Agriculture
Chair: Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
- Max Baucus (D-MT)
- Michael Bennet (D-CO)
- Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
- Bob Casey (D-PA)
- Kent Conrad (D-ND)
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Tom Harkin (D-IA)
- Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
- Pat Leahy (D-VT)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
- Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
- Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- John Cornyn (R-TX)
- Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
- Mike Johanns (R-NE)
- Dick Lugar (R-IN)
- Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
- Pat Roberts (R-KS)
- John R. Thune (R-SD)
Appropriations
Chair: Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Ag Sub-Committee
Chair: Herb Kohl (D-WI)
- Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
- Dick Durbin (D-IL)
- Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
- Tom Harkin (D-IA)
- Tim Johnson (D-SD)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Jack Reed (D-RI)
- Robert Bennett (R-UT)
- Christopher Bond (R-MO)
- Sam Brownback (R-KS)
- Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
- Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions
- Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Agriculture
Chair: B Collin Peterson (D-MN)
V. Chair: B Tim Holden (D-PA)
B Joe Baca (D-CA)
- John Boccieri (D-OH)
B* Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
- Bobby Bright (D-AL)
B* Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
- Travis Childers (D-MS)
B Jim Costa (D-CA)
- Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
- Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)
B Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
- Debbie Halvorson (D-IL)
B Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
- Steve Kagen (D-WI)
- Larry Kissell (D-NC)
B Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
- Betsy Markey (D-CO)
B Jim Marshall (D-GA)
P Eric Massa (D-NY)
B Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
- Walt Minnick (D-ID)
B Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
- Mark Schauer (D-MI)
- Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
B David Scott (D-GA)
B Zachary Space (D-OH)
- Timothy Walz (D-MN)
- Frank Lucas (R-OK)
- Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
- K. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
- Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
- Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
- Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Sam Graves (R-MO)
- Timothy Johnson (R-IL)
- Steve King (R-IA)
- Robert Latta (R-OH)
- Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
- Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
- Jerry Moran (R-KS)
- Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
- Phil Roe (R-TN)
- Mike Rogers (R-AL)
- Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
- Adrian Smith (R-NE)
- Glenn Thompson (R-PA) *=House Organic Caucus member B=Blue Dog Democrat
Appropriations
Chair: Dave Obey (D-WI) Ag Sub-Committee
Chair: P Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
- Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
* Allen Boyd (D-FL)
- Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
*P Sam Farr (D-CA)
*P Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY)
P Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
P Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
- Jack Kingston (R-GA)
- Rodney Alexander (R-LA)
- Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
* Tom Latham (R-IA) *=House Organic Caucus member
P=Congressional Progressive Caucus
Education and Labor
P Chair: George Miller (D-CA)
- Jason Altmire (D-PA)
- Robert Andrews (D-NJ)
- Timothy Bishop (D-NY)
P Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
- Joe Courtney (D-CT)
- Susan Davis (D-CA)
P Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
P Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
P Phil Hare (D-IL)
- Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
P Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
- Rush Holt (D-NJ)
- Dale Kildee (D-MI)
P Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
P Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
- Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
P Donald Payne (D-NJ)
- Jared Polis (D-CO)
- Robert Scott (D-VA)
- Joe Sestak (D-PA)
- Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
P John Tierney (D-MA)
- Dina Titus (D-NV)
- Paul Tonko (D-NY)
P Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
- David Wu (D-OR)
- Buck McKeon (R-CA)
- Judy Biggert (R-IL)
- Rob Bishop (R-UT)
- Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
- Michael Castle (R-DE)
- Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
- Luis F Fortuno (R-PR)
- Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
- Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)
- Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA)
- John Kline (R-MN)
- Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
- Tom McClintock (R-CA)
- Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
- Thomas Petri (R-WI)
- Phil Roe (R-TN)
- Todd Russell Platts (R-PA)
- Tom Price (R-GA)
- Mark Souder (R-IN)
- GT Thompson (R-PA)
- Joe Wilson (R-SC) P=Congressional Progressive Caucus
President Barack Obama made 15 recess appointments on March 27, noting that the president's nominees "have faced an unprecedented level of obstruction in the Senate." The 15 nominees included in yesterday's announcement "have been pending for an average of 214 days or 7 months for a total of 3204 days or almost 9 years."
