Act Now for Rural America! - Your Action is Crucial!

- from the desk of John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org

ACTION ALERT - PAYMENT LIMITATIONS - ACTION ALERT

Have you contacted your members of Congress yet about establishing effective payment limitations for federal farm programs?

The most effective thing Congress could do to strengthen family farms and rural communities is establish effective payments limitations and stop the unlimited subsidies that help mega farms drive smaller operations out of business.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and a bipartisan team of Senate cosponsors are leading the fight for a proposal to implement real payments limitations on federal farm programs, placing the cap at $250,000.

CALL - 202-224-3121
and ask for your Representative by name, they will connect you.

If you live in Iowa - take another step and
CALL Representative Jim Nussle's office

Representative Jim Nussle - 202-225-2911

Representative Nussle chairs the House Budget Committee
and will be a powerful voice in the final decision on this issue.

And, next week (or more precisely, this weekend) Congress is coming home for the August recess.

Shortly after they return in September, they will resolve the final issues relating to the 2005 federal budget. In particular, they will decide how to cut $3 billion out of spending on agriculture.

They have two choices, they can cut across the board - cut conservation (like the conservation security program); rural development; cooperative and value-added development; food and nutrition programs (like food stamps and WIC - Women, Infants and Children nutrition program) - the very programs that help family farmers, ranchers, and rural communities as well as many of the most disadvantaged American children.

OR - Congress can, instead, choose to limits payments to the nation's largest farms by enacting the Grassley - Dorgan proposal.

The choice really is that stark. Cut spending that makes a difference for family farmers and ranchers, rural communities and American children living in poverty. Or, reduce (not eliminate, just cap) unlimited, sometimes multi-million dollar subsidies to the nation's largest farms - mega farms, really.

And you have the chance to make your voice heard. Contact your Representative's and Senators' offices, urge them to support the payment limitations that Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan have proposed.

CALL - 202-224-3121
and ask for your Representative by name, they will connect you.

If you live in Iowa - take another step and
CALL Representative Jim Nussle's office

Representative Jim Nussle - 202-225-2911

Representative Nussle chairs the House Budget Committee
and will be a powerful voice in the final decision on this issue.

Ask your Representatives to let you know when they will be in or near your community so that you can talk with them about this issue - face-to-face. And when they come, bring your family, friends and neighbors with you.

Remind your members of Congress how important this issue really is, because, in many ways, the future of rural America is at stake. Remind them that the future of rural America is their future too.

John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org
402-687-2103 ext 1010
Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Conservation Security Program in Nebraska

- from the desk of John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org

- a newsrelease from the Nebraska Natural Resource Conservation Service - USDA

Over 1,000 Nebraska farmers and ranchers (1,033) can receive more than $6.5 million in new contracts as part of the Conservation Security Program, according to Steve Chick, Natural Resources Conservation Service State Conservationist. It is now the farmers or ranchers choice to accept these contract offers which will be extended through local NRCS offices soon, he added.

More than 1,530 farmers in all or parts of 17 Nebraska counties applied for the program. While CSP was offered on a limited basis in 2004and 70 Nebraska farmers enrolled, this is the first year agricultural producers in all 50 states in 220 watershed locations were given an opportunity to participate in the program.

“Traditionally conservation programs offer incentives to encourage farmers and ranchers to apply soil, water and wildlife practices. The CSP recognizes farmers and ranchers who have applied those conservation practices, yet offers enhancement payments to encourage additional conservation practices to be applied to their land,” said Chick.

“These new contract holders are good stewards of the land. The intent of CSP is to recognize them for their efforts, encourage more conservation work and hopefully inspireother landowners to apply conservation on their land and get into the program too,” said Chick.

The contracts are for 5 to 10 years. Typical conservation practices and enhancements vary from: conservation tillage of leaving crop residue on the field, wildlife habitat improvements, pesticide and fertilizer management, terraces or irrigation management.

CSP applicants participate in the program on three different tier levels, depending on their documented conservation management and their agreement to do additional enhancements.In Nebraska, out of the 1,033 approved applications, there were: 946 in Tier I, 58 in Tier II, and 29 in Tier III. Tier III recognizes the highest level of conservation already on the land. Landowners in Tier I and II can move up in payment by increasing the conservation work on their land.

Farmers and ranchers in all or parts of the following counties were eligible depending on their watershed boundaries: Adams, Butler, Clay, Dundy, Fillmore, Gage, Hall, Hamilton, Kimball, Jefferson, Lancaster, Pawnee, Polk, Saline, Seward, Thayer and York.

For more information check out - www.ne.nrcs.usda.gov
or contact Traci Brukner, tracib@cfra.org
or John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Another Mad Cow?

- from the desk of John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org
After reading a press report about another possible case of mad cow (see below) I am compelled to ask - is USDA and the federal government doing an adequate job of protecting our food system and, for that matter, family farmers and ranchers? We would like to hear what you think.

USDA investigating another possible mad cow case.
Libby Quaid
Associated Press

The government is investigating a possible new case of mad cow disease, but says there is no threat to the U.S. food supply.

Testing indicated the presence of the disease in a cow that died on the farm where it lived, John Clifford, the Agriculture Department's chief veterinarian, said Wednesday. The animal was burned and buried, the department said.

"It is important to note that this animal poses no threat to our food supply because it did not enter the human food or animal feed chains," Clifford said.

The cow probably was born in the United States and was at least 12 years old, Clifford said. He said the cow had complications while giving birth.

The department knows the location of the farm but is not disclosing it, he said. There currently is no quarantine on the farm. The department is conducting further tests at its laboratory in Ames, Iowa, and is sending tissue to be tested by the internationally recognized laboratory in Weybridge, England. Results should come in the next week, he said.

Two other cases of mad cow disease have been confirmed in the U.S. One was confirmed last month, in a Texas cow that died in November. The other was in a Canadian-born cow discovered in December 2003 in Washington state.

