDA announced that a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) general sign-up will be held from August 2-27, 2010. This is the 39th sign-up for the CRP according to the somewhat unusual Farm Service Agency (FSA) sign-up counting system. It will be the first general sign-up since 2006.
Under a CRP general sign-up, FSA collects and ranks offers from farmers to enroll highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land in the Program. The land is taken out of production and long-term, resource conserving cover vegetation is established to control soil erosion, improve water and air quality, and enhance wildlife habitat.
With this sign-up, USDA intends to bring the total enrollment land in the CRP closer to 32 million acres, the maximum acreage authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill. Land currently not enrolled in CRP may be offered in this sign-up provided all eligibility requirements are met. Additionally, current CRP participants with contracts expiring this fall covering about 4.5 million acres may make new contract offers. Contracts awarded under this sign-up are scheduled to become effective Oct. 1, 2010.
There is currently 31.3 million acres in the CRP, including 4.6 million acres in targeted partial field enrollments through the continuous sign-up CRP (CCRP) and 26.7 million acres in whole field enrollments through general sign-ups. With 4.5 million acres expiring at the end of September, the size of the reserve would fall to 26.8 million acres absent new sign-ups.
The next three years will also see large numbers of CRP contracts expiring — 4.4 million acres in 2011, 6.5 million acres in 2012, and 3.3 million acres in 2013.
USDA has posted the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) for this 39th CRP sign-up, which is used to rank applications for enrollment. The emphasis on this sign-up is the establishment of habitat that will protect wildlife. A new feature of the Index is the inclusion of ranking points for pollinator habitat.
NSAC championed a measure in the 2008 Farm Bill that requires that all USDA conservation programs include provisions to protect pollinators and increase pollinator habitat. In addition, the Index gives the establishment of native plant species a higher priority than the establishment of introduced species.
In addition to the general sign-up, USDA also emphasized that CRP’s continuous sign-up program (CCRP) will be ongoing. Land can be enrolled in the CCRP without going through the EBI-based bidding process; offers are automatically accepted provided they meet the eligibility criteria. Information on the CCRP is available here.
Landowners with expiring contracts who do not plan to try to re-enroll may alternatively sign-up for the CRP-Transition Incentive Program (CRP-TIP) that allows them to rent or sell to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. The FSA CRP-TIP fact sheet is available here.
Letter Supports Reinstatement of Shirley Sherrod
July 27th, 2010
The Rural Coalition has crafted a sign on letter that expressed disappointment in the hasty removal of Shirley Sherrod from her position as USDA State Rural Development Director for Georgia on July 19, 2010.
The letter—which went out to the press, the Secretary, the President, and the Attorney General multiple times last week—acknowledges the leadership Sherrod has taken in promoting fairness within USDA and commends some in the press for “digging deeper” to restore Sherrod’s reputation as a leader on farm discrimination issues.
Sherrod had been forced to resign early last week after false revelations broke following distribution of video of a portion of a speech she delivered to the NAACP.
The Rural Coalition, along with NSAC and a plethora of organizations that also signed the letter, called on President Obama and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to apologize and to reinstate Sherrod. Vilsack and the Obama administration have officially expressed regret for its actions and have offered Sherrod a different USDA job, an offer she is contemplating.
Update on USDA Hoop House Pilot Program
July 26th, 2010
In December, the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) launched a 3-year pilot program to provide cost-share funding to farmers who want to extend the growing season on their farms by using high tunnels (sometimes referred to as hoop houses). Click here to read NSAC’s last update on the program.
A big ‘thank you!’ to all the NSAC member groups around the country who promoted and did outreach on this initiative. Your work is bearing fruit (and vegetables)!
As of July 22, there are 2,307 high tunnel/hoop house contracts worth $12.5 million! Glen Elsbernd, an organic, beginning farmer in Winneshiek County, Iowa will receive assistance from the EQIP Organic Intitiative to install a 3o foot by 72 foot hoop house this fall.
“It[the hoop house] will help me get an early start on the growing season and a higher quality crop,” Elsbernd said. “The high tunnel will also give me a head start on the competition.” Click here to read Elsbernd’s story.
The date for states to opt into the NRCS Seasonal High Tunnel Pilot Program closed on January 29 with 43 states (Arizona joined late), including Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, choosing to participate.
Wisconsin currently leads the way in total number of contacts, followed in order by Missouri, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Iowa, Alabama, and Vermont, rounding out the top ten.
In terms of total dollars, Alaska leads the way, followed by Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Missouri, Vermont, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Alabama, rounding out the top ten.
Some contracts are still being finalized, so the final number and dollar amount for the pilot program in 2010 will still go up some, but we have high tunnels by state with contract totals to date.
TELL CONGRESS THAT YOU WANT A FAIR DEAL FOR FARMERS AND RANCHERS
July 23rd, 2010
Farmers and ranchers who raise livestock and poultry need your help to get a fair deal and a level playing field with meat and poultry processors.
