Comments Britt Lundgren has made

Not ready to cast my vote . . .

It's clear from the comments above that your opinion on whether this bill deserves a veto is all about how much bad you are willing to take with the good.  But the truth is, nobody really knows what they're voting on yet - although the conference committee has finished its work, all of us wonks who have been so fixated on this bill over the past year and a half (or more!) have still not seen the final language.  Sure, we've got a pretty good idea what's in there, but the conference report still has not been released.  

Environmental Defense Fund wants to see a good new bill enacted this year - one with significant new investment in conservation, improved conservation policies, and meaningful subsidy reform.  While we know the conference report includes some important steps in the right direction, we think Congress could -- and should -- have done better.  

First, while this bill includes $4 billion in new funding for conservation, that it's not enough to meet farmer demand. Since enactment of the 2002 farm bill, $13.5 billion in requests for conservation assistance from almost half a million farmers and ranchers have gone unfunded.  Second, we haven't seen the text of the conference report, but both House and Senate bills included conservation policy changes that would have made conservation programs more effective in delivering environmental benefits.  We expect some of those improved policies are included in the conference report, but we don't know that for sure.

As I wrote about earlier this week in Gristmill, we do know that one important policy improvement was gutted: the "Sodsaver" provision, which would have barred crop insurance and some disaster payments to farmers who plow up native grassland.  And, as Tom mentions above, the conference report includes the new $4 billion "permanent disaster" program, that will only accelerate the conversion of grassland to crop production by taking what little risk is left out of farming marginal, environmentally sensitive lands.  

So the bill is a mixed bag, and we are disappointed with a number of its provisions.  But we can't support a veto unless we know it will lead to something better, not worse.  A 1 or 2 year extension of current law could certainly lead to something worse, because that would leave us with no new funding for badly underfunded conservation programs, and no new funding for food stamps.  So if the president follows through on his promise to veto the bill we'd like to see prompt action by Congress to send the bill back with at least as much money for conservation programs, nutrition, organics, and programs to increase access to healthy foods, along with legitimate reforms of farm subsidies.  
On How should sustainable-food advocates respond to the latest farm bill proposal? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses