Nussle Contends – We Have Already Destroyed Our Rural Communities

NEWS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - October 26, 2005
From the Center for Rural Affairs

Contact: John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org, (402) 687-2103 ext. 1010

Nussle Contends – We Have Already Destroyed Our Rural Communities

Lyons, NE – This morning, the Center for Rural Affairs released a newsletter article reporting on comments made by Representative Jim Nussle (R-IA) at a recent meeting with farmers and representatives of the Center for Rural Affairs regarding proposed farm program payment limitations in the ongoing federal budget reconciliation debate.

The article, which will appear in the November 2005 edition of the Center for Rural Affairs’ monthly newsletter, contained the following report of the meeting and Representative Nussle’s comments:

On October 12th Center for Rural Affairs staffers and several Iowa farmers met in Holstein, Iowa with Congressman Jim Nussle (R-IA) to advocate for limits on farm program payments to mega farms.

Representative Nussle, House Budget Committee Chair, made it clear that his support for payment limitations is tenuous and tempered by his view that economic decline in rural America has been building for decades.

He contended that we have already destroyed our rural communities, that we have hardly any family farms left, and that the genie cannot be put back in the bottle (emphasis added).

To read the newsletter article in its entirety (407 words), go to http://www.cfra.org/newsroom/newsreleases/102605_nussle.htm

“It is difficult to imagine a more cynical view of the future of rural America. We have lost too many family farms, and rural communities do face stern challenges. But there are solutions,” said John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs and author of the article.

“And no one, least of all Representative Nussle, should count out rural Iowans and their rural neighbors in other states while there is so much to fight for and so much fight left in them,” added Crabtree.

“The single most effective thing that Congress can do to revitalize family farms is limit farm subsidies that mega farms use to drive smaller operations out of business,” said Chuck Hassebrook, Executive Director of the Center for Rural Affairs. “Representative Nussle is wrong; there are things we can do. We can do this. With determined leadership from Midwesterners in Congress, we can and will,” continued Hassebrook.

Traci Bruckner of the Center for Rural Affairs, who attended the meeting, expressed concern about Representative Nussle, House Budget Committee Chair, allowing this view to impact the ongoing budget reconciliation debate. “Economic decline in the rural Midwest is not a reason to avoid payment limitations reform. On the contrary, it is the most compelling reason for payment limits,” stated Bruckner.

“Representative Nussle should listen to the voices of citizens from across Iowa and the Midwest who are calling for payment limits. To lose hope now, when we have come so far, when we are so close – would be unforgivable,” cautioned Bruckner. “If his views on rural communities are other than he contended at our meeting, the best way to demonstrate that would be to stand up, support payment limitations publicly and commit to providing determined leadership to get the job done,” said Bruckner.

The House Agriculture Committee is slated to discuss budget reconciliation tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. (EDT) in room 1300, Longworth Building. Their proposed cuts, if passed, will then be reported to the House Budget Committee. Final committee action and floor votes are expected in both the House and Senate in November.

Established in 1973, the Center for Rural Affairs is a private, non-profit organization working to strengthen small businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities through action oriented programs addressing social, economic, and environmental issues.

for more information post a question or comment here or
contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Unconventional Wisdom

Unconventional Wisdom

By John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Some say that “conventional wisdom” tells us that economic decline in rural communities is somehow inevitable, a product of inexorable forces of…something, but that part never quite makes sense to me.

Economic decline in rural communities is not an inevitable phenomenon. There is no “invisible economic hand” at the throat of rural America. The economic decline experienced by many rural communities is a result, in the largest part, of public policies – choices, made by people, which can be changed by people, if we have the courage and determination to do so.

In the small Southwest Nebraska town of Stratton, Terry and Chrissy Latta have built a growing business where some might have told them not to bother. The Lattas have courageously demonstrated that there is economic opportunity in rural Nebraska communities.

In 2002 the Lattas established Final Touch Auto Body in Stratton and have seen steady business growth since. The business start-up was assisted by the Center for Rural Affairs’ Rural Enterprise Assistance Program, McCook National Bank of Stratton, and Southwest Nebraska Community Betterment Corporation. Unconventional? Yes, and a good thing for Stratton.

The Center for Rural Affairs has found that in the most rural farm-dependent counties the majority of new job creation results from non-farm proprietorships – people creating their own job by starting a small business, like the Lattas. And rural microenterprise development and rural entrepreneurship are increasingly becoming a force in rural economic development.

Sheffield, Iowa is not Lyons, Nebraska (both are towns where I have lived), and compared to Seattle or Chicago, both are quite “unconventional.” But both would benefit from public policies that support and invest in rural economic development focused on small business and microenterprise development. Both would benefit from public policies that support and build on the assets already found in those communities. And all of rural America would benefit from more of such “unconventional” thinking.

post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Senate Ag Committee Passes Farm Bill Cuts

- from the desk of Ferd Hoefner, fhoefner@msawg.org, Sustainable Agiculture Coalition

Senate Agriculture Committee Passes Farm Bill Cuts

On Wednesday, October 19th, the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a budget reconciliation bill by a high drama, razor thin 11-9 vote, cutting $4 billion in mandatory spending over 5 years from farm bill programs and extending the MILC dairy payment program through 2007 at a cost of $1 billion, for a net $3 billion savings.

The bill proposed by Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and adopted by the Committee without any changes was basically identical to the Chairman’s earlier version from two weeks ago, except that cuts to the food stamp program totaling $574 million were dropped from the bill, with the difference offset by a reduction in the percentage of direct commodity payments received during the crop year and a corresponding increase in the percentage received at the end of the crop year.

It is widely rumored the food stamp change was required for the Chairman to secure the vote of Senator Jim Talent (R-MO). The Chairman also made minor changes to the structure of the sugar program cuts and, in response to an issue first raised by SAC, applied the 2.5 percent cut to commodity payments to generic certificates and loan forfeitures rather than just to loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains.

The vote on final passage was high theater. Former Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) joined the Republicans in support of the bill, the result of a deal he made to always vote with the chairman provided the MILC payments were extended.

Former Chairman Dick Lugar (R-IN), on the other hand, joined all the Democrats but Leahy in opposing the measure, to register his ongoing opposition to commodity programs as we know them. Former House Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS), who played the leading role in getting markup postponed two weeks ago and who badly wanted to vote against the measure, was forced to vote for the measure when Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), who was prepared to vote yes, first abstained, and then switched to no, forcing Roberts to vote yes or watch the whole bill and GOP effort fail.

