Search the Databases
About Farm Subsidies
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
About the 2002 Farm Bill: A Missed Opportunity
As the debate on a new Farm Bill began, most farmers had lost faith in the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act and emergency spending legislation. While Congress dealt out record high crop subsidies under these laws, USDA countered that much of them may actually be helping corporate sized farms buy out their smaller neighbors — the very farms Congress was trying to save (USDA “Taking Stock for the New Century,” page 6).
With this realization came pronouncements from many Midwest legislators that crop subsidy reforms were needed, such as capping subsidies to the largest of corporate agribusinesses. Moreover, as other legislators from around the country discovered on EWG's farm subsidy database how little farm bill support their farmers were getting, they also vowed to push for reform -- mainly by pushing for funding increases to the farmland conservation programs.
Throughout the farm bill debate, newspaper editorial pages and the public clearly favored reform. And, the Senate actually listened by passing legislation that held promise for making the situation better. However, when legislators went behind closed doors to negotiate the final version of the legislation in conference, they bowed to pressure from "status quo" agribusiness lobbyists, leaving major reform efforts on the cutting room floor.
Who will benefit from the 2002 farm bill?
The same people who have always benefitted -- the top 10 percent of the biggest farms, mostly large corporate sized agribusinesses that need taxpayer money the least, will continue to collect at least two-thirds of the $125 billion budgeted for crop subsidies over the next ten years. EWG will continue to post subsidy data on its website to show the continuing trend.
Who is left out?
According to U.S. Agricultural Census data, more than 60 percent of U.S. farms do not grow any of the ten subsidized crops (primarily grains and cotton), so they won’t benefit from crop subsidies.
Farmland conservation programs benefit all farmers and landowners, but especially those who operate medium to small sized farms. Unfortunately, Congress shortchanged these programs— only 23 percent of total farm spending, which could total about $171 billion, was devoted to them. While Congress provided a modest increase, many expect it will be outstripped by heavy demand from farmers and landowners around the country. For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture already has a growing $2.5 billion backlog in applications for farmland conservation assistance.
What's the net effect?
By devoting so much taxpayer money to subsidizing corporate sized farms that already overproduce grains and cotton, the crop subsidy programs will continue to spur too much production, depress crop prices and further concentrate farm ownership in the hands of a few. Congress missed the opportunity to enact real crop subsidy reforms and make the conservation programs an integral part of assisting all family farms accross the country.
Summary of Congressional Action on the 2002 Farm Bill
House Passes Farm Bill (October, 2001)
In early October, 2001, about a year before the 1996 farm bill was set to expire, the House passed a bill that devoted nearly 75 percent of its funding to wasteful, status quo crop subsidy programs while funding effective and popular farmland conservation by only 22 percent. To make the bill more equitable to all farmers in all regions, a group of reform-minded members of Congress, including Ron Kind (D-WI), Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), John Dingell (D-MI), and Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), authored a reform amendment that would have provided more than five billion in farmland conservation funding.
Agribusiness rallied their House allies to narrowly defeat this reform
amendment, 226-200. However, this wasn’t the last time reformers would
make their case on the House floor.
Senate Passes Farm Bill (April, 2002)
The Senate finally voted in April of 2002, to devote slightly less in commodity spending and more in farmland conservation spending in its farm bill version. In all, the Senate included about $43 billion — about $5.5 billion more than the House bill — in total farmland conservation funding.
In addition to more conservation funding, Senators Grassley and Dorgan sucessfully pushed reforms to reduce subsidies to the largest farms in America while devoting the savings to conservation, research and nutrition programs. Another reform, authored by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), limited taxpayer funding for the cleanup of large factory farms’ animal waste.
LINK: Description of the key reform amendments
The House Votes for Reform (May 2002)
As negotiators for the House and Senate began work on a final version of the bill, House reformers, such as Ron Kind (D-WI) and Nick Smith (R-MI), pushed a nonbinding “motion to instruct conferees” to accept the Senate reform provision that would have capped payments to the largest of corporate agribusinesses. They won overwhelmingly, 265 to 158, leaving reformers hopeful that reform was in the works. Even public and editorial opinion surged in favor of the Senate reforms.
Reforms Left on Cutting Room Floor in Conference
Unfortunately, the Senate and House negotiators ignored the public's support for reforms, cutting farmland conservation funding by $4 billion from the Senate level and dropping provisions that would have limited crop subsidies to corporate sized agribusinesses.
Instead, agribusiness lobbyists won the day by tripling crop subsidies and capturing some of the conservation funding to fund controversial and environmentally threatening manure lagoons for confined livestock feeding operations.
Reform-minded Members of Congress Pushing Ahead
While the status
quo may have won for now, EWG hears that some Senate and House members
may not quit pushing for reforms on other legislation, such as the
agricultural appropriations bills or emergency agricultural spending
bills.
LINK: Final
conservation and crop subsidy funding in the Farm Bill
LINK: More about the Farm Bill at
the USDA website
Copyright 2003, Environmental Working
Group. All Rights Reserved.
Headquarters 1436 U St.
N.W., Suite 100 | Washington, DC 20009 || info@ewg.org
California Office
1904 Franklin St. Suite 703 | Oakland, CA 94612 || california@ewg.org