The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a cabinet-level agency that oversees the American farming industry. USDA’s duties range from helping farmers with price support subsidies, to inspecting food to ensure the safety of the American public. The department seeks to expand overseas markets for U.S. agricultural products and support international economic development; provide financing needed to create jobs; improve housing, utilities and infrastructure in rural America; and improve nutrition and health by providing food assistance and education. USDA farm subsidies have been the subject of much controversy for decades as critics say the assistance is distributed unevenly and manipulates the agricultural market. The department has also come under scrutiny for its failure to adequately protect American consumers from tainted foods that are not processed properly at slaughterhouses and other facilities. The current Secretary of Agriculture is Tom Vilsack.
The earliest precursor to the U.S. Department of Agriculture was the Agricultural Division of the U.S. Patent Office, headed by Commissioner of Patents Henry Ellsworth in 1839. It was Ellsworth’s urging that led to the creation of the division; the Commissioner had a strong interest in agriculture and had collected and distributed seeds through members of Congress and agricultural societies.
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln created the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Growing up on a farm, Lincoln was a strong advocate for homesteading, railroad expansion, and land grants to fund agricultural and engineering colleges. He often praised technological advancements in agriculture, such as using horse-drawn machines instead of manual labor and the potential usefulness of steam plows.
In 1865, a case of imported animals that had been identified as diseased livestock prompted Congress to pass an act to quarantine imported animals. Congress passed the act, but gave regulation duties to the Treasury Department, which did little to fix the problem. As a result, veterinarians and ranchers pushed for a more regulated solution.
In 1884, Congress established the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), the predecessor to the Food Safety and Inspection Service, within the USDA to prevent diseased animals from being used in food and food products. Soon foreign markets began placing restrictions on U.S. food exports, prompting the creation of the 1890 Food Inspection Act that attempted to detect bad meat imports, as well as poor quality meat within the U.S. beef industry.
Upton Sinclair’s seminal work, The Jungle, published in 1905, would have a profound affect on federal regulation of the meat-packing industry. The book described the conditions in Chicago’s meatpacking houses in gruesome detail, and Sinclair gained widespread public support in urging President Theodore Roosevelt to have government inspectors review slaughterhouses and to pass the Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Meat Inspection Act.
Enforcement of the Food and Drug Act fell to the Bureau of Chemistry (a predecessor to the Food and Drug Administration), while regulation of the Meat Inspection Act went to the BAI. Both agencies were under the USDA umbrella. In 1912, the BAI also began inspecting eggs intended for use by the Navy, although there were no inspections of eggs for the general public until the Food and Drug Administration took on those duties in the 1920s.
The USDA took on a greater role during the Great Depression, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created programs, including the Rural Housing Service and the Rural Utilities Service, aimed at helping rural farmers and communities stricken by poverty.
In the 1950s the USDA was reorganized under President Dwight Eisenhower, who eliminated the BAI and other divisions and created the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) to assume their responsibilities. The Poultry Products Inspection Act was passed in 1957 to provide federal oversight of the rapidly growing poultry industry.
During the 1950s and 1960s the focus on consumer protection and safety shifted from contaminated meat and food products to mislabeling and adulteration of products from chemical additives. At that time, food inspections consisted primarily of visual evidence of contamination. Newer products created with more complex processing methods made in larger volumes caused new contamination concerns from pesticides, residue from drugs given to animals, and preservatives. In 1958, the Food Additive Amendment was passed to address these safety concerns.
The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 amended federal laws to require states to conduct more adequate inspections of meat to raise quality standards. The law forced states to develop meat inspection programs that were as good as the federal government’s. If the state could not create one, the federal system would be applied. By 1968, poultry and meat inspection programs merged into the USDA’s Agriculture and Research Service. In 1972, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was established to handle the regulatory responsibilities of the Agriculture and Research Service. These responsibilities were transferred in 1977 to the newly created Food Safety and Quality Service, which in 1981 was renamed the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
In 1993 an outbreak of E.coli killed four and caused 400 people to fall ill after eating at Jack in the Box restaurants. This incident prompted the FSIS to use a more scientific method to inspect foods, the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems, which aimed to reduce microbial pathogens in raw products. This change made held industry accountable for producing safe food, and the government responsible for establishing safe food standards and maintaining proper oversight and enforcement.