The full list of appointees, with short bios, can be found here. Of particular interest to the La Vida Locavore community: Obama has named Islam Siddiqui, Vice President for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America, to be the Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Jill reported here a few weeks ago that more than 100 organizations opposed Siddiqui's nomination "as a textbook case of the 'revolving door' between industry and the government agencies meant to keep watch." I posted Siddiqui's official bio after the jump.
The Obama administration's competing agricultural policies could prompt a bad case of indigestion - or whiplash.
Longtime food policy observers are having a difficult time squaring the Department of Agriculture's entrenched preference for high-tech industrial agriculture that emphasizes biotechnology and genetically engineered crops with its newfound interest in helping those who favor low-tech ag: small farmers, advocates of organic and local food and champions of sustainability.
Margaret Mellon, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, describes the USDA as schizophrenic. "It wants to promote both organic and sustainable local," she said. "It is also committed to promotion of biotech here and around the world. So far, there has not been collision between those two priorities, but I'm not sure that situation will last much longer."
She's got it soooo right. I think this idiotic contradictory policy is due to a fundamental lack of understanding of agriculture... and a very good understanding of politics. Obama's doing very well to try and please two very disparate constituencies - the biotech/pesticide lobby and health & environmentally conscious citizens. You can't have it both ways, but they sure are trying.
Message to President Obama: Why Trade Will Not Save Rural America
February 3rd, 2010 By Paula Crossfield
In Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's op-ed this week in the Des Moines Register, he recognized that hunger could not be solved by raising production, because production is in fact at record highs. Grappling with how these increases in productivity have not led to increases in profit, he explained that even though we've lost a million farmers in the last 40 years, "income from farming operations declined as a percentage of total farm family income by half." He continued, "Today, only 11 percent of family farm income comes from farming, which may explain why fewer young people go into farming and why many families rely on off-farm income opportunities to keep their farms." Vilsack gets the situation right, but his remedy is wrong. Instead of encouraging diversity and altering the pattern of overproduction which pits large farm owners against small by shrinking margins, the Obama administration's way of dealing with the discrepancy in rural America is through increasing trade.
Following the State of the Union, Obama released his proposed budget. For agriculture, there are few real surprises and one big disappointment. I've heard a lot of talk for a long time about giving $1 billion to child nutrition. That includes suggestions FROM OBAMA (like this one from one year ago) to do exactly that. But in this proposed 2011 budget, he pulls a clever trick on us. He still proposes $1 billion but now it's to be shared between child nutrition and WIC.
Unlike other nutrition programs (such as food stamps) that are entitlements, WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) must have funds appropriated by Congress. For entitlement programs, the government spends as much money as it takes to pay for everyone who is eligible for the program. That's not the case for WIC. And when the economy is down (as it is now), the number of people eligible for WIC goes up. (To be eligible for WIC, you must be a pregnant or breastfeeding mom or a child under age 5 with a household income of less than 185% of the federal poverty level.)
After splitting out part of the extra $1 billion for WIC, according to Kim Severson of the New York Times, the remaining money for school lunch amounts to less than 20 cents per meal. Quite frankly, this is pathetic. The School Nutrition Association asked Congress for an extra 35 cents per meal, and I thought THAT was pathetic. This is far worse. Tom Philpott agrees (and cleverly references the Depression-era hit song "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?"... or two dimes in this case).
In other parts of his proposed budget, Obama gives a record amount to ag & food research (much of which will go to biotech), money to promote agricultural exports, and (the one bright spot) conservation money for Chesapeake Bay.
Among the USDA's goals, he ironically lists "Ensure that all of America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals." (A great idea, if only he would fund it!) And, sadly, he says "Help America to promote agricultural production and biotechnology exports as America works to increase food security." Dumping cheap commodities on other countries to undermine their food sovereignty is bad in itself, but a specific emphasis on biotechnology by the Obama administration is especially upsetting.
Obama just gave his State of the Union. He only mentioned foodie issues once:
And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)
However, he did talk about several things that affect the issues we discuss on this site. Here are my opinions about what he said in his speech.
