Tag Archives: agriculture
Senate Passes Half-Trillion Dollar Farm Bill; Ball’s In House’s Court
Posted: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 12:00 am | Updated: 9:24 am, Tue Jun 11, 2013. 0 comments WASHINGTON (AP) – The last time Congress passed a farm bill, Democrats had control of the House and the food stamp program was about half the size it is today. That was five years ago. Conservatives calling for an overhaul of the domestic food aid program will try to trim the nation’s nearly $80 billion grocery bill when the House weighs in on farm legislation in a few weeks. The Senate overwhelmingly voted Monday to expand farm subsidies and make small cuts to food stamps in a five-year, half-trillion dollar measure. But passage in the House isn’t expected to be so easy – or so bipartisan. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Monday that his chamber will take up its version of the farm bill later this month. He made clear his own dislike for generous farm subsidies included in the bill, saying his “concerns about our country’s farm programs are well-known.” But Boehner acknowledged that the rest of the chamber might not agree with him. “If you have ideas on how to make the bill better, bring them forward,” Boehner said in a statement directed to his colleagues. “Let’s have the debate, and let’s vote on them.” House consideration will come after more than a year’s delay. The Senate passed a similar version of its farmbill last year, but the House declined to take it up during an election year amid conflict over the amount to cut from food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. One in seven Americans now use the program. The Senate bill would cut the food stamp program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by about $400 million a year, or half a percent, and Senate Democrats have been reluctant to cut more. The farm bill approved by the House Agriculture Committee last month would cut the program by $2 billion a year, or a little more than 3 percent, and make it more difficult for some people to qualify. In his statement Monday, Boehner signaled support for the House bill’s level of food stamp cuts, saying they are changes that “both parties know are necessary.” Other Republicans are expected to offer amendments to expand the cuts, setting up a potentially even more difficult resolution with the Senate version. At the same time, Democrats are expected to try and eliminate the cuts. Food stamps were added to the farm bill decades ago to gain urban votes for the rural measure, which sets policy for farm subsidies, programs to protect environmentally sensitive land and other rural development projects. But with the program’s exponential growth during the recent economic downturn, food stamps are now making passage harder. “I expect it to come from all directions,” House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said last month, acknowledging the complications of moving the bill through his chamber. On the Senate floor, senators rejected amendments on food stamp cuts, preserving the $400 million annual decrease. The bill’s farm-state supporters also fended off efforts to cut sugar, tobacco and other farmsupports. Senators looking to pare back subsidies did win one victory in the Senate, an amendment to reduce the government’s share of crop insurance premiums for farmers with adjusted gross incomes of more than $750,000. Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said their amendment would affect about 20,000 farmers. Currently the government pays for an average 62 percent of crop insurance premiums and also subsidizes the companies that sell the insurance. The overall bill expands crop insurance for many crops and also creates a program to compensate farmers for smaller, or “shallow,” revenue losses before the paid insurance kicks in. The crop insurance expansion is likely to benefit Midwestern corn and soybean farmers, who use crop insurance more than other farmers. The bill would also boost subsidies for Southern rice and peanut farmers, lowering the threshold for those farms to receive government help. The help for rice and peanuts was not in last year’s bill but was added this year after the agriculture panel gained a new top Republican, Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran. Critics, including the former top Republican on the committee, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, said the new policy could guarantee that the rice and peanut farmers’ profits are average or above average. The House has similar provisions expanding crop insurance and rice and peanut subsidies. Dairy programs could also be contentious on the House floor. Both the Senate and House bills would overhaul dairy policy by creating a new insurance program for dairy producers, eliminating other dairy subsidies and price supports. The new policy includes a market stabilization program that could dictate production cuts when oversupply drives down prices. The program faced little opposition in the Senate but a similar overhaul in the House bill is expected to face resistance in that chamber, where Boehner last year called the new stabilization program “Soviet-style.” Boehner reiterated those concerns in his statement Monday, saying he will support an amendment on the floor to challenge the proposed policy. The Senate bill also would: Overhaul dairy policy by creating a new insurance program for dairy producers, eliminating other dairy subsidies and price supports. The new policy includes a market stabilization program that could dictate production cuts when oversupply drives down prices. The program faced little opposition in the Senate but a similar overhaul in the House bill is expected