A 2003 case of Mad Cow Disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), in the United States led to a long and intense investigation that ultimately led to the destruction of 255 animals suspected of being at-risk, but which ultimately tested negative for BSE.
The USDA administers programs to help American farmers and ensure food safety for consumers. USDA aid includes distributing price supports and other subsidies to farmers, inspecting food processed at agricultural facilities, working to expand overseas markets for U.S. agricultural products, providing financing to expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities, and infrastructure in rural America, and providing food assistance and nutrition education.
USDA Agencies and Offices:
Nutrition
Food and Nutrition Service: The FNS provides access to food and improves the diets of needy Americans through nutrition education and food assistance programs. The agency is responsible for the food stamp program, as well as programs that address the nutrition and feeding of women, children and infants, and food distribution. Through its distribution programs, FNS is also able to subsidize the agricultural industry by purchasing and distributing surplus crops. FNS often finds itself at the center of ideological battles that question the role of the state in dealing with poverty and welfare and interference in the economy.
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion: Part of the USDA’s Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, CNPP provides dietary information to educate Americans. The center develops and promotes dietary guidance linking scientific research to the nutrition needs of consumers. The CNPP publishes dietary guidelines every five years and the food pyramid. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans provides guidance on food and physical activity choices. In 2005, the USDA released the MyPyramid food guidance system to replace the original Food Guide Pyramid.
Inspection
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: APHIS is responsible for regulating genetically engineered organisms, administering the Animal Welfare Act and carrying out wildlife damage management activities. Additional areas of assistance include helping to contain and eradicate agricultural pests and diseases, and developing science-based standards with trading partners to ensure the country’s agricultural exports.
Food Safety and Inspection Service: FSIS is responsible for ensuring that the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe from disease, and works to ensure that meat, poultry and egg products are labeled and packaged correctly to minimize contamination. FSIS uses scientifically-based microbiological approaches to detect, research, and prevent food-borne hazards, including Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. FSIS laboratories also use data collection and reports, and risk assessments to guide risk-based inspection, which applies risk analysis principles to manage inspection programs. The agency also works with intelligence and law enforcement agencies to strengthen surveillance systems to detect intentional contamination of meat and poultry products.
Natural Resources
United States Forest Service: The USFS is responsible for managing public lands in national forests and grasslands. The U.S. forest system covers 193 million acres of public land, including 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and research and experimental forests. The agency maintains and cultivates these lands for public use and national interests through activities ranging from scientific research and development to firefighting, recreation maintenance, wilderness and wildlife protection, ecosystem management and timber production. USFS policy was historically centered on timber production, but has evolved to include ecosystem management and sustainability and the preservation of recreation areas, wilderness, minerals, water, grazing, fish and wildlife. In addition to the funding and management of USFS, the agency has been the subject of debate and controversy for its fire management policy, logging practices, relationship with the timber industry, ecological sustainability and environmental protection, road building, wilderness and wildlife policies, watershed protection, and policies regarding local ownership issues.
National Resource Conservation Service: The NRCS administers the government’s conservation policy and practices by providing technical and financial assistance to private land owners and users. Aid includes economic incentive payments and assistance in meeting regulatory requirements. Although responsible for the regulation of private lands, the NRCS also assists with planning and implementing conservation projects together with tribes, local and state governments, and other federal agencies. Areas of technical and scientific expertise include animal husbandry, clean water programs, ecological sciences, engineering, resource economics, and the social sciences.
Rural Development
Rural Development: The USDA’s Rural Development (RD) division has been called the venture capitalist for rural America. The division includes a number of agencies created in the Great Depression that were successful in supporting the agriculture industry, electrifying rural America, and building community resources. The division operates more than 40 rural development programs focusing on housing, community facilities, water and waste management, and business and technological development. A 2007 Washington Post article that found that metropolitan areas received more than three times the amount of aid provided to poor or shrinking rural areas led to increasing criticism of the agency.
Rural Housing Service: The RHS is an agency within Rural Development that administers aid to rural communities in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants for housing and community facilities. Programs focus on home ownership and restoration, farm worker housing, multi-family housing projects, community facilities, and rental assistance. According to a 2004 CRS Report to Congress, rural areas account for a “disproportionate share of the nation’s substandard housing.” In rural areas, homeownership is the principal form of housing, but residents are faced with higher development costs, limited access to mortgage credit, and pay more of their household income for housing than urban residents.
Rural Utilities Service: The RUS is an agency within Rural Development responsible for providing public utilities—including water, waste, telephone and electricity—to rural areas through public-private partnerships. The agency administers loan, loan guarantee and grant programs to eligible populations.
Marketing
Farm Service Agency: The FSA was formed to support farmers in times of need with loans, commodity price supports, conservation payments and disaster relief assistance. The aid is meant to protect farmers from the risks that come with growing food that relies on market, food preferences and the weather. The agency aims to assist farmers in adjusting production to meet demand in order to create a steady price range of agricultural products for both farmers and consumers. The agency also provides credit to agricultural producers who are unable to receive private commercial credit, in addition to giving grants to those that qualify. The FSA also works with farmers and their debtors to try to arbitrate agreements and head off foreclosure. In the last few decades, the FSA has been a source of controversy for the way assistance has been distributed, and the growing number of imported foodstuffs that Americans now consume.
Agricultural Marketing Service: The AMS helps farmers gain greater participation in overseas agricultural markets by promoting the sale of American agricultural products, including food, fiber, and specialty crops. The AMS provides testing, standardization, grading, market news services, and aids in oversees marketing agreement and orders. The agency also administers research and promotion programs, and purchases commodities for federal food programs. AMS also enforces certain federal laws such as the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act and the Federal Seed Act.
Foreign Agriculture Service: The FAS is the Agriculture Department’s lead agency in international activities. The agency opens new markets and increases U.S. agriculture’s competitiveness overseas. The FAS works on market development, trade agreements and negotiations, and analysis of market information. It also administers USDA’s export credit guarantee and food aid programs. FAS seeks to support international economic development and trade capacity building and improve the global sanitary and phytosanitary system to facilitate agricultural trade. FAS also supports economic development through technical and development assistance.
Economic Research Service: The ERS is responsible for developing and sharing information and research within the USDA and to other departments. ERS research informs public and private decision-makers on economic and policy issues revolving around food, farming, natural resources and rural development. Staff are trained economists and social scientists who conduct research, analyze food and commodity markets, produce policy studies, and develop economic and statistical indicators. The research program was designed to meet the informational needs of the USDA, as well as policy officials and the research community. ERS research information and analysis is also used by trade associations, public interest groups and the general public.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: The GIPSA is charged with facilitating the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals and grains, oilseeds and related agricultural products. The agency ensures fair trade practices and competitive market conditions in livestock, meat and poultry industries through various oversight, inspection, analysis, auditing, price protection and payment programs. GIPSA’s Packers and Stockyards Program (P&SP) regulates and enforces competitive conditions in meat and livestock markets, while the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) deals with marketing, inspection, standardization, quality assessment of grain and related products. GIPSA has been the battleground for clashes between producers on one side and the slaughterhouse and packing industry on the other.
Research
Agricultural Research Service: The ARS is the principal research agency of the USDA. It conducts more than 1,200 research and development programs designed to explore and resolve agriculture-related issues that affect the American farming industry and the quality of food consumed by Americans. ARS focuses on research and development in nutrition, food quality, animal production, crop production, and natural resources and sustainability. The agency aims to provide the public with up-to-date information from studies that will be beneficial to consumers and the private agricultural sector.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture: Known formerly as the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) , the National Institute of Food and Agriculture was created in 2010 following passage of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. NIFA replaces the CSREES, created in 1994, which was itself a consolidation of the USDA Cooperative State Research Service and the Extension Service. NIFA funds and facilitates research, education and extension programs on agriculture, environment and human health at state and local levels, primarily through land grant universities and other partner organizations. In recent years, reform initiatives have aimed at trimming funding for the agency—and phasing out federal formula funding in favor of competitive grants. Since the late 19th Century, formula funding for public agricultural research has been controlled at the state level by scientists who determine priorities for local research needs and issues. Competitive grants are directed at the federal level, with a research agenda that tends to be more national in scope, but that can arguably be influenced by lobbyists and special interests.
National Agricultural Statistics Service: The NASS conducts hundreds of surveys each year as part of the Agriculture Department’s farm census. The agency analyzes findings from surveys that cover production and supplies of food and fiber, prices paid and received by farmers, farm labor and wages, farm finances, chemical use, and changes in the demographics of U.S. producers.