The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry held a hearing on Tuesday, July 20 that focused on USDA proposed rules to strengthen and clarify the protections for the nation’s farmers and ranchers provided in the Packers and Stockyards Act. The full Congress approved critical measures in the 2008 Farm Bill which give broad authority to USDA to fashion rules to implement the Act in order to provide farmers and ranchers with increased information about contracts and markets. USDA was also directed by Congress to issue rules for the Act that increase protections for farmers and ranchers from unfair and deceptive practices in their dealings with meat and poultry packers and processors.
But some members of the House Agriculture Subcommittee, at the hearing on the proposed rules, made crystal clear that they were firmly allied with large corporate packers and processors and had little concern, and even contempt, for farmers and ranchers. Of those attending, only Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) stated in the hearing that USDA had not exceeded its statutory authority in the proposed rules. A few Representatives, including Tim Holden (D-PA), Steve Kagen (D-WI), Betsy Markey (CO), and Joe Baca (D-CA), were present but did not weigh in.
Other Committee members, including Chairman David Scott (D-GA), Ranking Member Randy Nuegebauer (R-TX), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Steve King (R-IA), Walt Minnick (D-ID), David Roe (R-TN) and Michael Conaway (R-TX) spent the good part of two hours slamming the proposed rules. They expressed alarm over the potential consequences for some of the most powerful and wealthy corporations in the nation, whose unfair and deceptive practices and sheer market power over those who produce our food could be curtailed by the rules. They responded with denial to the concerns of USDA Under Secretary Edward Avalos who testified that part of the drastic decrease in our farming population is in response to packer and processor market concentration and the lack of fair prices and fair dealing in the marketplace.
Some Representatives even opposed a measure in the proposed rules that would put an end to a judicially-imposed requirement, not found in the Packers & Stockyards Act, that farmers and ranchers must show not only individual harm but also “competitive injury” to the market as a whole when they are victims of unfair and deceptive practice. This judicial add-on to the Act has blocked farmers and ranchers from obtaining the Act’s protections when they have clearly shown that a packer or processor has used unfair and deceptive practices to cause them economic harm. The USDA proposed rule clarifies that the Act does not require that farmers and ranchers show competitive harm to an entire market sector. Without this clarification, activist conservative courts have ignored the clear intent of the law to protect individual farmers and ranchers.
The proposed regulations have the support of major organizations with farmer and rancher members across the U.S. These groups include the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund-United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA).
On July 23, NSAC joined with over 66 farmer, rancher, rural and sustainable agriculture groups on a letter in support of the USDA proposed rules, addressed to the House Agriculture Committee and delivered to members of Congress.
What YOU Can Do -
All of us who care about our nation’s farmers and ranchers must tell our Senators and Representatives that we support USDA’s proposed rules, issued on June 22, to strengthen the protections of the Packers & Stockyards Act.
Call or email your Representative and Senators.
• Urge them to support the USDA proposed rules that restore competition and contract fairness to livestock and poultry markets. Tell them we need a level playing field for family farmers and ranchers.
• Urge them to contact USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and express their support for the proposed rules.
It’s easy to call. You can get your Senator and Representative’s name and their direct number by going to Congress.org and typing in your zip code. You can also call the Capitol Switchboard, provide your Senator or Representative’s name and be directly connected to their office: (202) 225-3121. Once you are connected to your Senator or Representative’s office, ask to speak to the aide that works on agriculture. Leave the message in their voice mail if they are not available to take the call.
Specialty Crop and Organic Producers Testify
July 22nd, 2010
Specialty crop and organic producers are “classic entrepreneurs” said Subcommittee Chair, Dennis Cardoza (D-CA). Rep. Cardoza spoke on Wednesday, July 21st at the House Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture hearing to review specialty crop and organic programs in preparation for the 2012 Farm Bill.
Cardoza began the hearing with praise for specialty crop producers, noting their entrepreneurial ability to produce half the value of America’s crops. Cardoza also spoke to the importance of this sector for providing the fruits and vegetables that nourish our families.
Block Grants
All seven producers on the panel testified to the crucial role that the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBG) plays for specialty crop production across the U.S. They emphasized the need to extend and expand this program in the 2012 Farm Bill and applauded the flexibility the SCBG program offers to State Agriculture Departments for awarding grants. It was clear from their testimony, however, that some states do a better job than others in including farmers in the state decision-making process. In general, most witnesses also favored moving the application and decision-making process t
o earlier in the year, centered around the off-season.
Dr. Margaret Smith Testifies
NSAC hosted Margaret Smith, from Ash Grove Farm in Iowa and Extension Agent at Iowa State University (ISU), as the sole female and organic producer voice on the panel of witnesses. Click here to view her testimony.
Margaret and her husband Doug farm 950 acres of organic corn, soy, oats, wheat barley and and pasture and run a beef cow herd. They market their crops to various food, feed and seed markets. They began their transition to organic systems in 1994 and reached 100 percent organic production in 2007.
As an extension agent at ISU, Smith works with fruit and vegetable producers in the Value-Added Agriculture Extension Program in addition to co-facilitating the Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Working Group.
Smith began her testimony to the Subcommittee with data pointing to the rapid growth in the organic industry, both in terms of number of farms and value of sales. Organics offer a critical marketing niche for small and beginning farmers. In light of the important role of the organic industry, Smith made sure the Subcommittee understood that the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) is under-funded, even with the 2008 Farm Bill funding increase, citing that only about 20% of the applicants receive OREI funding.