In this case, testing options are limited. The brain sample was preserved with formalin, making it unsuitable for all but one type of testing: immunohistochemistry, or IHC. That test returned conflicting results on the Texas cow. "It is possible for an IHC test to yield differing results depending on the slice of tissue that is tested," Clifford said. "Therefore, scientists at our laboratory and at Weybridge will run the IHC test on additional slices of tissue from this animal to determine whether or not it was infected."

The animal died in April, but the veterinarian who removed the brain forgot to send in the sample until last week, Clifford said. "While that time lag is not optimal, it has no implications in terms of the risk to human health," he said. "The carcass of this animal was destroyed. Therefore, there is absolutely no risk to human or animal health from this animal."

Since the suspect cow's death, the department has changed its rules and no longer allows tissue to be preserved in formalin. Samples now must be shipped immediately, while they are fresh.
While testing in Ames has indicated the presence of mad cow disease, the sample did not look like a typical case of BSE, Clifford said. He said it did not have the normal distribution of prions, the misfolded mad cow protein that kills brain cells and leaves spongy holes behind.

Clifford said the possibility of another case should not hinder efforts to persuade Japan to lift a ban on U.S. beef imposed after the Washington state case. Japan, which purchased $1.5 billion in beef in 2003, agreed to lift its ban last fall but still has not done so.

The brain-wasting disease is known medically as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. In people, eating meat products contaminated with BSE is linked to about 150 deaths from a fatal disorder called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Most of the deaths were in the United Kingdom, where there was an outbreak in the 1980s and 1990s.

Posted by
John Crabtree
Center for Rural Affairs
402-687-2103 ext. 1010
johnc@cfra.org

Nebraska - Rep. Fortenberry to hold "Ag Forums"

- from the desk of Traci Bruckner, Center for Rural Affairs, tracib@cfra.org

ACTION ALERT

CONGRESSMAN JEFF FORTENBERRY TO HOLD “AG FORUMS”

US HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE CHAIR WILL JOIN HIM THURSDAY

In September, $3 billion will be cut from the agricultural budget. If done wrong, payments to family farmers will be cut and critical rural development and conservation programs for rural Nebraska could be cut significantly or eliminated.

If done right – by capping payments to mega farms – it would strengthen family farms and preserve funding for these critical programs.

The outcome is in our hands. This is a moment when grassroots action can make a huge impact. You are in a position to have an impact because your Congressman - Jeff Fortenberry – is on the Committee that will make the decision (the Agriculture Committee). Please take a critical step to help build a better future for Rural Nebraska by attending one of the Congressmen’s ag forums and open door meetings.

Congressman Bob Goodlatte will be attending the August 4th forum. Congressman Goodlatte is very influential because he is the Chair of the House Agriculture Committee. It is crucial that he hears loud and clear that Representative Fortenberry’s constituents want to see effective payment limitations enacted and preserve funding for rural development and conservation programs.

Ag Forums – August 2nd and August 4th

Tuesday, August 2nd at 1:30 p.m.
Northeast Community College Agriculture Complex
2301 E Benjamin AveNorfolk, NE

Thursday, August 4th at 3:30 p.m.
Lancaster Event CenterPavilion 3N
84th and Havelock Avenue
Lincoln, NE

Open Door Meetings - August 3rd and 5th

Wednesday, August 3rd – 2:30-3:30 p.m.
Wayne City Auditorium
410 Pearl St. – Wayne, NE

Wednesday, August 3rd – 4-5 p.m.
Stanton City Office
800 11th St.Stanton, NE

Friday, August 5th – 2:30-3:30 p.m.
Auburn City Office
1101 J St.Auburn, NE

Friday, August 5th – 4-5 p.m.
Nebraska City – City Office
1409 Central Avenue
Nebraska City, NE

for more information contact
Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org, or John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org
Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Action Alert - Limit Farm Payments to Mega Farms!

- from the desk of Kathie Starkweather, Center for Rural Affairs, kathies@cfra.org

Urgent Action Alert

Act Now To Make Your Voice Heard in Congress for Rural America

Contact Congressman Jim Nussle!

$3 billion will be cut from the agricultural budget. If done wrong, crucial rural development and conservation programs for rural Iowa could be cut significantly or eliminated.

If done right, it could preserve funding for these important programs by saving money through long needed reforms that cap subsidies to mega farms.

The outcome is in your hands. This is a moment when grassroots calls and action can make a huge impact. You are in a unique position to have an impact because Iowa Congressman Jim Nussle chairs the influential House Budget Committee. Please take a crucial step to help build a better future for Rural Iowa:

Call Rep. Nussle at (202) 225-2911

Tell him to cut spending by capping payments to mega farms. Tell him to protect funding for rural development, conservation and family farm programs that offer a future to rural Iowa.
Ask when he will be in your area to discuss this crucial issue.

Please fill out the enclosed postage-paid postcard and send it back to us so that we know you took action for Iowa!

Thank you for taking action!

Kathie Starkweather
Policy Organizer
402-687-2100, extension 1014
kathies@cfra.org
Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Blog for Rural America

Blog for Rural America

There are so many web logs – blogs – on politics, domestic affairs and international events as well as sports, music, fashion and, of course, dog grooming. Rural America needs serious dialogue that focuses on rural people, places, opportunities and issues. Therefore, we are rebuilding and revamping our blog to serve farmers, ranchers, rural communities and everyone who cares about rural America.

When Don Ralston, Marty Strange and a courageous board first formed the Center in 1973, one of the first things they did was start a monthly newsletter. Even before they knew how to make their budget (or even had a budget) they started telling our story.

Our blog will certainly help us continue to tell our story. But just as importantly, it will help us listen to our friends, allies, critics and each other. As with any conversation it will only work if you will lend an ear and offer your advice as well. Thanks for visiting our “Blog for Rural America” – talk to us today – and come back often.

Entrepreneurship on the Rise in Rural America

- from the desk of Jon Bailey, Center for Rural Affairs, jonb@cfra.org

Entrepreneurship on the Rise in Rural America

A recent study of Nebraskans suggests business ownership is on the rise, but notes high cost of health insurance as a possible hindrance to continued entrepreneurial expansion.