The Agriculture Department’s 2012 budget authority is $145 billion, according to the FY 2012 proposed budget. The 2012 discretionary level is $24 billion, which represents a $2 billion decrease from 2011 that reduces or terminates selected programs, and is intended to achieve savings through administrative efficiencies and eliminating earmarks.
From 2000-2010, the USDA gave more than $334 billion in direct payments in over 2 million transactions, according to a query of USAspending.gov. Of those direct payments, 55% came from the Food and Nutrition Service, and 41% came from the Farm Service Agency. The USDA also spent more than $295 billion in insurance payments, 98% of which went to individuals.
Grants given by the USDA totaled more than $197 billion from 2000-2010, with 80% of the grants administered by the Food and Nutrition Service, according to USAspending.gov.
During this time period, the USDA also spent nearly $50 billion from 2000-2010 on contracting. The top contractor recipients and their percentage of all contracting during this time period include:
1. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company $1,305,358,370 (3%)
2. Cal Western Packaging Corp $1,083,429,417 (2%)
3. Bunge Limited $957,661,128 (2%)
4. Cargill Incorporated $875,911,248 (2%)
5. International Business Machines Corporation $825,882,622 (2%)
The nonprofit Environmental Working Group found that USDA subsidies in the United States totaled $246.7 billion from 1995-2009 and that the top 10% collected 74% of all subsidies. The Environmental Working Group had previously found, in 2007, that while the USDA’s Farm Service Agency is supposed to provide subsidies to farmers across the country, most of this federal support goes to just 19 congressional districts, accounting for half of federal crop subsidies paid between 2003 and 2005. During this same time period, two-thirds of farmers didn’t collect any farm bill subsidies at all.
Federal Plan Announced to Protect Grand Canyon From Uranium Mining
In February 2011, the Obama administration announced a draft plan to protect one million acres of public land around Grand Canyon National Park from new uranium mining for 20 years. The proposal, announced by U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, was one of four alternatives in the draft plan. Mining supporters claimed the move would prevent the creation of new jobs, while environmentalists countered that mining would harm the environment and adversely affect canyon tourism. In May 2009, The Bureau of Land Management had authorized several new uranium exploration permits near the Grand Canyon, despite a congressional resolution the previous year barring new claims near the national park. In March 2008, three conservation groups filed a lawsuit to stop uranium exploration the Grand Canyon. The Kaibab National Forest granted British firm Vane Minerals approval to conduct exploratory uranium drilling on national forest lands along the park’s southern boundary with no public hearing and no environmental review. It was the first of five such projects slated for the area.
Government to Pay Black Farmers for History of Discrimination
The National Black Farmers Association scored a major victory in December 2010, when the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote approved a $1.5 billion measure to fund payments to black farmers who alleged Department of Agriculture discrimination. The case was settled out of court 11 years ago, when the department found that black farmers had to wait three times longer for loans and subsidies. They were losing their land because they couldn’t get loans. A federal judge determined that qualifying farmers could receive $50,000 each from the settlement. Although a settlement was reached, resources never were allocated to pay farmers’ claims. The U.S. House of Representatives, which previously approved the measure, must approve it again before it can move on to President Barack Obama’s desk for signing.
Sherry Sherrod Firing Controversy
On July 19, 2010, Shirley Sherrod was forced to resign her position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development days after video excerpts were posted online by Andrew Breitbart, blogger and media commentator, which purported to show her making racist remarks to a gathering of the NAACP Freedom Fund. The story was quickly picked up by the national media and evoked widespread condemnation of her inside and out of government, including a tweet from NAACP President Benjamin Jealous that he was “appalled.”
However, within days it was established that Sherrod’s videotaped comments had been edited and taken out of context. Sherrod, who is black, was making precisely the opposite point with an uplifting story of how she helped a white family avoid loss of their farm through foreclosure in 1986 while employed at a private advocacy firm for African-American farmers. Most of the media quickly reversed course, President Obama personally called Sherrod to express his “regret” about the controversy and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack offered her a new job, which she declined.
Farm Subsidies
Large sums of money are given annually through price supports for certain crops or farmers. These subsidies artificially keep American produce prices low on foreign markets, harming struggling foreign farmers, critics argue. The top 10% of the recipients collected 74% of all subsidy payments, with an average of nearly $30,000 per year from 1995-2009. Meanwhile, the bottom 80% collected an average of $570 per year in that same time period, according to the Environmental Working Group.