After what felt like an endless half-minute pause of silence, he finally voted yes, mumbling that this reluctant choice was better than letting the Budget Committee decide how to allocate the cuts.

Over the next five years, the bill cuts the following:

** Conservation Security Program by $821 million -- or 27 percent of the bill’s net cuts -- while reducing the program’s baseline for years 6-10 by an additional $646 million;
** Conservation Reserve Program by $129 million and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program by $135 million;
** Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems by $336 million -- or 11 percent of the bill’s net cuts -- though it would leave IFAFS still considerably above the level provided in recent years by the Appropriations bill;
** Commodity programs by $2.732 billion, though $1 billion of that amount was the smoke-and-mirrors savings from changing the timing, but not the amount, of payments.

The Step II Cotton program was terminated, as per the Brazilian WTO cotton case, but the cut was made effective August 1, 2006 rather than the July 1, 2005 date in the WTO ruling. The Administration continues to say it wants the program to end this calendar year, but the cotton interests say no.

During mark-up, Senator Crapo (R-ID) and Senator Roberts (R-KS) offered an amendment that aimed to restore cuts to commodity, conservation and research programs by preventing extension of the MILC program, arguing that cuts to farm programs were poorly timed due to rising fuel and fertilizer costs and it that it was unfair to penalize non-dairy farmers for the costs of the extension. The amendment garnered the votes of only the 5 Westerners on the committee - where the dairy program is opposed by large-scale confinement dairy operations -- plus Senator Lugar.

Payment Limitation Reform On-Deck: During the markup, Senator Grassley promised that the Grassley-Dorgan payment limitation reform amendment would be offered to the Budget Reconciliation bill when it comes to the Senate floor in November. He reminded the Ag Committee members that the last time the Senate had an opportunity to vote on payment limits the measure passed with 66 yes votes. Following the mark-up, the entire press gallery made a beeline for Grassley, who spoke to them about payment limitations at some length.

We expect to know the more precise outlines of the payment limitation reform amendment possibly as early as the end of next week. The basic outline of the amendment is clear, however-- comprehensive payment limitation reform, yielding savings that will offset a substantial amount of the cuts to commodity and conservation programs, including the CSP.

The timing of floor consideration is unknown. The first big event of next week will be Finance Committee markup of its health care portion of budget reconciliation – the biggest overall portion and the most politically sensitive – on Monday afternoon. If that passes and the other 6 committees with reconciliation instructions get through their respective markups next week, the Budget Committee will likely report a combined bill to the floor bythe end of next week.

From there, it will depend on Senate GOP leadership decisions as to when it gets scheduled for floor action, but we need to be prepared for possible action the week of October 31.

for more information post a question or comment here or contact
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Food Stamps and Rural Families

- from the desk of John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

New Report: Food Stamp Program Provides Critical Safety Net to Low-Income Rural Families

Ed Hatcher, 301-656-0348 and Cynthia Duncan, 603-862-3663

People who live in rural America rely more heavily on the federal Food Stamp Program than do residents of urban areas, according to a new analysis by The Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.

The Institute's analysis found that while 22 percent of Americans lived in rural areas in 2001, a full 31 percent of the nation's food stamp beneficiaries lived there. In all, 4.6 million rural residents received food stamp benefits in 2001, the analysis found.

"Many of America's rural families struggle to make a living," said Cynthia M. Duncan, the director of The Carsey Institute. "In these rural communities, as in many of our cities and suburbs, food stamps provide crucial supplements to low income families' budgets."

The food stamp analysis, "Rural America Depends on the Food Stamp Program to Make Ends Meet," is the first of a series of policy briefs from The Carsey Institute.

The policy brief provides a demographic picture of rural food stamp recipients, including information on income, race, age and family size. It also compares data for rural and urban recipients.

Among its findings, the Carsey analysis showed:

- In 2001, 7.5 percent of all rural residents received food stamps, compared to 4.8 percent of residents of urban areas.
- While 10.6 million rural residents were living in poverty, only 4.6 million received food stamps in 2001, suggesting that many people who may be eligible for help are not benefiting from the program.
- In 2001, 91 percent of rural elderly in the food stamp program had household incomes less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
- A significant share of food stamp beneficiaries are under 18 years of age.
Children accounted for 43 percent of the rural population that depend on food stamps, but only one fourth of rural residents.
- Roughly three-in-five rural residents who receive food stamps live in the South.

In the next few weeks, Congress is expected to consider significant cuts in the federal Food Stamp Program. In all, congressional committees are preparing to make $3 billion in cuts over five years to federal programs that include food stamps, farm subsidies and nutrition assistance.

Major cuts in the food stamp program could lead to smaller benefits or a loss of eligibility for some current recipients. Such cuts are "likely to have significant adverse effects on the lives of poor rural Americans," the Carsey analysis concludes.

Nationwide, the typical food stamp benefit was $185 in 2003, and the average household receiving the benefit had a gross monthly income of $640, according to the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture.

The Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire is committed to building knowledge to meet the complex challenges confronting rural America. The Institute conducts non-partisan, interdisciplinary research and communicates its findings to policymakers, practitioners, and the general public.

To read the full report go to -
www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/documents/Carsey_Brief%20Food%20Stamps.pdf

for more information post a question or comment here or contact
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Charters End Checkoff Challenge

- from Steve and Jeanne Charter, of Shepherd, Montana - charter@midrivers.com

October 20, 2005

We have decided to drop our Beef Checkoff lawsuit on advice that to continue on would be both very expensive and futile. The motion to dismiss was just filed.

Never mind that the program has always been (and still is) promoted as producer-controlled, the US Supreme Court ruled last spring that the Beef Checkoff is a "targeted tax" to fund "the government's own speech". This means the federal bureaucracy is free to shape the program to benefit whatever interests it favors within the industry.

This seems to mean there is no legal recourse left against the way USDA handed effective control of the Checkoff over to the big-business-dominated National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) in 1997. Since then, every Checkoff dollar collected has increased NCBA's influence and power to work against independent cattlemen's interests and for packer, processor and big feeder advantage. It looks like we are stuck with a Checkoff that has been corrupted into a private "NCBA Tax", with USDA serving as their enforcer.