to face resistance in that chamber, where Boehner last year called the new stabilization program “Soviet-style.” He reiterated those concerns in his statement Monday, saying he will support an amendment on the floor to challenge the proposed policy. Make modest changes to the way international food aid is delivered, a much scaled-back version of an overhaul proposed by President Barack Obama earlier this year. Senators adopted an amendment that would slightly boost dollars to buy locally-grown food close to needy areas abroad. Currently, most food aid is grown in the United States and shipped to developing countries, an approach the Obama administration says is inefficient but that has support among farm-state members in Congress. Consolidate programs to protect environmentally-sensitive land and reduce spending on those programs. Expand Agriculture Department efforts to prevent illegal trafficking of food stamp benefits. Continue reading
USDA Announces A Notice of Contract Proposals to Support Advanced Biofuels Production
WASHINGTON, June 11, 2013 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced the availability of up to $98.6 million to support the production of advanced biofuels, and an opportunity for eligible producers to submit applications. USDA remains focused on carrying out its mission, despite a time of significant budget uncertainty. Today’s announcement is one part of the Department’s efforts to strengthen the rural economy. “The United States is on the path to a cleaner, more secure energy future,” Vilsack said. “By helping producers to support and expand the production of advanced biofuels, USDA is ensuring that Rural America is a key component of President Obama’s ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy to reduce the Nation’s reliance on foreign oil.” The payments are provided through USDA Rural Development’s Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, commonly referred to as the Advanced Biofuel Payment Program. It was established in the 2008 Farm Bill to support the expansion of advanced biofuel production. Payments are made to eligible producers based on the amount of biofuel produced from renewable biomass, other than corn kernel starch. Examples of eligible feedstocks include crop residue; animal, food and yard waste; vegetable oils; and animal fat. Through the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels and other programs, USDA is working to support the research, investment and infrastructure necessary to build a biofuels industry that creates jobs and produces renewable fuel. Since 2009, more than 275 eligible producers in 44 states have received payments. Producers use the payments to offset production costs and in some instances expand their operations. For example, in 2012, Sequential-Pacific Biodiesel, a biodiesel facility based in Salem, Ore., increased its annual production by approximately 1 million gallons, or about 20 percent. Sequential-Pacific primarily uses locally sourced waste vegetable oils in its production of biodiesel. The support USDA Rural Development provided through its Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels helped the company buy equipment that increased the speed of production and pre-treatment of feedstock. Producers who did not apply for payments during the October 2012 application window may now apply for payments for third and fourth quarter fiscal year 2013 production as well as for any applicable incremental production. Applications received by July 11, 2013 will be considered for Fiscal Year 2013 funds. Complete details on how to apply and on available funding are found on Page 34975 of the June 11 Federal Register, http://www.gpo.gov/f…/2013-13778.pdf . President Obama’s plan for rural America has brought about historic investment and resulted in stronger rural communities. Under the President’s leadership, these investments in housing, community facilities, businesses and infrastructure have empowered rural America to continue leading the way – strengthening America’s economy, small towns and rural communities. USDA’s investments in rural communities support the rural way of life that stands as the backbone of our American values. President Obama and Agriculture Secretary Vilsack are committed to a smarter use of Federal resources to foster sustainable economic prosperity and ensure the government is a strong partner for businesses, entrepreneurs and working families in rural communities. USDA, through its Rural Development mission area, has a portfolio of programs designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers and improve the quality of life in rural America. USDA has made a concerted effort to deliver results for the American people, even as USDA implements sequestration – the across-the-board budget reductions mandated under terms of the Budget Control Act. USDA has already undertaken historic efforts since 2009 to save more than $828 million in taxpayer funds through targeted, common-sense budget reductions. These reductions have put USDA in a better position to carry out its mission, while implementing sequester budget reductions in a fair manner that causes as little disruption as possible. # USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users). Last Date Modified: 06/11/2013 Continue reading
Africa, Let Us Help – Just Like In 1884