Global Warming Poses Threat to U.S. Farming
While a number of pundits still deny global warming science, in May 2008, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program issued a report on the threats of climate change to agriculture and other key natural resources, which was authored by 38 researchers from universities, national laboratories, non-governmental organizations, and federal service. The USDA was the lead agency for the report and is using the findings to develop a new strategic plan for climate change research. The report found that no matter the region, weather and climate factors directly impact the health of American crops and livestock, which were valued at $200 billion in 2002. The report also concluded that climate change-induced shifts in plant species are already under way in rangelands. Shifts in plant productivity and type will likely also have significant impact on livestock operations. Higher temperatures will also likely reduce livestock production during the summer season, but these losses will likely be partially offset by warmer temperatures during the winter season. Increased CO2 and temperatures will also more rapidly progress the lifecycle grain and oilseed crops, but as temperature rises, these crops will increasingly begin to experience failure. Climate change will also likely lead to a northern migration of weeds, the report found. Disease pressure on crops and domestic animals will also likely increase with earlier springs and warmer winters, which will allow for the proliferation and higher survival rates of pathogens and parasites.
Hallmark/Westland Meat Recall
In early 2008, megalith meat packer Hallmark/Westland was criticized for abusing cows in their plant. The company was exposed by an undercover investigator with the Humane Society, who was employed by Hallmark/Westland. The investigator shot secret video showing workers prodding “downed” cattle with electric rods, ramming them with a forklift, and shooting high-powered water streams up their noses in an attempt to get them to stand for slaughter. Downed cattle are prohibited from the food supply as the risk of infection, contamination and disease is heightened with lame animals. This particular incident was troubling for the FNS, as much of the meat from Hallmark/Westland is slated for its programs, including the National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. Westland is the second largest supplier of beef for the National School Lunch Program and was even named “supplier of the year” by the Agriculture Department in 2004-2005. Following the story, these products were placed on hold, and 143 million pounds of beef was recalled–the largest beef recall in U.S. history. The recall included beef products dating back to February of 2006. Sen. Tom Harkin criticized USDA for an inadequate job of inspections.
Rural Development Division Funds Urban Areas
With more than 40 programs under its aegis and growing, the Rural Development division of the USDA is a quiet but controversial presence, distributing billions of dollars in development aid and loans/loan guarantees. Many observers note what can seem like arbitrary administration of these funds to areas designated by a vague policy definition of “rurality.” The majority of recipient communities are, in fact, not at all rural—but suburban, retirement- or resort-economy-based, or positively metropolitan. USDA officials maintain that they follow regulations as directed by the department and Congress, but those regulations are increasingly confusing or opaque. Rural America covers 75% of the nation’s landmass, and can no longer be predominantly defined (culturally, demographically, or economically) by the agriculture industry. But inconsistent definitions of “rural” lend well to subjective—and ultimately, strategic interpretations. According to an article published in The Washington Post in April 2007, the USDA has doled out in excess of $70 billion in grants, loans and loan guarantees through its Rural Development program since 2001. The Post investigation found that more than half of that money has gone to “metropolitan regions or communities within easy commuting distance of a midsize city, including beach resorts and suburban developments.” Metropolitan areas with populations of 50,000 or more received $30.3 billion—more than triple the amount given to poor or shrinking rural counties (which are the ostensible beneficiaries of Rural Development), which received a total of $8.6 billion for the same period. (Even retirement or recreational communities got $8.8 billion). Requirements for determining eligibility for RD assistance tend to be quite variable and even subjective, depending on the program itself and leaving room for lawmakers to weigh in. For some programs, assistance is limited to towns with populations below 2,500, but for others numbers can reach up to 50,000, and some census-based decisions can divide eligible communities by street or block.
Inspector General’s Report on Packing and Stockyard Corruption
In January 2006 the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General issued a report evaluating GIPSA’s mismanagement, particularly in the Packers & Stockyards Program (P&SP), which has been widely criticized as inefficient in its duties in enforcing the PSA and anti-competitive laws. The report was in response to concerns raised by a Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in 2005 on possible inflation of actual investigations conducted by the competition division in annual GIPSA reports to suggest a higher rate of enforcement activity. The report confirmed accusations that top officials had intentionally blocked investigations by refusing to provide clearance for employees to conduct investigations and inflating the number of investigations to give the misleading appearance that the agency was responding to pressures to clamp down on anti-competitive practices and market concentration.