We find it deeply humiliating to be forced to submit and "pay tribute" to NCBA like this. Every Checkoff payment, every deceptive ad that pretends the program is producer-controlled, every conglomerate-friendly grant contract is a bitter reminder of NCBA's quasi-governmental power and our own subservient status in today's cattle industry. And it is only going to get worse until people unite to end this frightening merger of bureaucracy and big business. No market or trade reforms will succeed while NCBA is in the driver's seat. The recent push for a "privatized" national animal ID program is yet another trick to concentrate even more money and power with NCBA.

Some cattlemen are calling for a new Beef Checkoff referendum. We frankly feel another petition drive would be an exercise in futility, given the way USDA's unfair procedures threw out thousands of bona fide producer signatures to disqualify the livestock auctions' heroic petition effort in 2001. Worse yet, USDA is under no obligation to honor a vote. No bureaucracy is going to give up this extraordinary power to tax and control that even escapes congressional budget oversight! The only way we see to end the "NCBA Tax" is to get Congress to understand what a big racket these Checkoffs have become and to win flat out repeal of the federal enabling legislation.

We would like to publicly express our thanks for the moral and financial support so many people have given us over the last eight years in this pieceof the on-going struggle for an independent, competitive bid cattle industry. We look forward to fighting beside you again in the battles to come.

Sincerely,

Steve and Jeanne Charter
13838 Hwy 87 N
Shepherd, MT 59079
406-947-2151
charter@midrivers.com

for more information post a question or comment here or contact
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action

UPDATE - Payment Limits - Budget Reconciliation

- from the desk of Ferd Hoefner, fhoefner@msawg.org

Markup of Budget Reconciliation

Passage of $3 billion in budget cuts to the farm bill in Committee today is, thankfully, just act one of a multi-act play.

We applaud Senator Grassley for making clear this morning that act two will come when all Senators cast a vote in November on farm program payment limitation reform when the Budget Reconciliation bill goes to the floor of the Senate.

Passage of the Grassley-Dorgan payment limit reform amendment at that time will allow the Senate to restore many of the most egregious cuts contained in the farm and conservation sections of the reconciliation package that was narrowly approved today.

This vote by the full Senate will be by far the most important agricultural vote of this Congress, and will determine whether the broad public interests in protecting natural resources and improving family farm viability and opportunity will take precedence overcontinuing to provide seven-figure checks from the taxpayers to mega-farms.

The Senate approved payment limit reform by a 66-31 vote in 2002, and now will have the opportunity to reaffirm that position.

for more information post a question or comment here or contact
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Organic Incentive Program Announced

- from the desk of Martin Kleinschmit, martink@cfra.org

State-wide Organic Incentive Program Announced

The Nebraska Natural Resources & Conservation Service (NRCS) is launching an Organic Incentives Program option for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) which will provide financial incentives, statewide, for farmers and ranchers to convert conventional cropland and grassland to certified “organic” status.

The program authorizes:
• An annual payment of $50 per acre for 3 years, for up to 120 acres of cropland.
• Compliance to USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) is required annually.
• Acres in any phase of the conversion process are eligible for the incentive payment however; farmers and acreages already certified organic are not eligible.
• Applications can be submitted any time at county NRCS offices.
• The first ranking/review deadline is November 30, 2005.

Organic prices are often 100-200% of conventional grains. To sell products in the “organic” market, farmers and ranchers must comply with the National Organic Rule. The biggest obstacle for many farmers and ranchers is the 36-month transition period prior to certification.

This EQIP program will provide incentives to offset financial risks, due to possible yield reductions or other costs. Incentives can help offset expenses for additional machinery and facilities not now a part of many conventional farms. These needs may include additional tillage or weed control equipment, storage facilities, and equipment needed to manage a more diverse crop mixture.

NRCS is providing the financial incentive to make the transition easier. Meanwhile, the Center for Rural Affairs will be mirroring this program with a 3-year training program for organic farmers and ranchers. Designed to provide the skill training and information sharing to make the transition a success, the program will deal with fertility, weed and pest control, access to premium markets, and the essentials needed to qualify for organic certification.

for more information post a comment or question here or contact
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action

UPDATE - Farm Payment Limits

- from the desk of Ferd Hoefner, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, fhoefner@msawg.org

Ag Budget Reconciliation Mark Up Rescheduled

Senate Ag Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) has scheduled mark up of his $4 billion farm bill budget-cutting legislation for Wednesday, October 19. After canceling the markup prior to this past week’s congressional recess, it appears as though the Chairman is planning to bring back the identical package, with the hope of winning bipartisan majority for retaining the 2-year, scaled back extension of the MILC dairy payment program followed by agreement from all Republicans to stand by the Chairman’s proposed cuts to commodity, conservation, and food stamps programs.

Whether that feat can be pulled off, after falling apart earlier, remains to be seen. We should have a better sense of the dynamics once Senators are back in town on Monday. During next week’s mark up, Senators Roberts (R-KS) and Crapo (R-ID) are expected to offer an amendment dropping the MILC extension and reducing the cuts to commodity programs.

The vote on that amendment would be perhaps the key vote in determining whether a package gets reported out or not. Senator Lugar (R-IN) is not expected to attend the markup, but his amendment to apply full planting flexibility to the direct payment commodity program, a move which would settle part of the successful Brazilian WTO case, might be offered by someone else or otherwise saved for floor consideration.

Senator Harkin (D-IA) is expected to offer an amendment to restore the proposed $821 million in cuts to the Conservation Security Program by capping EQIP funding at between $1 billion and $1.1 billion a year. Senator Dayton (D-MN) may offer his amendment to pay for full restoration of the MILC payments by enacting payment limit reform, but if so, it is expected to be defeated on a near partisan basis.

The full blown comprehensive payment limit reform measure, to be offered by Senators Grassley (R-IA), Dorgan and Conrad (D-ND) and others will not be offered in committee but rather be held for floor consideration and a floor vote (more on this below). The deadline for sending budget-cutting legislation to the Senate Budget Committee is October 26. If the Senate Agriculture Committee fails to pass a 5-year bill outlining cuts to USDA programs, jurisdiction over funding cuts will go the Budget Committee. The threat of the Budget Committee -- where we have prevailed three years in a row by large majorities in support of strict payment limitations -- writing the bill is Chambliss’ strongest card and may well prove to be sufficient to ensure would-be GOP defectors will decide to hold their fire.

What About the House? Next week the House of Representatives will vote on an amendment to the Budget Resolution increasing the size of the mandatory program reconciliation cuts from $35 billion to $50 billion over the next five years. This move is being made by GOP House leadership to quell the threatened defection of its right wing over burgeoning federal spending following Katrina and Rita.