By: Mina Azodi

July 20, 2005 - Entrepreneurs are cropping up in the Heartland faster than most people think, says a new study by the Center for Applied Rural Innovation (CARI) at the University of Nebraska.

The annual report surveyed nearly 3,000 rural Nebraska residents on several topics, including employment. This year's poll marked the 10th anniversary for the CARI survey and focused on changes in residents' lives over the past decade.

One of the most important changes is the large number of rural Nebraskans who started their own businesses in the past 10 years, said CARI Professor Randy Cantrell.

According to the survey, 20% of rural residents now own companies. Most rural business owners turn to entrepreneurship as the only opportunity in a small town, said Cantrell. “You either have to leave an area you love to seek wage employment in a larger city, or you have to engage in an entrepreneurial activity,” he said.

Surprisingly, a large percentage of survey respondents had moved to rural communities from larger cities in the past decade. Rural towns are attracting a younger, more educated population than ever, and the increased mobility fosters entrepreneurship, Cantrell said.

"We know entrepreneurs require money," he said. "But they also need knowledge and management skills, and we're getting more people who have that."

Although entrepreneurship has increased among rural residents, Cantrell said legislators could do more to nurture small business growth in these communities. One of the issues hindering entrepreneurial expansion is the high cost of health insurance, Cantrell said. Nearly 70% of survey respondents said health insurance costs makes self-employment unappealing.

"What concerns me is that this feeling was the strongest among the younger respondents, who are the very people you want to engage in entrepreneurial activity," he said. "If this is strong enough to limit their willingness to start a business, then over time that will be very damaging."

The survey demonstrates that health insurance is an economic development issue, and not just an equality and access issue, Cantrell said. If legislators want to continue to bring young entrepreneurs to rural areas, they must see health insurance from an economic perspective, he added.

"Our research flies against the brain drain concept that says everybody who has skills never returns to rural towns," Cantrell said. "Continuing to attract these residents is critical for the future of those communities."

Questions? Comments? Post them here or for more information contact Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org or John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org, at the Center for Rural Affairs.

Invest in a Rural Future

- from the desk of Chuck Hassebrook, Center for Rural Affairs, chuckh@cfra.org

Invest in a Rural Future

The debate unfolding in Congress over $3 billion in farm and rural budget cuts will come down to an age old choice – protect the common good of the many or cater to the vested interests of the powerful few.

If the rich and powerful prevail; small town residents, family farmers,poor kids and ultimately all Americans who share a stake in protecting our land and water will pay the price.

Conservation programs that help farmers protect land and water will be cut. Small and mid-size farmers will lose farm program payments and find it harder to survive. Food programs for poor kids will be cut. Small towns and rural families will lose already limited access to vital programs for small business, cooperative and community development.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and a bipartisan team of farm state cosponsors have a better approach – save money by capping farm payments to mega farms. Reducing subsidies that mega farms use to drive smaller operations out of business is the most effective thing congress could do to strengthen family farms.

It seems like a "no brainer", but has set off firestorms of opposition from mega farms and the powerful organizations they control. The strongest opposition comes from the South. But Western and Midwestern farm and commodity groups have also been critical in blocking reform. The outcome will be determined by the response of Senators and Representatives from family farm regions in the Midwest and Great Plains.

If they aggressively and uniformly back reform, it will pass. If they protect the interests of their states’ largest farms, it will fail.

The stakes are high in family farm regions. They have the largest concentrations of farm dependent communities suffering from falling incomes and population loss. Their predicament results from misguided federal policies of over investing in mega farms and under investing in small business, communities and family farms.

If we want these communities to die and control of the land to concentrate in a few hands, we should continue current policy. If we want these communities to thrive, however, we must change policy.

We must invest in opportunities for family farm revitalization. Such as the growing number of consumers willing to pay a premium for food produced in ways they support – natural beef for example. USDA’s Value Added Producer Grants have helped family farmers and ranchers develop new cooperatives and processing operations to reach those markets. But Congress has eliminated 60 percent of its funding while protecting mega farm subsidies. It will face deeper cuts if Congress again protects subsidies for the largest farms.

We must also invest in protecting soil and water. The most innovative feature of the last farm bill, the Conservation Security Program, pays farmers based on how intensively they manage their farm to protect the environment.

It is essential to the farmers and ranchers who have done the most to protect the environment. They have been penalized by commodity programs, which reward maximized commodity production. The CSP has lost more than a third of its funding and will again go on the chopping block if Congress chooses to protect mega farms.

Finally, we must lay the groundwork for major investments in rural entrepreneurship in the next farm bill. Most new jobs in the nation’s most rural agricultural counties come from very small businesses. But Congress invests little in entrepreneurship.

A nationwide rural small business development program was slashed from the last farm bill because of its $15 million annual price tag – the cost of subsidies to five mega farms. Opportunity can flourish in rural America with a major investment in small entrepreneurship in the next farm bill.

If we always do what we’ve always done, we’ll always get what we’ve always got. It’s time for citizens who care about their communities to step forward and demand change. It time for their elected leaders to step up and make the change.

Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director
Center for Rural Affairs
402-687-2103 ext 1018
chuckh@cfra.org
http://www.cfra.org/newsroom/op_eds/0705_paymentlimits_ch.htm

CSP Comment Period Extended

- from the desk of Traci Bruckner, Center for Rural Affairs, tracib@cfra.org

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE COALITION - WEEKLY UPDATE - July 19, 2005

CSP COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED!

The public comment period deadline for the amended interim final rule for the Conservation Security Program has been extended from Monday, July 25 until Friday, September 9. The extension notice will be posted in the Federal Register tomorrow, Wednesday, July 20. SAC requested an extension after learning from grassroots activists in recent days that the USDA email address to file comments electronically has not been working and that the mailing address provided in the Federal Register was incomplete. NRCS informs us that they hope to have the electronic address back up and working with the next day or two. Other problems also contributed to the decision to provide an extension. The extension also provides at least a slim chance that some of the actual 2005 sign-up information will be known prior to the deadline for comments.