The report identified three areas of material weaknesses: defining and tracking investigations, planning and conducting competition and complex investigations, and making agency policy. Additionally, it said the agency had not taken sufficient actions to strengthen operations in response to a finding previously reported by the OIG in 1997 and the Government Accountability Organization (GAO) in 2000. In 1997 the USDA report on GIPSA monitoring revealed that the agency had inadequate resources for proper monitoring, while the following year, they reported GIPSA had implemented major reorganization of P&SP to improve handling of concerns over anti-competitive activity. The 2000 GAO Report confirmed that GIPSA had completed major restructuring and hired staff. The main issues of concern were that GIPSA investigations were led by economists without the formal involvement of attorneys from the OGC; and that the investigations process was designed for traditional trade practice and not suited to the more complex anti-competitive practices currently at issue. In response, the bipartisan U.S. Senate Agricultural Committee found that GIPSA had failed to enforce competition laws over the past decade, citing a “long history of incompetence” in its investigations, and accused auditors of ignoring recommendations for improvement in oversight. Sen. Harkin introduced legislation to reorganize USDA, with a more aggressive approach to policing anti-competitive activity and “bad actors in livestock and poultry markets,” and charging that, “[f]or over five years, the Dept essentially took no action against unfair market practices and high-level USDA officials let it happen…”
Office Closures
In the second term of the George W. Bush administration, budget cutbacks resulted in the closing of FSA offices across the United States. In September 2005 the agency proposed the closures of 30% of its offices and planned to eventually eliminate 713 of the 2,351 offices nationwide, according to a summary the department provided to the Senate Agriculture Committee. Many farmers protested these cuts, as local FSA offices have been a crucial connection between farmers and the department since the 1930s.
ARS Among Federal Agencies Caught Skimming from Pork Projects
In 2005, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) launched an investigation after learning that the Department of Agriculture was skimming funds off of congressional earmarks. Nelson’s investigation found numerous offices guilty of “earmark skimming.” In many cases federal agencies were found to be taking cuts from earmarked funds for years, some for unrelated purposes as varied as staff salaries and postage stamps. Nelson asked the Congressional Research Service to investigate, which resulted in a finding that the federal government had no umbrella legal authority that allowed agencies to take a cut of each earmark and no overall standard for how much agencies should take. The amount taken from earmarks varied within an agency. The Agricultural Research Service, for example, took 10% of earmarks, while the Extension Service at the Agriculture Department took 4%.
Food Stamps and Welfare
FNS finds itself at the center of ideological battles that question the role of the state in dealing with poverty and welfare, as well as business and subsidies. It is a complex debate that questions the causes and persistence of poverty. Compounding these questions are disagreements over how hunger and poverty are defined and quantified. Often, the debate falls along party lines. Conservative opinions of poverty tend to reflect ideals of choice and personal responsibility. This view sees the poor as architects of their condition. To the Right, welfare programs reward laziness and encourage dependence. The Heritage Foundation reports that the majority of households receiving food stamps are headed by young able-bodied adults, 70% of whom do not work. The report also found that the “typical” non-elderly recipient has received benefits for more than seven years. Welfare programs hurt both the poor and society because they engender dependence, discourage ambition, and perpetuate the cycle of poverty, the report found. Meanwhile, liberals focus on societal and systemic causes for poverty, such as disproportionate advantages and opportunities given to the middle class and wealthy. Many on the left see poverty as a societal creation and therefore a responsibility of government. Welfare programs are necessary to the marriage of capitalism and democracy, and welfare programs correct for market failures and redistribute wealth, allowing all members of democracy to be engaged in political and economic processes, many liberals argue.