Once passed, the additional $15 billion in cuts will have to be allocated to the various committees, with the likelihood that agriculture will be asked to do more than the current $3 billion in cuts. This action delays House Ag Committee consideration of its piece of budget reconciliation by at least a week. Our crystal ball says that if the Senate manages to approve its $35 billion cuts – a very big if, that is anything but a certainty – there is virtually no chance that it would be able to pass a final bill with much bigger cuts, making the House effort, at least in our crystal ball, seem like a lot of huffing and puffing.

for more information post a comment or question here or contact
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Havre, MT Earns Economic Development Recognition

Havre Economic Development Corporation Earns Recognition

By PETER JOHNSON, Great Falls Tribune Staff Writer

The U.S. Economic Development Administration has named Havre-based Bear Paw Development Corporation one of the best rural economic development groups in the nation.

The EDA selected Bear Paw as one of the three finalists for its excellence in economic development award within the rural category. Winning top honors in that category was the development authority in Elma, Wash.

Nominees were evaluated on how effectively they use innovative, market-based strategies to improve rural economic conditions.

"The finalists in the EDA's national awards program represent the best and the brightest economic development methods and practices in use today," said EDA chief of staff Sandy Baruah.

Paul Tuss, Bear Paw Development's executive director for five years, called it an honor to be recognized as a top rural economic development group.

"It's a real testament to the professionalism of our staff, the commitment of our local government members and the great partners we have developed in both the public and private sectors," he said.

Bear Paw has been a federally recognized economic development district since 1968. Its work spans five northern Montana counties — Liberty, Hill, Blaine, Phillips and Chouteau — and two Indian reservations — Rocky Boy's and Fort Belknap.

The organization helps communities with their economic and community development needs, including small business counseling and financing, community planning, infrastructure development and valued-added agriculture opportunities.

Tuss said he highlighted two programs in the EDA application.

This year Bear Paw teamed with other rural agencies to form the Montana Agriculture Innovation Center and used grant money to hire a specialist to work with farmers and ranchers to add value to their raw products, he said.

Bear Paw also has developed an $8 million revolving loan fund to help businesses start up or expand. About 100 area businesses have loans through the program, he said.

U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, Gov. Brian Schweitzer and U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg wrote letters supporting Bear Paw's application for the EDA award.

for information post a comment or question here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Conference Aims to Grow Rural Grass Roots

Conference Aims to Grow Rural Grass Roots

By Susan Olp
Billings Gazette

Dan Dutton knows about getting involved in rural issues at a grass-roots level.
Dutton, a rancher who lives south of Belfry, didn't hesitate when an out-of-state group wanted to build a 2,000-megawatt power plant in the area.

"We did petitions and held meetings in town and really held their feet to the fire," Dutton said.

That effort spurred Dutton to stay involved. He is a member of the Montana Coal Board and the Citizens Advisory Council for Region 5 of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. He also ran for the Montana Legislature twice and "came in a close second," he said.

So three years ago when Bishop Anthony Milone of the Great Falls-Billings Catholic Diocese proposed formation of a grass-roots organization to champion the cause of rural Montanans, Dutton jumped on board. Milone's concern had to do with "the plight of the farmers and ranchers of Eastern Montana," Dutton said.

Out of that came the creation of the Diocesan Catholic Rural Life Conference, of which Dutton is chair. The group plans to provide "a faith-based leadership platform for the people of rural Eastern Montana to speak out in unity on spiritual, moral, ethical, economic, social, health, governmental and land stewardship issues," Dutton said.

The organization will meet for the first time this Saturday in Lewistown, and Dutton hopes a lot of people will come and join. While the faith-based organization has the support of the Catholic Church, Dutton said, it is open to "any and all" people.

"And issues addressed won't just be church-related," he said.

Some of the issues may be faith-based, Dutton said, such as the inability of some small parishes to hold Mass more than once a month. But other issues common to many small communities - such as how to maintain a sustainable economy in Eastern Montana - could also take the group's attention.

At the meeting, Milone will give an opening prayer and make a few comments. Helen Walker, a wheat farmer from Circle, will speak.

Then the group will spend time filling leadership positions and identifying problems and proposing possible solutions. While the group is open to everyone willing to pay a $15 annual membership fee, the biggest requirement is a willingness to get involved.

"It's a grass-roots organization," Dutton said. "You just can't pay your dues and let someone else solve the problem."

This isn't the first time such a group has assembled in the state. In the 1920s, a group of Catholics joined together to speak out on issues that touched the lives of the rural residents of Eastern Montana.

The group eventually dissolved, but the problems didn't go away. The most recent incarnation of the organization came after Milone brought his concerns to the Diocesan Pastoral Council.

"He asked us to think about restarting a conference for the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings," Dutton said.

Brother David Andrews, executive director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, came to Montana to meet with Milone and the council. From there, a core group got to work, drawing up bylaws and handling other preliminary matters.

Now the founding members of the Diocesan Catholic Rural Life Conference hope to get others excited about coming together to make a difference. Positive change is more likely when a unified voice is speaking, Dutton said.

A group of people from throughout the eastern part of the state can develop a network that can grow and function between the times members meet together, he said.

"I'm still a person who believes one voice can make a difference," Dutton said.
Details

The first general membership meeting of the newly formed Great Falls-Billings Diocesan Catholic Rural Life Conference will be Saturday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at St. Leo's Catholic Church in Lewistown. Lunch will be provided. A $15 membership fee is asked of people who plan to attend and join the conference, but no one will be turned away for lack of money, said Dan Dutton, chairman of the conference. For information, contact Dutton at (406) 664-3000 or by e-mail at circled@nemontel.net.

for more information post a comment or question or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Value Added Producer Grants Announced

- from the desk of Ann Wright, Sustainable Ag Coalition, awright@msawg.org

Value Added Producer Grants

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE COALITION

USDA Announces $14.6 Million in Value-Added Producer Grants to 171 Projects in 42 States
Washington, D.C. - On September 30, USDA Secretary Mike Johanns announced the 2005 recipients of the Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG) program, with 171 projects - out of 381 submitted - in 42 states to receive $14.6 million in 2002 Farm Bill grant funds to support value-adding agriculturally-based enterprises that increase income retained by farmers and ranchers and their communities.

“The Value-Added Producer Grants program supports investment in producer-owned businesses, with the goal of capturing new, growing, high-value markets that are helping to shape a new agricultural and rural economy,” said Ann Wright, Government Relations Representative for the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “Now more than ever, we need programs that support innovation, diversification, and new market development for small and mid-sized farms and the farming communities they help support.”

Authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill to receive $40 million annually in mandatory funding, the program has been cut in each of the past two years to less than 40 percent of that total, cuts proposed in the Bush Administration’s budget and agreed to by congressional appropriators. In the pending fiscal year 2006 agricultural appropriations bill now in conference between the House and the Senate, Congress has taken widely divergent views, with the House bill providing $55.5 million for the program while the Senate bill maintaining the 2005 level of $15.5 million.

“Our farmer members across the country are asking congressional leaders to respect the 2002 Farm Bill decision and allow the program to move forward at its full $40 million level,” said Wright. “Each year, USDA receives many more high quality applications than it is able to fund, given the budget cuts.”

Farmers are organizing joint producer initiatives in the form of cooperatives, alliances, networks and limited liability corporations to give them more strength in the market place.Examples of the those initiatives include small beef cooperatives that market product branded with a local label, as well as one that speaks to how the animal was raised, such as ‘raised with no antibiotics or hormones.’ Another example is specialty cheeses and milk products that are being produced and manufactured locally and branded with a local or regional label.

“The VAPG program is a leading-edge, forward-looking farm bill initiative to improve the economic viability of small and mid-sized farms, support sustainable rural development, and enhance the environment,” said Wright. “Farmers are organizing to respond to market signals showing consumers want to support these attributes, and we hope USDA will respond in turn by directing the program in to fulfill these objectives.”

Individual producers, producer coops, alliances, associations and majority owned businesses are eligible to apply for grants. Applicants can choose to apply for a feasibility and planning grant or a working capital grant. A Presidential Initiative prioritizing energy related projects rewards additional points to energy projects, such as renewable fuels and wind energy. The application period for the 2005 grants ran from May 7 to March 5, 2005. A new notice of solicitation of applications (NOSA) for the 2006 round of grants is expected to be issued later this month, with a 90-day period for applications to be submitted.

A complete list of the 2005 awards can be found at www.rurdev.usda.gov/rd/newsroom/2005/2005VAPGRecipients.pdf

for more information post a comment or question here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

UPDATE - Farm Payment Limits

- from the desk of Ferd Hoefner, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, fhoefner@msawg.org

WEEKLY UPDATE - Budget Reconciliation - Farm Payment Limits

Budget-Induced Farm Bill Rewrite Blows Up: Last week we broke the news, long before most of Washington knew, that the Senate Agriculture Committee might markup the budget reconciliation bill to cut $3 billion from the farm bill. Well, the heads up was right – markup was scheduled for Thursday and Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) released his plan Wednesday morning at 10. By Wednesday night at 10:30 pm, however, the plan, at least for now, was dead.
But perhaps not for long – we expect a revised plan to be brought forth soon after the upcoming congressional recess week is over. With the deadline for reporting budget reconciliation plans approaching, we currently expect both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to markup their respective farm bill spending reduction plans during the week of October 17.

Meanwhile, members are back in their state or district, and need to hear from constituents!

As expected, the Chambliss plan included the renewal of the dairy MILC payment program, which expired last Saturday. In Chambliss’ proposal, while renewed, the milk payment program was scaled back from a $1.3 billion cost to just under $1 billion. Even that proved too much for many groups to stomach -- including the Farm Bureau, the Wheat Growers, western dairy groups, and dairy processors -- and as a result several Republican Senators objected to the package.

Adding to the chairman’s woes, a couple of other GOP committee members resisted the $574 million cut to the food stamp program in the plan. Also very much in play in the collapse of the bill was a week of intensive back and forth between the chair and Senator Grassley (R-IA) over the payment limitations issue, still very much unresolved. Over on the Democratic side, there was uniform opposition with the sole exception of Senator Leahy (D-VT), who was prepared to vote for the package for the sake of securing the MILC extension.

The task of putting Humpty Dumpty back together began yesterday, with both a GOP members meeting and a meeting between the chairman and the commodity groups. Clearly, deep rifts exist that will not be easy to bridge. The one trump card in the chairman’s hand is the threat that if the GOP committee members do not restore ranks and work out a deal, they will forfeit to the Budget Committee the right to rewrite the farm bill. And the Budget Committee is chaired by Senator Gregg (R-NH), one of the most vocal critics of farm programs in Washington. No less important, the two notable agriculture leaders on Budget are Senators Grassley and Conrad (D-ND), both champions of payment limitation reform.

The Chambliss Cuts: Chairman Chambliss kept his promise made months ago to the food stamp and nutrition groups that he would include only one food stamp cut – the Bush proposal to eliminate categorical eligibility for food stamps for welfare recipients who receive only non-cash welfare benefits. With that $574 million cut in place, the next big decision wasincluding the milk payment extension, a decision that increased the total cut needed from $3 billion to $4 billion. The crop insurance industry successfully pleaded its case that no cuts should come from insurance subsidies, so the next place to turn was the Initiative for Future Ag and Food Systems, which was slated for a $338 million cut, considerably less than the $780 million if the program were terminated completely.

With those pieces in place, it came to the big show – commodity cuts and conservation cuts. Enter smoke and mirrors – $518 million of the commodity cuts came from a timing change in receipt of payments. Next up – the termination of the cotton step-2 export subsidy program, which according to the successful WTO case brought by Brazil should have been terminated
July 1. But wait, on this one the chairman proposed delaying termination for nearly another full year, a move which chopped the would-be $500 million in savings nearly in half. Needless to say, Brazil is not happy, and retaliation grows ever closer.

With payment limitation reform clearly not in the plan for southern Senators, these moves left two options – an across the board cut on commodity payments and slashing the Conservation Security Program. Chambliss chose a 2.5 percent reduction in commodity payments, and an $821 million cut to the CSP. Throw in small cuts to CRP, EQIP, and the sugar program, and the net grand total was exactly the $3 billion demanded by the congressional budget -- Q.E.D.

Lots of Press, Lots of Buzz: Needless to say, with a mini-farm bill debate in full swing, interest groups came out swinging, creating lots of noise in the press. We are happy to report that many of our farmers and organizations were quoted in the process. If you would like a copy of a collection of some of the stories and interviews that ran, send an email to fhoefner@msawg.org and we’ll send it your way.

for more information post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action

Loving Rural Life

Loving Rural Life

By Robert Pore, robert.pore@theindependent.com

Grand Island Independent

For Don Reeves of Central City, the mission statement for the Center for Rural Affairs has proved to be a blueprint for his work as a rural advocate.

