Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
United States federal law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States federal law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, also known as the 2002 Farm Bill, includes ten titles, addressing a great variety of issues related to agriculture, ecology, energy, trade, and nutrition. This act has been superseded by the 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.
.svg) | |
| Long title | An Act to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes. |
|---|---|
| Nicknames |
|
| Enacted by | the 107th United States Congress |
| Effective | May 13, 2002 |
| Citations | |
| Public law | 107–171 |
| Statutes at Large | 116 Stat. 134 through 116 Stat. 540 (406 pages) |
| Legislative history | |
| |
The act directs approximately 16.5 billion dollars of funding toward agricultural subsidies each year.[1] These subsidies have a dramatic effect on the production of grains, oilseeds, and upland cotton. The specialized nature of the farm bill, as well as the size and timing of the bill, made its passage highly contentious.
Debated in the U.S. House of Representatives during the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks in 2001, the bill drew criticism from the White House and was nearly amended. The amendment, which failed by a close margin, was proposed by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) and would have shifted money away from grain subsidies to conservation measures. Public debate over the farm bill continued, and the Senate proposed sweeping amendments to the bill, leading to a series of meetings from February through April. As a result, the current farm bill was not passed until May 2002, a few weeks after the 1996 farm bill had already expired.
![[icon]](#/media/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2008) |
Provisions included:
The following is the subsidies by crop in 2004 in the United States.
| Commodity | US Dollars (in Millions) | Percentage of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Feed Grains | 2,841 | 35.4 |
| Wheat | 1,173 | 14.6 |
| Rice | 1,130 | 14.1 |
| Upland and ElS Cotton | 1,420 | 17.7 |
| Tobacco | 18 | 0.2 |
| Dairy | 295 | 3.7 |
| Soybeans and products | 610 | 7.6 |
| Minor Oilseeds | 29 | 0.4 |
| Peanuts | 259 | 3.2 |
| Sugar | 61 | 0.8 |
| Honey | 3 | 0.0 |
| Wool and Mohair | 12 | 0.1 |
| Vegetable Oil products | 11 | 0.1 |
| Other Crops | 160 | 2.0 |
| Total | 8,022 | 100 |
"Let's push the pedal to the metal and try to get something done this year."
The largest difference between the House bill and its Senate counterpart was that the total amount of subsidies received by an individual farmer was capped by the Senate. Voicing concerns that "millionaire farmers" were reaping all the benefits of the farm bill legislation, a coalition of farm-state Senators pushed for these limits.
After September 11, the farm bill was considered problematic for three reasons. First, it would neither receive nor deserve the careful attention necessary during the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Second, its expenditures would consume the entire budget surplus, money that could be necessary for the American invasion of Afghanistan. Finally, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman opposed the new farm bill. On September 19, her office issued a report criticizing traditional agricultural policies and calling for a shift from subsidies to conservation. According to her assessments, commodity subsidies would lead to overproduction and expensive land.[7] Her position was supported by various other groups and legislators.
With mounting opposition from both sides of the aisle, the fate of the farm bill was unclear in early 2002. Anxious farmers were frustrated by the gridlocked Senate, which had promised a quick resolution to the impending expiration of the previous bill. The emergence of the Eggplant Caucus, so named for a major New Jersey crop, was a major factor in the passage of the bill.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) saw the opportunity for what he considered to be a more fair and equitable farm bill, and sought to unite over 20 senators from states with less powerful farming interests in support of subsidies for specialty crops and conservation. Active members of the Eggplant Caucus included Senators Hillary Clinton, Charles E. Schumer, and Harry Reid.
 |
September 10, 2001: $171 billion, 10-year farm bill (with $73 billion in new spending) reported out of committee, to be considered by the full House of Representatives.
September 11: September 11, 2001 attacks
September 19: Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman criticizes traditional farm policy, calls for a shift from commodity subsidies to conservation measures
September 27: Secretary Veneman criticizes the new bill as expensive in post-9/11 budget, claims it will lead to overproduction and expensive land.
October 2: Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) introduces an amendment to shift $19 billion (approx. 15%) of commodity subsidies to conservation measures.
October 2: Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX), farm bill sponsor, threatens to pull the bill if it is amended.
October 3: Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA), proposes shifting $650 million to ethanol, amendment fails.
October 4: Kind amendment falls 26 votes short, fails.
October 5: 10 year, $73 billion farm bill increase passes in the House of Representatives.
October 24: Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) reject Sec. Veneman's request that the Senate delay consideration of the farm bill to focus on war effort.
December 14: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and his Eggplant Caucus add dramatic increases in conservation spending ($21.3 billion). Co-sponsors Nelson and Harkin cut the House version in half (5 year life, $45 billion in new spending).
January 17, 2002: Spurred by a website listing absentee landlords of huge farms, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) supports an amendment to cap subsidy payments at $225,000. Amendment passes, shifting $1.3 billion to programs for beginning farmers.
February 14: Senate passes a 5-year version of the bill, with a $45 billion spending increase, by a 58:40 vote.
March 19: After two weeks of closed door negotiations, House agrees to $17 billion for conservation.
April 19: House passes non-binding resolution capping subsidies at $275,000 per farm (a $50,000 increase from the Senate bill).
April 26: Final version agreed upon: $360,000 subsidy cap, $17.1 billion for conservation. Expected to cost a total of $190 billion over ten years, an increase of over $90 billion (expires in September, 2007, six years later)
May 13: The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002[8] signed into law by President Bush.[9]
Critics of U.S. agricultural policy claim that it may be in violation of World Trade Organization agreements, asserting that domestic subsidies may be considered to be a non-tariff trade barrier. Others, including the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Iowa Corn Growers Association, and Oxfam America, argue that subsidizing domestic grains leads to overproduction that is harmful both for farmers and for the general public. They claim that subsidies depress market prices while increasing land values. Many farmers do not own their land, and as a result, the subsidies they receive are capitalized into the value of the land they farm, and therefore provide little benefit to the farmers themselves.
Author Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma suggests that corn subsidies in particular have led to the success of the feedlots or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFOs) that he and journalist Eric Schlosser have blamed for the emergence of e. coli as a major health concern. Subsidized corn is so inexpensive that beef companies find it profitable to build large facilities to feed corn to their cattle. Cows do not normally live in enclosed areas or consume corn, so these CAFOs generate large amounts of waste and require antibiotics and other drugs to keep the animals healthy.
Others have criticised the balance of subsidies on nutritional grounds, saying that oilseed crops (used to make vegetable oil) and corn should be subsidized less (because it can be made into high fructose corn syrup) and that fruits and vegetables should be subsidized more.[10]
The act's expansion of food stamp eligibility to non-citizens has also been criticized.[11]
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.