Fire Management Policy
USFS fire management policy has been a source of great debate in recent years. While one of the agency’s earliest missions was to protect forests from fire, there has been recent criticism about the agency’s effectiveness at managing fires and reducing the ecological consequences of forest fires. As a result of USFS policies, wildfires have gone from being high frequency, low intensity events, which provide sustainability for certain ecosystems, to low frequency, high intensity events that make suppression of them futile, writes University of Maryland Professor Robert Nelson in his book, A Burning Issue: A Case for Abolishing the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the prolonged absence of fire and the reduction in timber harvests, the abundance of dead and dying trees provide a high fuel load and conditions for high intensity fires that can cause enormous damage to soils, watersheds, fisheries and other ecosystem components, Nelson argues. Many environmental groups that view natural fires as an integral part of ecosystem management have also criticized fire suppression efforts, claiming that it lacks scientific basis. Meanwhile, firefighters and residents who live on forest land lobby heavily for fire suppression policies.
NAFTA
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed on January 1, 1994 and was fully implemented on January 1, 2008. The agreement removed most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada and Mexico. NAFTA removed all non-tariff barriers to agriculture, and tariffs were eliminated immediately or phased out over periods of 5-15 years. The treaty also protects intellectual property rights and includes the removal of investment barriers. NAFTA is a trilateral agreement in all areas except agriculture, and is negotiated bilaterally between nations. The Mexico-Canada bilateral agreement outlines the removal of agricultural tariffs except in dairy, poultry, eggs and sugar. It is the largest trade bloc in the world in terms of the members combined GDP.
Critiques of NAFTA
The View from Mexico
Ed Schafer, January 28, 2008-January 21, 2009
Daniel R. Glickman, March 30, 1995 - January 19, 2001
Alphonso Michael "Mike" Espy, January 22, 1993 - December 31, 1994
Edward R. Madigan, March 8, 1991 - January 20, 1993
Clayton K. Yeutter, February 16, 1989 - March 1, 1991
Richard E. Lyng, March 7, 1986 - January 21, 1989
John R. Block, January 23, 1981 - February 14, 1986
Robert S. Bergland, January 23, 1977 - January 20, 1981
John A. Knebel, November 4, 1976 - January 20, 1977
Earl L. Butz, December 2, 1971 - October 4, 1976
Clifford M. Hardin, January 21, 1969 - November 17, 1971
Orville L. Freeman, January 21, 1961 - January 20, 1969
Ezra Taft Benson, January 21, 1953 - January 20, 1961
Charles F. Brannan, June 2, 1948 - January 20, 1953
Clinton P. Anderson, June 30, 1945 - May 10, 1948
Claude R. Wickard, September 5, 1940 - June 29, 1945
Henry A. Wallace, March 4, 1933 - September 4, 1940
Arthur M. Hyde, March 6, 1929 - March 4, 1933
William M. Jardine, March 5, 1925 - March 4, 1929
Howard M. Gore, November 22, 1924 - March 4, 1925
Henry C. Wallace. March 5, 1921 - October 25, 1924
Edwin T. Meredith, February 2, 1920 - March 4, 1921
David F. Houston, March 6, 1913 - February 2, 1920
James Wilson, March 6, 1897 - March 5, 1913
J. Sterling Morton, March 7, 1893 - March 5, 1897
Jeremiah M. Rusk, March 6, 1889 - March 6, 1893
Norman Jay Coleman, February 15, 1889 - March 6, 1889
|
Founded: 1862
Annual Budget: $145 billion (FY 2012 proposed budget)
Employees: 104,751
|
Department of Agriculture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Department of Agriculture, was born with the name Kenneth on December 13, 1950, in a home for unwed pregnant women in Western Pennsylvania, and was placed in a Catholic orphanage in Pittsburgh shortly after his birth. He was adopted as an infant by Bud and Dolly Vilsack. His father was a real-estate agent and insurance salesman, and his mother was a homemaker. He had one sister, Alice, who was six years older than Vilsack and died in her mid-40s.
Vilsack reportedly had a lonely and difficult childhood. His mother was addicted to prescription drugs and alcohol, and she abandoned her family when Vilsack was 13.
He met his future wife, Ann Christine Bell, in October 1968 while attending Hamilton College in New York. Vilsack graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1972, and the following year he married Ann. He attended Albany Law School of Union University and received his JD in 1975. That same year, he and his wife moved to his wife’s hometown of Mount Pleasant, IA, and Vilsack started practicing law with his father-in-law, Tom Bell.
Vilsack first became involved in fundraising to help build a $750,000 sports complex facility in his town in 1978. He went on to become president of the Rotary Club, Chamber of Commerce and United Way board. He served as president of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association in 1985.