That mission statement is: "Establish strong rural communities, social and economic justice, environmental stewardship, and genuine opportunity for all while engaging people in decisions that affect the quality of their lives and the future of their communities."

A lifelong farmer and rural advocate, Reeves is the president of the board of directors for the Center for Rural Affairs. The center, formerly of Walthill, is based in Lyons.

Someone who has worked closely with Reeves over the years is Chuck Hassebrook, executive director for the Center for Rural Affairs.

Hassebrook said Reeves has done a great job as the center's board president.

"He brings a lot of intelligence and knowledge to the job," Hassebrook said. "What is really valuable about that is he brings a wealth of particular experience both as a farmer and a person who has lived in rural America most of his life."

When he wasn't working the land, Hassebrook said, Reeves was working in Washington, D.C., for rural America interests.

"That, combined with the moral clarity he provides, makes him an unique and super board member and board chair," Hassebrook said.

Reeves knew the founders of the Center for Rural Affairs, Marty Strange, who was based in Scottsbluff, and Don Ralston, who was based in Grand Island.

Both Strange and Ralston were ex-VISTA volunteers who went to Walthill in 1972 to work for the Goldenrod Hills Community Action Council (GHCAC), a local arm of the Federal War on Poverty authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

When President Nixon proposed eliminating GHCAC, Ralston and Strange developed "an institutional survival strategy which would attack the causes and conditions of poverty in northeast Nebraska without the restrictions imposed on Federal Community Action Agency grantees," Reeves said.

It was that strategy that resulted in the formation of the Center for Rural Affairs.

"With their work in rural Nebraska they developed this sense of need for what was going on in rural communities," Reeves said.

That sense of need was the ongoing loss of family farms in rural Nebraska and declining population in rural communities.

"One of the strengths of the program from the beginning is to do enough research so we know what is going on," Reeves said.

Some of the early research projects that the Center for Rural Affairs tackled were the beginning of use of center pivot irrigation in the Sandhills and the impact that had on the environment and rural communities and the growth of industrial hog farms.

From the beginning, the Center for Rural Affairs has had two broad program areas: policy and strategic services.

While not an advocate for special interest groups, the center does strive to influence state and federal policies that strengthen family farms and rural communities.

For example, the two early research projects allowed the center to show policy makers that the result of the growth of large hog farms and the irrigation of environmentally fragile land was the result of government rules and regulations, such as tax breaks.

"Tax subsidies are always more valuable to rich people than poor people," Reeves said.

He said the center was also involved in the early stages of helping to develop cross-compliance policies where landowners would not be eligible for farm program payments unless the landowner was helping to protect the land resource.

"That helped to reduce soil loss by about half," Reeves said.

But those early cross-compliance rules have been reinterpreted by special interests since they were first applied to a point where Reeves said they are "practically worthless by now."

"The center had an early recognition that public policy makes a difference to the kind of communities you have," he said. "It was that kind of involvement that attracted my attention."

Reeves said the principles and values that guide his life are faith-based. He is a Quaker and the values that guide his faith are also ones he believes are essential to what the Center for Rural Affairs is all about -- honesty, integrity and equality.

Reeves lives within a mile of the farmstead where he was born in Merrick County.

One of the areas where the center is involved is developing economic opportunities for rural people and communities. The center has become a national leader in helping new small businesses form in rural America.

"The majority of new jobs don't come from big enterprises, but they come from small enterprises," he said. "That's even more true in rural areas than urban areas."

Over the last 15 years, the center's rural enterprise program has helped 3,500 small business owners get their start. There are 300 new ones this year the center is working with.

A new focus for the center, according to Reeves, is its involvement in rural health issues and how to get federal and state programs to better serve rural residents.

Another area on which the center staff is working to help rural residents is addressing the issue of poverty.

"Poverty is disproportionately rural," he said. "Most of the poorest counties in the country are rural counties and many of them are here in the upper Great Plains."

The question for Reeves is: "What does that say about how we distribute whatever kind of assistance is out there?" Some of the poorest counties in the nation are in Nebraska and neighboring South Dakota.

"More and more, hunger is seen as a product of poverty," Reeves said. "Many of the same things you observe in poor countries in the world you can see happening right here in our own state."

He said rural people working together can bring about change in rural communities through good research and advocacy that can help change public policy.

"Within limits, we can have the kind of communities we want," Reeves said. "So we need to be smart about what we might be able to change and what we probably can't change."

For more information about the Center for Rural Affairs and how individuals can get more involved in helping bring positive change to rural areas, visit the Center for Rural Affairs Web site, www.cfra.org.

For more information post a comment or question or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

Secretary Johanns on Farm Policy

Secretary Johanns on Farm Policy

(The following are excerpts of Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns’ speech to the Commodity Club Luncheon in Washington, DC on October 6, 2005.)

…USDA has conducted forums in 26 states. I have personally hosted forums in 17 states, which translates into 51 hours of listening intently to farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders. As our listening tour continues, I am confident I will hear more insightful ideas. But today, I am here to offer some observations about what I've heard thus far.

There is significant debate occurring across our country when it comes to the 2007 farm bill. I will be honest with you about the fact that I was uncertain what I would hear when I kicked-off this nationwide listening tour three months ago…

…Today, I can report to you that I have heard some very strong opinions expressed by some very passionate people. These thoughtful comments have caused me to step back and think beyond the boundaries of our current farm policy…

…In fact, I am especially impressed by their honest and frank assessments of the benefits and drawbacks of our current farm policy. We are beginning to see patterns in the responses. There seems to be consensus among producers and other stakeholders on some policies - and a definite diversity of opinion about others.

We have heard unanimous support for our rural development efforts…

We have also heard tremendous support for another of the President's priorities - conservation. Our cooperative conservation programs provide farmers and ranchers with financial support, while benefiting the whole of society by protecting our natural resources today and for future generations…

…we are hearing a range of opinions when it comes to our farm support programs. Some predicted that all we would hear is a desire for more of the same. We have heard that, but clearly we have also heard from producers advocating for change.

The responses also vary by region of the country and by program. For example, in the Midwest many are urging stronger payment limits, yet in the south, there is strong opposition to that idea.

On a broader scale, concerns have been expressed about farm payments being capitalized into increased land values, farm program support being directed toward one third of all producers, and the greatest benefits going to the largest farms.