Smith also expressed strong support for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program’s Organic Initiative.
Smith urged the Subcommittee to improve the crop and revenue insurance policies and rules for specialty crops and for organics. As she explained, “In Iowa, there is no satisfactory crop insurance available for fruit and vegetables. When compared with crop insurance options for corn and soybean growers, this seems a gross oversight and neglect of these important crops and crop producers.”
She went on to explain the risk management struggle confronting diversified, small to mid-sized producers: “Not only is there no safety net in the event of weather, crop disease, or insect yield reductions, but lenders are wary of working with growers of non-traditional commodities if they have no guarantee of some minimum income level.”
Chairman Cordoza applauded Smith’s work and testimony and brought the hearing to a personal level, disclosing his preference grass-fed beef. He also noted the profit opportunities offered by grass-fed beef production, a strategy that raises fewer cattle in a more productive system.
The hearing also ended on a personal note, and a strong note for organics. Ranking Member, Jean Schmidt (R-OH), confessed that her daughter and husband, despite the price differential, buy and eat exclusively organically produced foods.
“The organic voice is small,” she said “Lets raise that voice!”
Other Highlights
Robert Jones, a fruit and vegetable producer from Ohio’s The Chef’s Farm, spoke about the ineffectiveness and inappropriateness of what he described as a “one size fits all” National Leafy Green Marketing Agreement proposal. In response to a question from Chairman Cardoza, Jones also applauded the USDA’s Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Program for improving consumer awareness and bolstering the local food movement.
Testifying on behalf of the nursery industry, Bernie Kohl, Jr. of Angelica Nurseries on Maryland’s Eastern Shore told the Subcommittee that the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) started by the last farm bill was doing great harm to the nursery crop industry. He explained that trees and shrubs grown in containers are grown in a substance that is primarily bark. He explained that 83 percent of softwood bark and 70 percent of hardwood bark is already used for energy generation and removing more of it through BCAP subsidies to energy uses could devastate the nursery industry. Similar arguments have been made by the forest products industry. Kohl called the BCAP collection, harvest and storage incentive payments “a solution in search of a problem.”
Paul Platz, a farmer from Lafayette, Minnesota, spoke about growing vegetables for processing. He urged the Committee to ease and simplify the rules for the “farm flex” pilot program created in the last farm bill allowing certain counties in certain states to produce vegetables for the processing industry on farm program base acres. Platz noted that he was able to start growing sweet corn and green peas in 1993 because the planting restrictions against growing fruits and vegetables on program acres that started with the 1996 Farm Bill were not in place yet. He urged a movement back in that direction, at least for processed vegetables.
Several witnesses expressed disappointment with the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) for not addressing the most pressing concerns of specialty crop growers. Chairman Cardoza sympathized with the concern and said he would follow-up with the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over USDA research.
Margaret Smith cautioned the Subcommittee to remember that the most important research to help fruit and vegetable producers will be long-term systems research that will take time to conduct. Smith also suggested that the SCRI is too focused on big multi-state, multi-institution projects and needs to be more balanced between local, regional, and national concerns.
Senate Deliberates On Rural Development and Energy in the Farm Bill
July 22nd, 2010
On Wednesday, July 21, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry convened to hear from several witnesses regarding rural development and the farm bill. The hearing centered on the potential benefits of alternative fuels production and research both for developing rural communities and for strengthening national security. A list of witnesses and a link to an audio replay is available here.
Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) commenced the hearing with an optimistic forecast of job creation and reduced dependence on foreign oil, both of which she said will stem from a growing rural enthusiasm to play a role in reviving the national economy and ensuring energy security.
USDA Rural Development Undersecretary Dallas Tonsager showed support for fuel diversification, which he identified as an opportunity for investment in rural communities. Accordingly, increasing confidence in the advanced biofuel industry has become a primary goal for the USDA.
The Committee warned against bureaucratic attempts to “improve legislation” and encouraged the USDA to coordinate with multiple agencies, such as the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, to ensure that energy regulations do not inhibit rural development.
Growth Energy Co-Chair General Wesley Clark strongly emphasized the effects that energy independence will have for job creation and national security. “We do not need to be spending $300 billion a year on foreign oil,” Clark asserted.
Clark strongly advocated for the diversion of a portion of the ethanol blender’s tax credit toward development of ethanol infrastructure—namely blender pumps, flex-fuel vehicles, ethanol pipelines, and an increased blend wall to E15—to support a strong market for corn-based ethanol. “We have to work on the demand side, and the supply side will follow.” According to Clark, once the government provides demand stimulation, market innovation will lead the way toward an advanced renewable energy future.
With respect to the next farm bill, Senator Mike Johanns pointed out that the budget for the Energy Title of the next bill will be only $500 million compared to the $1.9 billion energy title from the 2008 Farm Bill. Johanns questioned how a strong renewable energy and biomass package could be put together with so many fewer dollars.
This hearing was the second of a series that will continue to review the implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill in preparation for the 2012 reauthorization.