Please alert your networks, update your websites, and otherwise get the word out! This is a great opportunity to get more people involved in helping to improve the CSP rule. For those coming to the SAC & MSAWG summer meeting on August 1-3, we will spend a little time checking in on our basic points and strategies and deciding whether any of the messages need fine tuning as we start the final push for comments by September 9, 2005.

Comments should be postmarked by midnight, September 9, 2005. Send comments in writing, by mail, to Financial Assistance Programs Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, D.C. 20013-2890, or by e-mail to FarmBillRules@usda.gov; Attn: Conservation Security Program.

For more information, contact Craig Derickson, CSP Program Manager, at 202-720-3524 or 202-756-5041 or craig.derickson@wdc.usda.gov.

Big Trouble for Small Schools

from the desk of Kim Preston and John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, kimp@cfra.org or johnc@cfra.org

An analysis of the proposed changes to Nebraska’s school finance and school structure shows that many Nebraska rural schools could suffer from imposition of a “small by choice” factor. Although research has consistently shown that smaller schools have some advantages over larger schools. The Nebraska Legislature is ignoring these virtues.

The Center for Rural Affairs’ recently released analysis of policies adopted and proposed by the Legislature, Big Trouble for Small Schools,focuses on schools with an enrollment of 390 students or fewer - the very schools that will be targeted for consolidation through decreased funding if state legislation introduced in 2005 is enacted.

The report provides grim insight into how 2005 legislation and legislative proposals for the 2006 Legislature are putting our state and our rural communities on a path of extensive school consolidation through deprivation of much needed state funds. The full report can be obtained by contacting the Center or at www.cfra.org/resources/issue_brief_BigTroubleV.htm.

State K-12 policy in the past two legislative sessions shows a consistent policy direction for schools to maintain an enrollment of at least 390 students. Ultimately, the “carrot and stick” combination of state policies that punish schools with fewer than 390 students and provide incentives for merging districts may leave many rural schools in a financial corner with no alternative but to succumb to consolidation.

This is not progress. Weakening many rural communities and, in many cases, weakening public education, just for the sake of attaining an arbitrary and capricious minimum school size is irresponsible. We can do better than this.

Community Development Grant Cuts Worry Nation's Governors

- from the desk of John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org

Community Development Grant Cuts Worry Nation's Governors

Des Moines, Iowa - As the nation's governors gathered yesterday in Des Moines for their yearly meeting, one issue on their minds is the President's proposed cuts in community development grants.

"Iowa is the site for this year's annual National Governors' Association meeting. Many of the Governor's have already expressed concern about a Bush Administration Proposal to nearly eliminate Community Development Block Grants." said Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org, Rural Research and Analysis Program Director for the Center for Rural Affairs.

The Center for Rural Affairs recently completed a study of the impact those cuts would have on rural areas. The Center concluded that no Iowa county would qualify for funds under the Bush Administration proposal.

"This would be devastating because not only would most rural communities not qualify they'd also be put into a pool of competing against all of the major cities in the country for this money," Bailey continued.

According to Bailey the nation's governors are the ones who would need to deal with problemsresulting from the President's proposed community development cuts.

"Probably all of these Governors have some administrative authority over these programs, and so they're the ones that actually choose the communities that get this money. And so they should be concerned, because it's the major federal initiative that has to do with economic and community development," continued Bailey.

Bailey also noted that most of the money allocated to communities from the CommunityDevelopment Block Grants goes to small towns in rural states like Iowa for capitalimprovements and economic development.

Questions? Comments? Post them here or contact Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org, or John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org at the Center for Rural Affairs. The full report on the President's Strengthening American Communities Initiative is available at http://www.cfra.org/briefs/rab_saci.htm

Big Trouble for Small Schools

- from the desk of Kim Preston, Center for Rural Affairs Research Assistant and Grassroots Organizer - kimp@cfra.org

Small Rural Schools Targeted Under Proposed Funding Changes.

Lyons, NE – An analysis of the proposed changes to Nebraska’s school finance formula and school structure shows that many of Nebraska’s rural schools could suffer from imposition of a “small by choice” factor.

The Center for Rural Affairs released the analysis of policies adopted and proposed by the Legislature in the report Big Trouble for Small Schools. Unlike previous Big Trouble for Small Schools reports, the current analysis focuses on schools with an enrollment of 390 or less that will be targeted for consolidation through decreased fundingand have limited opportunities to other programs due to their small size if legislation introduced during the 2005 Nebraska Unicameral is enacted.

“State K-12 policy in the past two sessions of the Legislature shows a consistent policy direction for schools to maintain an enrollment of at least 390 students,” said Kim Preston, co-author of the report and Center for Rural Affairs Research Assistant and Grassroots Organizer. “Ultimately, this combination of state policies may leave many rural school districts in a financial corner with no alternative but to succumb to consolidation,” Preston added.

The Center for Rural Affairs’ report finds that legislative action in the 2005 session of the Nebraska Unicameral and proposals to be considered by the Legislature in 2006 appear to be placing the state and rural communities on a path of extensive school consolidation through deprivation of much needed state funds. The full report can be obtained by contacting the Center or at: http://www.cfra.org/resources/issue_brief_BigTroubleV.htm

“Research has consistently shown that smaller schools have some advantages over their larger counterparts. The Nebraska Legislature appears to be ignoring these virtues,” said Preston.

Organic corn and soybean yields measure up

- from the desk of John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs - johnc@cfra.org - a report from the journal Bioscience that I thought was interesting and that some of you might find of interest too.

Organic corn and soybean yields measure up long-term, with extra benefits.

Organic and conventional farming yield the same long-term production of corn and soybeans, and organic farming uses 30 percent less energy and less water, as well as the most familiar benefit of avoiding pesticides, a Cornell University professor has concluded after reviewing a 22-year study.