Mrs. Obama has two notable guests from the food and health world. The foodie is Jeffrey Brown, a New Jersey grocer who has done significant work to combat what are known as food deserts, places where fresh and healthy food is unavailable, or too expensive for families on limited incomes. The health honcho is Mayor Mick Cornett, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who has started an anti-obesity campaign and put his entire city on a diet; the campaign focuses on both healthier eating and fitness.
According to a White House source, the President is expected to actually mention the importance of building more supermarkets in urban areas, both as a way of reducing food deserts, and making healthier food more affordable for families. And yes, as a way of boosting local economies, fostering better communities, and creating jobs. Even if the President doesn't work supermarkets and food access into his speech, a grocer and healthy eating advocate being honored with seats in the First Lady's box during the President's much-anticipated speech speaks volumes about the seriousness with which the White House is approaching the need for improving America's national foodscape. It also speaks to the importance of Mrs. Obama's healthier food and fitness initiatives for the success of many of the President's programs, from health care reform through education, and even defense. And of course, both Brown and Mayor Cornett's presence are due to Mrs. Obama's own role as the administration lead on child obesity initiatives.
Of course, Obama's efforts for improving food are kind of lame considering that:
a) He's calling for a spending freeze (a McCain-like tactic that runs 100% contrary to Keynesian economics);
b) The Supreme Court just decided that corporations can spend as much as they want on political races; and
c) Instead of getting rid of the filibuster or passing things through reconciliation (which takes 51 votes), the wimpy Democrats have to make every single bill conservative enough to gain the votes of 60 Senators, including people like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and occasionally Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
I appreciate the nice foodie mentions in the SOTU, but really... why bother?
In the fall of 2008, the GAO found that the USDA had screwed up. While the very wealthy were ineligible for commodity subsides, the USDA wasn't talking to the IRS to make sure that those who were ineligible were actually excluded. It was a $49 million "oops" that sent free cash to 2500 people who shouldn't have gotten it. The Obama administration has been working to fix this. In March they said that farmers would have to sign a form allowing the IRS to send income information to the USDA for verification, and now there is more news.
Obama's broken promises, disappointing and dangerous
by Jim Goodman
"And it means ensuring that the policies being shaped at the Departments of Agriculture and Interior are designed to serve not big agribusiness or Washington influence peddlers, but the family farmers and the American People." President-elect Barack Obama, December 17 2008, Chicago, Illinois.
The message was one of hope, the words of a newly elected President echoing the Populism of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the promise of John F. Kennedy. It stopped there, the delivery of the promise fell short.
The Obama administration released its list of visitors to the White House since inauguration. Among the most frequent visitors? U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue. The WaPo article adds about him:
whose organization has complained bitterly of being left out of energy, health-care and financial reform efforts and who is leading opposition to White House plans on those issues. Donohue nonetheless visited the White House nearly a dozen times from February to June, including three encounters with the president, the records show.
I don't even see how they have the nerve to complain. Left out? You're having personal meetings with the president! That's far more than the rest of America gets. Not only that, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is ROUTINELY the top spender on lobbying. In the first quarter of this year, they spent nearly $10 million. I guess they felt so "left out" that by the third quarter, they more than tripled spending to equal over $34 million. That's a lot of money, all spent on convincing our government to act against the welfare and wishes of the American people.
I believe government works. The Republican party says government doesn't and shouldn't work unless the discussion is about defense spending.
A year ago it was chaos, it looked as if the economy was going to implode. Like many generations before us we learned the lesson that an unregulated market builds bubbles. On the inflate many get rich off of transaction fees and rising asset values. When the bubble pops the negative feedback loops or vicious cycles are devastating. We saw the transferred devaluations move from housing values to Wall Street securities and from there to all sectors of the economy. Autos, small banks, 401ks, mutual funds, university endowments. It wasn't clear when the wave would stop but we knew something had to change. The government's normal economic tools were used up after too many bubbles and they were wrong in scale for the job. As a last resort the government stepped it up with once in a lifetime moves like TARP and the ARRA also known as the stimulus. Yet 9 months after the stimulus was passed it's critics are fiercely attacking it. They say it's not working, it's wasteful, it should stop.