As I have said before, I believe the 2002 Farm Bill was the right policy for the economic conditions at the time, but I also recognize that times are changing…

…I've heard some very compelling stories from young people who grew up on farms and want to carry-on the wonderful tradition of farming, but are financially unable to do so because of high land values and cash rent.

Devan from Kentucky said, "One of the biggest barriers, I believe, facing a new generation of farmers is the inability to start farming from scratch. Today if anyone wanted to begin farming they either have to marry into a family farm or inherit an existing family-owned farm. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to simply start farming."

Dan in California had this to say, "The increasingly high investment costs and relatively low return rates associated with production agriculture are some of the most prominent unintended consequences that discourage future generations from entering production agriculture."

Keith in Illinois said, "Cheap corn prices destroy our schools, churches and drive people to the city for a job that may or may not be there. The '96 and 2002 Farm Bills did not reduce production as was needed; it reduced producers, code name that's farmers."

…Small and minority farmers are expressing frustration about the lion's share of federal farm support being focused on large operations.

Alfonzo in New Mexico had this to say, "We need to have some kind of clause in our bill that does not give all the money that's appropriated to the farmers to big corporate (farms) and to our part-timers."

In Oklahoma, Hope said, "The biggest farmers out there should not be encouraged to continue getting bigger and bigger while normal medium-sized farm operations cannot afford to even expand in the smallest way because of high land prices."

…If we put the medium and large farms together, we are talking about less than eight percent of all farms receiving fifty percent of government payments. This brings some clarity to the picture being painted by beginning farmers, as well as some small and minority farmers across the country…

…We have a choice. We can lead our nation and world in agriculture or we can follow behind. I believe in the future of agriculture and I believe we should lead that future.

to read the full version of the Secretary's speech go to -
www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navtype=MA&navid=NEWSROOM

for more information post a question or comment here or contact
John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

REAP: Fifteen Years of Positive Growth

- from the desks of Jeff Reynolds, jeffr@alltel.net, and Glennis McClure, reapwbc@diodecom.net, REAP Program Co-Directors

REAP: Fifteen Years of Positive Growth

Providing Access to Core Business Development Services for Rural Entrepreneurs

The Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP) is celebrating its 15th anniversary this year. REAP has grown significantly and has steadily evolved since our beginning in 1990.

Background
REAP was started by the Center for Rural Affairs (Center) in 1990 to meet the needs of self-employed persons in the rural Midwest. Center studies in the late 1980’s showed a high rate of self-employed in rural areas, but economic development strategies at the time were not designed to help this sector.

The Center, based in Lyons, Nebraska, is a private, non-profit, 501(c)3 corporation founded in 1973. The Center is committed to building communities that stand for social justice, economic opportunity, and environmental stewardship.

The largest full-service microenterprise development program in Nebraska, REAP serves the state’s rural areas and is one of the largest rural-only micro business programs in the United States. In addition, the REAP Women’s Business Center (WBC), the first such program in Nebraska, continues to excel in reaching rural women entrepreneurs.

REAP offers small business management training, networking, one-on-one technical assistance, and small loans to startup and existing small businesses in Nebraska on a statewide rural basis. REAP implements these services through a “dual delivery” system by offering both association or roundtable and individual options for receiving services.

Challenges – Barriers
Achieving scale in Nebraska on a statewide-rural basis has many challenges and barriers. Geography will always be a barrier. We have been able to deal with this through the placement of staff in field offices across the state. Still, as we increase reach in served counties and enter those that are not yet served, the geographic barrier can create challenges.

Scaling-up can also lead to staff barriers. It has been necessary to revise the REAP delivery model to make it possible for existing staff to reach new areas of the state and yet avoid burnout.

A third barrier is funding. As private foundations continue to move away from funding program delivery, it must be replaced by other sources. To achieve growth, REAP and the Center for Rural Affairs led an effort to secure sustainable public support for microenterprise development.

State public support has been a key-funding source for microenterprise programs in Nebraska. Keeping this funding stream and other key Federal funding sources like the SBA Microloan and Women’s Business Center Programs viable will be crucial for future survival.

Evolution of the Program
REAP services were delivered exclusively by locally formed peer groups from 1990-1999. Through the Peer-Group model, REAP provided development services to over 4,000 micro businesses. Historically 277 peer loans have been placed with an average loan size of $1,715 and total lending of $474,923.

In 1999 we expanded the lending portfolio to provide direct loans to individuals. Peer borrower businesses often grew beyond REAP lending limits, but were not eligible for loans at the local bank. And in areas where there were no REAP associations, individuals that could not access a loan at the bank did not have access to lending capital.

In early 2000, the Direct Loan Program became a permanent part of the lending products offered to REAP member businesses. This REAP loan product, which makes individual loans in the $1,000-$25,000 range, provides loan capital for those who are currently falling between the cracks where no other lending capital is available. We have made 170 direct loans totaling $2,295,258 and leveraging an additional $5,516,055 from other sources.

In 2002, we officially launched the REAP Individual Program to serve micro business owners that do not have access to a REAP association. In 2003, we developed and launched an extensive website designed for startup and existing small businesses in Nebraska.

In 2004, we launched a comprehensive online REAP Member Directory and began a REAP Hispanic Rural Business Center pilot. In 2005, we introduced the REAP Rural Business Roundtable format. In 2006, we will continue the challenge of scaling up our services by continued development of our current model and through the implementation of new initiatives.

Future Directions
Our new initiatives give an indication of our future. We will continue to reach out to underserved rural entrepreneurs while delivering more “virtual” business development services. Last month REAP launched an online lending system which allows REAP members
to apply for loans via the internet -- http://www.cfra.org/reap/rapidloan_entry.htm

Since beginning in 1990, the growth and evolution of REAP has been steady, aggressive, and extensive. REAP is proud to be a leader in rural microenterprise development both on a state and national basis and is poised to achieve maximum scale in Nebraska on a statewide rural basis.

Although the services and products have changed and evolved, the quality remains, as does the REAP mission of “strengthening rural communities through small, self-employed business development.”

REAP is in the business of “meeting the needs of rural entrepreneurs” and will continue to strive for excellence in this area during the next 15 years.

for more information post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

Center for Rural Affairs
Values. Worth. Action.

UPDATE - Payment Limits - Budget Reconciliation

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

SPECIAL PAYMENT LIMITS UPDATE

It has been a long day, with several twists and turns. The bottom line is that – late tonight – markup was postponed until the week of October 17th.

Your phone calls are making the difference and making things happen. And your Senators are getting the message. Thank you and keep the calls coming.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Chambliss’ budget reconciliation package came out this morning – it is as bad as or worse than expected.