"Organic farming offers real advantages for such crops as corn and soybeans," ecology and agriculture professor David Pimentel writes in the July issue of Bioscience, reviewing the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial, the longest-running comparison of the two methods. Organic farming also causes less erosion, maintains soil and groundwater quality, and conserves more biological resources, he reports.

"The study compared a conventional farm that used recommended fertilizer and pesticide applications with an organic animal-based farm (where manure was applied) and an organic legume-based farm (that used a three-year rotation of hairy vetch/corn and rye/soybeans and wheat). The two organic systems received no chemical fertilizers or pesticides," says Newswise, a research-reporting service.

Child Poverty in Rural America

- from the desk of John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org

A report on child poverty in rural America from the USDA Economic Research Service that I read last night has reminded me that the Center's work to identify, examine and work to address poverty in rural communities is as crucial now as ever. Therefore, I thought it was important to remember that work and the need for it. If you have any thoughts on this, I hope you will share them here. john

To view the USDA-ERS report, go to: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB1/EIB1.htm

An exerpt from the report's introduction - Child poverty in 21st century America is higher (18 percent in 2003) than the rate for the general population (12.5 percent), as well as above the rates in most other industrialized countries. Child poverty is a significant social problem that negatively affects children’s development. Although rural child poverty rates declined in the 1990s, they remain higher than the rates for urban children (21 percent vs. 18 percent). In 2003, 2.7 million rural children were poor, representing 36 percent of the rural poor. Nonmetro children are more likely than metro children to receive food stamps and free or reduced-price school lunches, in part a reflection of higher nonmetro poverty. The geographic distribution of child poverty—heavily concentrated in the South—is important for targeting poverty reduction policies and program assistance such as child nutrition programs, food stamps, and health insurance coverage in rural areas.

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) analyzes ongoing changes in rural areas and assesses Federal, State, and local strategies to enhance economic opportunity and quality of life for rural Americans. Following are the most current indicators of the demographic, social, and economic well-being of rural children for use in developing rural policies and programs to assist children and their families in rural areas.

Central American Free Trade Agreement

- from the desk of John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs, johnc@cfra.org
exerpts of a joint letter from the Bishops' Secretariat of Central America and the Domestic and International Policy Committees of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops - to read the entire letter go to - http://www.wola.org/economic/cafa_c_a_bishops_statement.htm

*Editor's note - although the Center for Rural Affairs has not played a role in opposing CAFTA, we have grave concerns about the impact of this trade agreement and other trade policies on farmers, ranchers and rural communities - and most importantly, we want to hear what you think about this issue - post a comment and let us know

Joint Statement Concerning the U.S.- Central American Free Trade Agreement (US-CAFTA) by the Bishops’ Secretariat of Central America (SEDAC) and the Chairmen of the Domestic and International Policy Committees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)

...According to our pastoral vision, which is inspired by the Gospel and the Church’s social teaching, the human person must be at the center of all economic activity. Free trade agreements, such as CAFTA, should be a way of achieving authentic human development that upholds basic values such as human dignity, solidarity and subsidiarity. Whether such treaties are ethical or not depends on how these values are pursued.

If trade agreements are shaped by a proper moral perspective, they can promote human development — while respecting the environment — by fostering closer economic cooperation among and within countries and by raising standards of living, especially for the poorest and most abandoned. Human solidarity must accompany economic integration so as to preserve community life, protect families and livelihoods, and defend local cultures.

Because trade agreements are not a panacea for deep-seated problems of poverty and social and economic exclusion, they must be part of a broader agenda of sustainable development that includes financial cooperation and migration policies and programs specifically designed to lift up sectors adversely affected by the agreement. The basic challenge is to implement a framework for sustainable human development.

We believe that in an increasingly interdependent world, it is essential that economic globalization be made more human by globalizing solidarity among people everywhere. If this is not done, then, as Pope John Paul II has said, “the poorest appear to have little hope” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 20). Indeed, “if globalization is ruled merely by the laws of the market applied to suit the powerful, the consequences cannot but be negative” (Ecclesia in America, 20).

In general, the situation in which many people of Central America live is marked by poverty and exclusion, a growing gap between rich and poor, an inadequate educational and public health system, insecurity and violence, and migration caused by the lack of opportunities. We are concerned about the ability of CAFTA to increase opportunities for the poorest and most vulnerable and to enhance the prospect that they will genuinely benefit from increased trade.

To ensure that this takes place, it is necessary to frame trade policies within an integrated development agenda that incorporates measures that improve education and healthcare, include minority groups and the disabled and strengthen democratic participation. In this way, the great promises made on behalf of trade liberalization are more likely to be realized and the growing gap between rich and poor will more likely diminish. In light of the values and principles that we have outlined as well as the situation of the people, we express some of our specific concerns about the potential impact of CAFTA on our countries, especially in Central America:

Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington
Chairman, Domestic Policy Committee

Most Reverend John H. Ricard, SSJBishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee
Chairman, International Policy Committee

Most Reverend Alvaro Leonel Ramazzini Imeri, Bishop of San Marcos
President, Bishops’ Secretariat of Central America and Panama

Most Reverend Gregorio Rosa Chavez, Auxiliary Bishop San Salvador
Secretary, Bishops’ Secretariat of Central America and Panama

Asset Building and Rural Home Ownership

- from the desk of Jon Bailey, Rural Research and Analysis Program Director, jonb@cfra.org

Asset Building and Rural Home Ownership

High rural home ownership rates disguise other problems like age, condition, and cost of the rural housing stock

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, home ownership in rural areas of the nation is higher than in non-rural areas, with 76 percent of occupied housing units in rural areas owned by the occupants. Overall, 68 percent of households in the United States are homeowners.

High Rural Home Ownership, But What Are the Homes Like?

The characteristics of rural homeownership are different from non-rural areas in many respects. While the age of all housing units in rural and non-rural areas are comparable, about 25 percent more housing units in non-metropolitan areas were built prior to 1930, and over one-third more rural housing units were built before 1919. In total, nearly one-in-six rural occupied housing units were built prior to 1930.