This week, Tom Vilsack had a conference call with reporters (you can listen to it at the link) about the Obama administration's priorities for the Child Nutrition Reauthorization. All in all, he said very little. He made no comment about whether or not the USDA would adopt the recently announced Institute of Medicine recommendations for school lunch, for example. And while he noted that the Obama administration wants an additional $1 billion per year for the next 10 years for child nutrition, he did not say what he or Obama wanted as the reimbursement rate - the amount spent per school breakfast or lunch.
In general, he wants three things. First, better access to school nutrition programs for children. Second, healthier school lunches. Third, less errors made by the federal government in managing the school lunch program.
The second week in October is National School Lunch Week, and the President is required to issue a proclamation for it. The text of Obama's proclamation is below.
When Obama stated in his speech that health care reform would not "insure illegal immigrants," Republican Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted, "You lie!" Obama did NOT lie. With all of the difficulties in passing any legislation that extends coverage to those of us in this country legally, a Democrat would be stupid to jeopardize the chances of passing a health care bill by trying to extend coverage to undocumented workers. And yet, there IS a case to be made for covering undocumented workers.
They pick our grapes and our tomatoes and they process our meat. They work on dairy farms and they grow and pick our strawberries. They work for low wages and live in abysmal conditions. In return, we get cheap food. Part of the cost of that food should be a living wage and health care for the people who grow it, pick it, and process it. Of course, if we did that, the food might not be so cheap. But without paying a living wage, we are all complicit in causing human suffering. Pretending that it is the undocumented workers' fault for coming here ignores the fact that we are part of the system that employs them and oppresses them.
The real criminals in this system are those who employ the undocumented workers. If you don't want "illegals" in this country, crack down on the illegal employers. If there weren't jobs to be had, no one would come here illegally. But as long as there are jobs, as long as we are benefiting from their labor, we owe them basic human rights like health coverage in return for their work.
Of course, extending health benefits to undocumented workers isn't politically possible right now. It's still a crapshoot whether it's politically possible to insure and care for American citizens. I'm all for starting with the low-hanging fruit, which is in this case extending coverage via a public option to people who are in this country legally. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be that "low hanging" but I'm still reaching for it. Actually reforming immigration will have to wait for another day. In the meantime, I'm grateful that my food comes primarily from people I know, who receive a living wage for their labor. I don't want to be complicit in a system of oppression.
At a recent interactive health care strategy meeting, none other than President Obama sang the praises of local food and even discussed the idea of having a farmers' market outside of the White House! While that might be a lofty goal, it is more than heartening to see the President of the United States acknowledging the benefits of local healthy foods to school children and the need to set up infrastructure to facilitate the distribution of local foods to schools. From President Obama:
When it comes to food, one of the things that we are doing is working with school districts. And the child nutrition legislation is going to be coming up. We provide an awful lot of school lunches out there and -- and reimburse local school districts for school-lunch programs. Let's figure out how can we get some fresh fruits and vegetables in the mix. Because sometimes you go into schools and -- you know what the menu is, you know? It's French fries, Tater Tots, hot dogs, pizza...it turns out that that food's a lot cheaper, because of the distributions that we've set up. And so what we've got to do is to change how we think about, for example, getting local farmers connected to school districts, because that would benefit the farmers, delivering fresh produce, but right now they just don't have the distribution mechanisms set up.
OK Mr. President! Sounds great! The intention is there! So let's see what we can do about setting up this infrastructure. The other day I wrote about the recent law passed in Illinois that mandates local food purchases from state agencies to the tune of 20% of all purchases by 2020. We already have a National Student Lunch Program, among other federal programs that subsidize student meals at schools and other non-profit agencies. Why not a national law that mirrors the Illinois statute? A mandate that a certain percent of lunches in each state under the federal program come from foods produced locally within each respective state? Perhaps it could be an amendment to the Energy Bill currently being knocked around Washington. There can only be a reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere if this food doesn't have to travel as far. Furthermore, creating a local food infrastructure can help create jobs that can't be exported. Local fresh foods for children? Jobs? Sounds good to me.