The discussion on payment limits continues, but clearly was unsettled today and was likely one of the main reasons for the postponement. Another factor in the postponement was evidently some angst among Senators on the majority side about be called on to vote to cut food stamps during a period of national crisis.

While the cut to food stamp program remained limited (if $574 million can be considered limited) to the President’s proposal -- as Senator Chambliss said it would months ago.

The cut to conservation title was huge at over $1 billion, or a third of the total cut.

Conservation programs are 8 percent of total farm bill spending, so taking a third of the cuts is clearly unfair. To make matters worse, the CSP was targeted for $821 million in cuts over 5 years. This represents over three-quarters of the conservation cuts, and 27 percent of the total reconciliation cuts. The CSP represents less than one percent of total farm bill mandatory spending.

Senator Chambliss’ public explanation for the hugely disproportionate cut to CSP is that “the demand is just not there for the program” – a total fabrication. The CRP was capped at 36.4 million acres, increasing to 38 million in 2011, for a total 5-year savings of $129 million. The rest of the conservation cut was a very small EQIP cut. SAC took the lead in a national conservation and environmental group sign-on letter opposed to the Senator Chambliss proposal that was delivered to the Senate this evening. SAC also issued a press release on the proposal Wednesday morning.

The Chambliss package included reinstatement of the dairy payment program, though cut back a bit from current levels, and a 2.5 percent cut to commodity program payments (direct, counter cyclical, and LDPs). The commodity cuts did not include generic certificates, something we pointed out to congressional staff this morning and that became a sticky issue by afternoon. The commodity package also terminated the cotton step-2 program, but not until late 2006. No cuts were made in rural development, and the cut to the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems was much smaller than we originally expected.

Have you taken action yet?

We ask you to continue to contact your Senators 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 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 Senator, they will connect you.

Ask your Senators to support farm payment limits in budget reconciliation.

If you live in Iowa - you can also take another step

CALL Representative Jim Nussle's office --- 202-225-2911

Representative Nussle chairs the House Budget Committee and will be a powerful voice in the final decision on this issue when Senate and House Budget Reconciliation bills are worked on in conference committee.

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

Shortly after they return later in October, they will resolve the final issues relating to the federal budget reconciliation. 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 and families.

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

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

Ask your Senators 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.

Nebraska’s Good Life Draws Couple from Niagara Falls

- from the desk of Eugene Rahn, erahn@inetnebr.com, Center for Rural Affairs REAP Senior Business Specialist in North Central Nebraska.

Nebraska’s Good Life Draws Couple from Niagara Falls to the Halsey Stockade Inn

Diane Goodier is a recipient of one of the Women and Company Micro-enterprise Boost Program cash equity awards given through REAP in April - see article in the May REAP Business Update - http://www.cfra.org/reap/newsletter/2005_05/cash_awards.htm . Diane, husband Chuck, and their two boys are new to Nebraska. They hail from the Niagara Falls region of New York.

The Goodiers wanted to leave the hustle and bustle of the Northeast and settle into a quieter lifestyle in Nebraska. They had no ties to Nebraska; they just felt a calling to re-locate here. And they are happy they did.

Diane and Chuck were able to buy the Halsey Stockade Inn from a couple who wanted to retire. They took over operations last fall.

The Inn has a deluxe furnished cabin, 11 sleeping rooms, six campsites, a hot tub, and breakfast bar for customers. It was a perfect fit for the two since both had been involved in hotel and property management in New York.

Eugene Rahn, Senior Business Specialist with REAP in North Central Nebraska, worked with the Goodiers to prepare their business plan and financials and to help locate the financing to make the deal possible. The Stockade Inn is just outside the 90,000 acre Nebraska National Forest, so they are well situated to serve tourists from all over the state and country.

The couple immediately got involved in organizations that will help promote their business. Diane is the committee chairperson for the 2nd Annual Junk Jaunt, a 220 mile perpetual yard sale with fun and treasures galore, scheduled Sept 23-25, 2005. And they have joined the effort to refurbish or rebuild the swimming pool in the forest, now 75 years old and the only pool in the country located in a forest.

With the equity award from REAP, Diane plans to start a convenience - gift store for campers, locals, and tourists by renovating an existing building on the property. She hopes to attract other rural businesses to sell farmer’s market goods and produce on-site during the season this year.

In addition to their work as inn-keepers, the couple brought some related vocational expertise with them, as Diane provides tax preparation services from her office at the Inn and Chuck is an experienced heating and air conditioning specialist.

While they have missed some of the amenities of city life, such as the specialty shops and gourmet dining, they have no regrets on their move so far. They love the wide open spaces of the sandhills, the friendly people in Nebraska, and the opportunities available to their sons in a small rural school district.

They love watching the sunrises and sunsets and seeing tumbleweeds blow down the street once in awhile, just like in the movies. Hats off to the Goodiers for a successful start as new business owners and for getting to know REAP in Nebraska. Check out the http://www.halseystockadeinn.com/ website; it can tell you much more.

for more information post a question or comment here or contact John Crabtree, johnc@cfra.org

UPDATE - Payment Limits - Budget Reconciliation

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

Senate Agriculture Committee Budget Markup?

In late breaking news, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said today he would like to mark up the agriculture portion of the budget reconciliation bill on Thursday (October 6). We will probably not know for sure if this will formally be scheduled until tomorrow or Wednesday. But we are taking the chairman’s statement of intent quite seriously.

This year’s Congressional Budget Resolution calls for House and Senate Agriculture Committees to find $3 billion in farm bill savings, and they must report their bills no later than October 26. The Chambliss-proposed Oct. 6 markup date is unusual in that it falls right before a weeklong recess, and typically one doesn’t want to give opponents of your bill an extra week to organize against it. If it does not happen next week, markup would likely be scheduled for sometime during October 18 to 25 timeframe.

Have you taken action yet?

And so, we once again ask you to contact your Senators 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 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 Senator, they will connect you. Ask your Senators to support farm payment limits in budget reconciliation.

If you live in Iowa - you can also take another step

CALL Representative Jim Nussle's office --- 202-225-2911

Representative Nussle chairs the House Budget Committee and will be a powerful voice in the final decision on this issue when Senate and House Budget Reconciliation bills are worked on in conference committee.

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

Shortly after they return later in October, they will resolve the final issues relating to the federal budget reconciliation. 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 and families.

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

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

Ask your Senators 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.