From the Conference of Berlin to today’s G8, ‘helping’ Africans looks suspiciously like grabbing their resources George Monbiot The Guardian , Monday 10 June 2013 20.30 BST Illustration by Daniel Pudles One of the stated purposes of the Conference of Berlin in 1884 was to save Africans from the slave trade. To discharge this grave responsibility, Europe’s powers discovered, to their undoubted distress, that they would have to extend their control and ownership of large parts of Africa. In doing so, they accidentally encountered the vast riches of that continent, which had not in any way figured in their calculations, and found themselves in astonished possession of land, gold, diamonds and ivory. They also discovered that they were able to enlist the labour of a large number of Africans, who, for humanitarian reasons, were best treated as slaves. One of the stated purposes of the G8 conference, hosted by David Cameron next week, is to save the people of Africa from starvation . To discharge this grave responsibility, the global powers have discovered, to their undoubted distress, that their corporations must extend their control and ownership of large parts of Africa. As a result, they will find themselves in astonished possession of Africa’s land, seed and markets. David Cameron’s purpose at the G8, as he put it last month, is to advance “the good of people around the world”. Or, as Rudyard Kipling expressed it during the previous scramble for Africa: “To seek another’s profit, / And work another’s gain … / Fill full the mouth of Famine / And bid the sickness cease” . Who could doubt that the best means of doing this is to cajole African countries into a new set of agreements that allow foreign companies to grab their land, patent their seeds and monopolise their food markets? The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition , which bears only a passing relationship to the agreements arising from the Conference of Berlin, will, according to the US agency promoting it, ” lift 50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years through inclusive and sustained agricultural growth”. This “inclusive and sustained agricultural growth” will no longer be in the hands of the people who are meant to be lifted out of poverty. How you can have one without the other is a mystery that has yet to be decoded. But I’m sure the alliance’s corporate partners – Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, Syngenta, Nestlé, Unilever, Itochu, Yara International and others – could produce some interesting explanations. The alliance offers African countries public and private money (the UK has pledged £395m of foreign aid) if they strike agreements with G8 countries and the private sector (in many cases multinational companies). Six countries have signed up so far . That African farming needs investment and support is indisputable. But does it need land grabbing? Yes, according to the deals these countries have signed. Mozambique, where local farmers have already been evicted from large tracts of land, is now obliged to write new laws promoting what its agreement calls “partnerships” of this kind. Ivory Coast must “facilitate access to land for smallholder farmers and private enterprises” – in practice evicting smallholder farmers for the benefit of private enterprises. Already French, Algerian, Swiss and Singaporean companies have lined up deals across 600,000 hectares or more of this country’s prime arable land. These deals, according to the development group Grain, ” will displace tens of thousands of peasant rice farmers and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small traders”. Ethiopia, where land grabbing has been accompanied by appalling human rights abuses, must assist “agriculture investors (domestic and foreign; small, medium and larger enterprises) to … secure access to land”. And how about seed grabbing? Yes, that too is essential to the wellbeing of Africa’s people. Mozambique is now obliged to “systematically cease distribution of free and unimproved seeds”, while drawing up new laws granting intellectual property rights in seeds that will “promote private sector investment”. Similar regulations must also be approved in Ghana, Tanzania and Ivory Coast. The countries that have joined the New Alliance will have to remove any market barriers that favour their own farmers. Where farmers comprise between 50% and 90% of the population, and where their livelihoods are dependent on the non-cash economy, these policies – which make perfect sense in the air-conditioned lecture rooms of the Chicago Business School – can be lethal. Strangely missing from New Alliance agreements is any commitment on the part of G8 nations to change their own domestic policies. These could have included farm subsidies in Europe and the US, which undermine the markets for African produce; or biofuel quotas, which promote world hunger by turning food into fuel. Any constraints on the behaviour of corporate investors in Africa (such as the Committee on World Food Security’s guidelines on land tenure) remain voluntary, while the constraints on host nations become compulsory. As in 1884, powerful nations make the rules and weak ones ones abide by them: for their own good, of course. The west, as usual, is able to find leaders in Africa who have more in common with the global elite than with their own people. In some of the countries that have joined the New Alliance, there were wide-ranging consultations on land and farming, whose results have been now ignored in the agreements with the G8. The deals between African governments and private companies were facilitated by the World Economic Forum , and took place behind closed doors. But that’s what you have to do when you’re dealing with ” new-caught, sullen peoples, / Half devil and half child “, who perversely try to hang on to their own land, their own seeds and their own markets. Even though David Cameron, Barack Obama and the other G8 leaders know it isn’t good for them. • Twitter: @georgemonbiot . A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com [/font][/color] Continue reading