The types of homes owned by rural individuals and families also vary significantly. Nearly one-in-six owner occupied housing units in non-metropolitan America are mobile homes, nearly double the national total. The number of mobile homes in rural areas has increased by 38 percent since 1987.

While a legitimate housing option for many rural people and families, the prevalence of mobile homes in rural areas often acts as a deterrent to the construction of permanent housing, particularly for low-income families and individuals.

Mobile homes also do not provide many of the benefits of traditional, permanent housing – they decrease in value over time, not allowing them to hold their value as a sellable or inheritable asset.

Other characteristics include:

Rural areas have a disproportionate amount of the nation’s substandard housing. Nearly 2 million low-income rural households live in moderately to severely inadequate housing (i.e., units without hot or cold water, inadequate roofs and heating, rodent problems, lead-based paint). In total, 2.6 million rural residents live in inadequate homes of any kind, compared to 2.4 million central city residents and 1.3 suburban residents.

Housing “cost burdens” are greater in rural areas. The accepted housing “cost burden” – the percentage of income attributable to housing – is 30 percent. Twenty-one percent of rural homeowners – 5 million rural homeowners – pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing.

Rural Home Ownership Asset-Building Strategies Face Two Challenges

Home ownership rates, therefore, do not tell the entire story of rural housing as an asset-building strategy. The age, condition, type, and relative cost of rural housing make it “apparent many rural homeowners do not gain the benefits that typically accrue to home owners.” (National Rural Housing Coalition) As such, asset-building strategies based on home ownership for rural people and families face significant challenges.

Two primary challenges concern rural homeownership. First, is the condition and characteristics of rural housing. This is an issue of a lack of quality, affordable housing in rural areas for low to moderate-income rural residents and families.

The second, and related challenge, is one of resources and public policy. According to the National Rural Housing Coalition, rural areas are faced with a “low and declining level of federal housing assistance.”

Every federal housing program provides far less resources to rural areas than to urban areas. Over twice as many urban or metropolitan homeowners receive government-assisted mortgages. According to the 2001 American Housing Survey, 13.6 percent of metropolitan and 14.1 percent of urban homeowners receive federal assistance; only 6.7 percent of rural and 5 percent of non-metropolitan homeowners do.

Rural homeowners fare only slightly better with state and local mortgage assistance programs. In 2001, 5.6 percent of metropolitan homeowners received assistance from state and local programs, while 4.2 percent of rural homeowners received assistance. Overall, only 6 percent of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) assistance goes to non-metro areas. On a per-capita basis, metropolitan counties received nearly 10 times the FHA assistance than did rural counties ($264 for metropolitan counties vs. $25 for rural counties).

Recommendations for Asset-Building Legislation

As state and federal policymakers discuss asset-building legislation, any policy should address the unique housing needs of rural areas:
- Add home rehabilitation, renovation, and repair to the list of allowable uses in the homebuyer section. This would help address the issue of housing quality in rural areas.
- Allow home purchase cost assistance for rural people to include those who are not first-time homebuyers. Since homeownership rates in rural areas are already higher than other parts of the nation, issues relating to an aging and affordable housing stock are more relevant.
- Specifically allow home purchasing assistance in asset-building policy to be used for manufactured homes. Manufactured homes are an increasingly important part of rural housing yet are often treated differently than other types of housing.

The Senate Budget Resolution includes an amendment that would restore $2 billion in funding for CDBG and related programs that would be eliminated under the President’s proposal. The House and Senate will need to reconcile their budget resolutions. Then House and Senate Appropriations Committees will consider appropriation levels for programs, including SACI and the 18 programs it would replace.

Subscribe to the Center for Rural Affairs' free monthly newsletterfor more information on asset building strategies and other mattersof importance to rural America - Sign Up Here - http://www.cfra.org/feedbackform.htm

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action
www.cfra.org
johnc@cfra.org

We Need You! National Rural Action Network

- from the desk of John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs - johnc@cfra.org

We need you!

Get on board the Center for Rural Affairs team. Join the National Rural Action Network to receive our free monthly newsletter and hear when you can make a critical differencefor rural America. Sign up now at - http://www.cfra.org/rural_action_network.htm

National Rural Action Network

Join the Rural Action Network and help to create a future for rural America.
Just complete the form below to become part of the Center for Rural Affairs' network of thousands of people nationwidespeaking out for small towns, small business, and family farms. You'll receive alerts on opportunities to make a difference on critical rural issues by calling or emailing your representatives.We'll also send our free monthly Newsletter and updates as needed to keep you abreast of the latest developments.

By providing your state and zip code, you enable us to send you alerts when elected officials that represent you and your community are central to effective action on behalf of rural people.
http://www.cfra.org/rural_action_network.htm

The Center for Rural Affairs, a private, non-profit organization, is working to strengthen small businesses, family farms and ranches and rural communities.

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Center for Rural Affairs
145 Main St
Box 136
Lyons, NE 68038
http://www.cfra.org
voice (402) 687-2100
fax (402) 687-2200

Nebraska Legislative Update

- from the desk of Jon M. Bailey, Director, Rural Research and Analysis Program, Center for Rural Affairs, jonb@cfra.org

Nebraska Legislative Update

Class I School Petitions

As you may have read or heard, supporters of Class I schools have begun an effort to gather signatures to place two initiatives on the 2006 General Election ballot – to repeal LB 126 (the bill adopted over the Governor’s veto in the 2005 session mandating assimilation of Class I schools into K-12 districts) and a constitutional amendment requiring a vote of the people in affected school districts to finalize any school consolidationproposal.

The Center for Rural Affairs has publicly endorsed both petition drives. Below is a press release issued yesterday. If you would like more information on the petitions or find out how to support the cause or sign a petition please go to the following website: www.nebraskansforlocalschools.org

Center for Rural Affairs Endorses Rural Schools Petitions

Lyons – The Center for Rural Affairs announced their support for two citizen initiative petition drives organizing in response to the passage of LB 126, legislation from the 2005 session that would mandate the merger of elementary-only Class I schools into K-12 school districts.

“LB 126 is the first step toward massive, forced consolidation of rural schools in Nebraska. LB 126 was intended to be punitive and it was intended to pressure smaller school districts into consolidation and closure,” said Jon Bailey, Rural Research and Analysis Program Director at the Center for Rural Affairs. “Local citizens and their elected school board members are best able to decide when and if their school district should consolidate,” Bailey added.

The Center for Rural Affairs points to recent budget legislation, portions of LB 126 and pending reforms to the school finance formula as examples of the Legislature attempting to establish a minimum school size and force consolidation of rural schools.

The first citizen initiative seeks to place the repeal of LB 126 on the 2006 general election ballot. The second petition seeks to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would require school consolidations be approved by a majority of voters in each affected school district.

“The Center for Rural Affairs has a long history with the use of ballot initiatives to protect rural communities, and the importance of schools to rural communities makes a vote of the people on the issue of school consolidation essential. The Center will assist the effort in whatever ways we can,” said Bailey.

Term Limits
The 2006 election will be the first where term limits impact the Legislature. In the 2006 election, half of the Legislature – the even-numbered districts – is up for election. Of those 24 seats, 20 are occupied by Senators that cannot seek re-election due to term limits. Only four current Senators up for re-election in 2006 may seek re-election – Senators Friend, Mines, Stuthman and Combs. The ushering in of term limits will also cause a seismic shift in leadership in the Unicameral – the Speaker and nine committee chairs (of 14 Standing Committees) will be serving their last year in the Legislature in 2006.

Many new faces and names will grace the political stage as we approach the 2006 elections. We will keep you informed of any developments.

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Action Alert - Farm Program Payment Limits

- from the desk of Kathie Starkweather, Center for Rural Affairs

Action Alert - Payment Limits and Federal Budget Action Alert

Act Now for Rural America.

Your Voice is Crucial.

Congress will decide in September how to cut $3 billion in USDAspending. It could kill important community and small business development initiatives, slash soil and water conservation programs,and cut payments to small and medium-size farms.

Or it could preserve funding for critical programs and instead savemoney through long needed reforms that cap subsidies to mega farms.

The outcome is in part in our hands. It is a crucial time for citizens to make their voices heard. This is a moment when grassrootscalls and action can have a huge impact. Members of Congress are nowconsidering their options. And they will be home in August touringtheir districts and hearing from constituents.

Tell them to protect funding for programs that offer a futureto rural America – small business development, community development,conservation, and family farm programs. Tell them to cut spendinginstead by capping payments to mega farms.

Agriculture Committee Members Are Key

If your state is represented by one of the key decision makers,you are in a particularly strong position to influence the outcome.The key decision makers are members of the agricultural committees.

Find Senate agriculture committee members: http://agriculture.senate.gov/sen.htm

Find House agriculture committee members:
http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/members.html

Budget Committee Chairs Jim Nussle of Iowa and Judd Greg of New Hampshire and Representative Dennis Hastert of Illinois and Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee are also influential.

What You Can Do:
1. Call or write you representatives in Congress. Dial the capitol switchboard at 202. 224.3121 and ask for their offices.
Find your senators and representatives: http://www.congress.org

Once transferred to the right office, leave a message with thereceptionist. Tell them to protect funding for programs that offera future to rural America – small business development, communitydevelopment, conservation, and family farm programs. Tell them tocut spending instead by capping payments to mega farms.

2. Share this alert with people you know who might be interested. Let us know who you give it to so we can let them know how it turns out by emailing Chuck hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org

3. Seize other opportunities to get involved. Letters to the editorcan be very influential. For help preparing one, contact KathieStarkweather at 402.687.2103 x 1014 or kathies@cfra.org. Watch thenews or check the website of your representative to find out when she or he will be in your area – especially during the August congressional recess. Attend and repeat the message above.

If you have questions, contact Kathie at kathies@cfra.org. Thank you for your support!

Background Information:

Key points:
- Congress has to cut $3 billion from agricultural programs. It needs to cut smart by capping payments to mega farms.
- The single most effective thing Congress could do to strengthenfamily farms is to stop subsidizing mega farms to drive smalleroperations out of business by adopting Senator Grassley’s proposalto cap payments.
- The nation's family farms need to be strengthened by capping payments to mega farms.
Capping payments to mega farms protects funding for programs thatoffer a future to rural America – specifically small business development, value added agriculture, community development, conservation, and family farm programs.

Read the Center's oped on the federal budget.
http://www.cfra.org/newsroom/op_eds/0705_paymentlimits_ch.htm

Action Alert - Competitive Livestock Markets

- from the desk of John Crabtree, Center for Rural Affairs and our friends at the Western Organization of Resource Councils

Action Alert: Call your Senators to Return Competition to Livestock Markets

Ask your Senators to sponsor the Captive Supply Reform Act.

Senators Enzi (WY), Johnson (SD), Dorgan (ND) and Thomas (WY) have introduced S. 960, also known as the Captive Supply Reform Act. The Act would require packers to bid for livestock in an open, public market and pay a fair price to the farmers and rancherswho raise that livestock. Those sponsors are currently circulating a Dear Colleague letterto gain support and more sponsors for the Act. Your calls of support are needed to ensureyour Senator signs on to this important bill.

What You Can Do:

Your help is needed to encourage your Senators to sign on to this important bill.
Call your Senator and urge him or her to cosponsor S. 960, sponsored by Senators Enzi, Thomas, Johnson and Dorgan. Mention this important bill when you see your Senator at publicevents this Independence Day recess. Ask you Senator to urge the leadership of the SenateAgriculture Committee to hold hearings on S.960. Contact friends and family in other statesand ask them to take this action, too.

************************************************************************
You can reach your Senator by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and asking for your Senator by name. A list of Senators’ phone and fax numbers is available at http://www.senate.gov/general/resources/pdf/senators_phone_list.pdf
************************************************************************

What to Say When You Call:
I encourage you to sign on to the Captive Supply Reform Act, S.960. This Act is vital to returning competition to the livestock markets. I am a [consumer or livestock producer, you know what you are] and I support fair marketsand strong economies. This legislation would make the contracts fair, and open to everyone,instead of the secret backroom deals we have now. Encourage your Senate Agriculture Committee leadership to hold hearings on this important bill.

************************************************************************
Background:
Meatpackers acquire half of all cattle and hogs they slaughter through what are known ascaptive supplies—livestock they own themselves or control through contracts with farmersand ranchers. These livestock are called captive because they are tied to one packer instead of being subject to normal market forces of supply and demand.
Four companies buy 80% of the cattle and half of the hogs that end up as steaks and chopson American dinner tables. In such a concentrated market, buyers (the packers) can—and do—use captive supplies to manipulate markets.

The Captive Supply Reform Act, S.960, fixes the problems with captive supplies withoutprohibiting their use. Rather than banning contracts, the Captive Supply Reform Act wouldmake two reforms to restore competition in the market for livestock contracts.

The Act would:

- Require a fixed base price on contracts and marketing agreements Require that contracts be traded in open, public markets—no more secret deals.

- Restore competition by making packers and livestockproducers bid against each other to win contracts. Forward contracts and marketing agreements allow packers and producers to coordinate supply and reduce risk, but as currently negotiated—in secret, with all the bargaining power on one side—they depress prices and shut small and independent producers out of markets. The Captive Supply ReformAct would require such contracts be traded in open, public markets to which all buyers andsellers have access.

For more information on the Captive Supply Reform Act, log on to http://www.worc.org/ . You may also contact Jeri Lynn Bakken at jerilynn@worc.org or 701/376-7077.

Center for Rural Affairs Endorses Rural Schools Petitions

--from the desk of Jon Bailey, Rural Research & Analysis Program Director, jonb@cfra.org

LYONS – The Center for Rural Affairs announced their support for two citizen initiative petition drives organizing in response to the passage of LB 126, legislation from the 2005 session that would mandate the merger of elementary-only Class I schools into K-12 school districts.

“LB 126 is the first step toward massive, forced consolidation of rural schools in Nebraska. LB 126 was intended to be punitive and it was intended to pressure smaller school districts into consolidation and closure,” said Jon Bailey, Rural Research and Analysis Program Director at the Center for Rural Affairs. “Local citizens and their elected school board members are best able to decide when and if their school district should consolidate,” Bailey added.

The Center for Rural Affairs points to recent budget legislation, portions of LB 126, and pending reforms to the school finance formula as examples of the Legislature attempting to establish a minimum school size and force consolidation of rural schools.

The first citizen initiative seeks to place the repeal of LB 126 on the 2006 general election ballot. The second petition seeks to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would require school consolidations be approved by a majority of voters in each affected school district.

“The Center for Rural Affairs has a long history with the use of ballot initiatives to protect rural communities, and the importance of schools to rural communities makes a vote of the people on the issue of school consolidation essential. The Center will assist the effort in whatever ways we can,” said Bailey.

Center for Rural Affairs Enters Social Security Debate

-- from the desk of Jon Bailey, Rural Research and Analysis Program Director, jonb@cfra.org

Lincoln – The Center for Rural Affairs announced today that the organization has joined a growing coalition of farm, ranch and rural organizations concerned about President Bush’s proposed changes to Social Security. Rural Americans for a Secure Future (RASF) consists of over 30 organizations with shared concerns about the negative impact that the proposed changes to Social Security will have on seniors and rural communities.

“We are joining this debate because Social Security is a crucial part of the economic base in rural America and rural Nebraska,” said Jon Bailey, Director of Research and Analysis at the Center for Rural Affairs. “Poverty rates in rural America and rural Nebraska are already higher than in non-rural areas – but without the protection of a guaranteed Social Security benefit, the rural elderly and the rural disabled would be worse off,” added Bailey.

According to a report released by Nebraska United to Protect Social Security, Nebraska Farmers Union and the Center for Rural Affairs, Nebraska’s rural communities rely on Social Security income nearly twice as much as non-rural communities. In Nebraska’s rural counties, 7.4 percent of the total personal income to individuals comes from Social Security benefits; in non-rural Nebraska counties, only 4.1 percent of the total personal income comes from Social Security.

The report also found that more women over the age of 65 receive Social Security benefits in rural communities than in non-rural communities, and that more rural Nebraskans receive Social Security disability benefits. The report was compiled by the Institute for America’s Future, a Washington, DC-based think tank, and used federal and Social Security Administration data.

According to Rural Americans for a Secure Future, the national statistics are sobering:

• Over 90 percent of counties in America with high senior populations are rural.
• In 2001, 20 percent of Rural Americans were 60 years old or older, compared with 15 percent of seniors living in metropolitan communities.
• 13 percent of rural seniors live in poverty, compared with nine percent of urban seniors.
• 15 percent of rural women over age sixty are poor compared to eleven percent of men.
• Poverty increases with age – with fully 20 percent of rural seniors (primarily women) over age 85 living in poverty.

Although the Center for Rural Affairs and RASF acknowledge the need to address the long-term solvency of Social Security, they point out that economics of rural America and rural Nebraska place many rural citizens and rural communities at grave risk in the debate over changes to Social Security benefits. Rural Nebraska communities are home to greater percentages of elderly, disabled and low-income residents, thus making Social Security more valuable to rural communities. According to the Center for Rural Affairs, rural people and rural communities have more to lose in changes to Social Security.

“Any changes to the current Social Security benefit structure should be rejected since they have disproportionate impacts on rural people and devastating economic impacts on rural communities. Any changes in the current Social Security benefit structure should be rejected because they break faith with the hard-working farmers, ranchers, small business owners and working people of rural America and rural Nebraska,” said Bailey.

The Center for Rural Affairs is a private nonprofit based in Lyons, Nebraska specializing in rural economic development.