Vilsack’s political career began in the wake of a tragedy that shocked Mount Pleasant. On December 10, 1986, a disgruntled resident, Ralph Davis, shot and killed Mayor Edward King and wounded two council members during a city council meeting. King’s father and others encouraged Vilsack to run for the office. He was elected in 1987 and went on to serve three terms as mayor.
From there, Vilsack ran for the state Senate as a Democrat and was elected in 1992. He was re-elected in 1994 and 1996, although he almost gave up politics in 1996 after mulling a run for Congress. Instead, he returned to the state Senate for one last term.
In 1998, Vilsack made a risky career move and ran for governor—risky because Iowa had not elected a Democratic governor in 32 years. He came from 20 points behind in the polls to upset Republican Jim Ross Lightfoot (who was also adopted from an orphanage), thanks in part to strong support from organized labor. He easily won re-election four years later.
Early in his second term as governor, Vilsack oversaw the creation of the Grow Iowa Values Fund, a $503 million appropriation designed to improve the state’s economy by offering grants to corporations and initiatives pledged to create higher-income jobs. Vilsack tried to finance the new program through use of his line-item veto power, by axing monies for other programs and redirecting them to the fund. The move was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.
Vilsack raised some eyebrows in 2005 when he signed an executive order that allowed felons who served their sentences to regain their right to vote. Iowa law had held that convicted felons were permanently barred from voting unless the governor personally restored their voting rights.
But Vilsack’s most controversial moves as governor involved the state’s agricultural sector. Vilsack established a cozy relationship with “big ag,” including leaders in biotech farming, like Monsanto, which gave Vilsack several free rides on one of their corporate jets. He signed legislation in 2005 that prevented local cities and counties from restricting the sale of genetically modified seeds. Other critics complained about the increase in the number of hogs per farm in Iowa during Vilsack’s tenure as governor, rising from 800 to more than 1,800 per farm. Hog farms have often been the focus of concerns by environmentalists due to the large volume of waste that such operations produce. As a state senator, Vilsack voted for a 1995 law meant to exclude livestock operations from public nuisance lawsuits. The Iowa Supreme Court later overturned the law as unconstitutional.
After eight years as governor of Iowa, Vilsack launched a campaign for president on November 30, 2006. The bid lasted less than three months, once the Midwest Democrat realized there was little money left to raise, what with Obama and Hilary Clinton dominating the ranks of Democratic donors. He ended his campaign on February 23, 2007, and threw his support behind Clinton, becoming her national co-chair.
While helping Clinton seek the Democratic nomination for president, Vilsack joined the Des Moines office of Minneapolis-based law firm Dorsey & Whitney on May 1, 2007. Dorsey & Whitney is the 60th largest law firm in the United States, with 18 offices, about 650 lawyers and 850 support staff spread out across the US, Europe and Asia. Founded in 1912, the firm specializes in mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, intellectual property, patent, and trademark issues, employment and labor, environmental issues, white-collar crime, and public offerings. It represents numerous Fortune 500 clients, including Wal-Mart.
Despite his support for Clinton, Vilsack won over Obama with his aggressive campaigning for the Democratic nominee in Minnesota, North Dakota and Pennsylvania. He also helped Obama by making calls to agricultural leaders and organizations and by promoting Obama’s farm views. It also didn’t hurt that Vilsack had ties to some of Obama’s top advisors, such as campaign strategist David Axelrod, who worked as a consultant for Vilsack in 1998. In addition, in October 2008, Vilsack published two essays that demonstrated his policies were in tune with Obama’s. One essay advocated for a focus on renewable energy to help with the economic recovery, while the other called for a “carbon revolution,” with the Midwest becoming the world’s renewable energy center. Vilsack is a strong supporter of ethanol, most of which is made from corn. Iowa is the leading producer of ethanol in the United States.
Vilsack’s nomination as secretary of agriculture prompted concerns among organic farmers and some environmental groups, owing to the former governor’s support for large agribusiness and biotechnology. “Vilsack’s nomination sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association.
|
|
|
Schafer, Ed
Previous Secretary
|
|
|
Born and raised in Bismarck, North Dakota, Ed Schafer served as the 29th Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture from January 28, 2008, until the inauguration gof Barack Obama. Schafer graduated from the University of North Dakota in 1969 with a bachelor’s degree in business administration and earned an MBA from the University of Denver in 1970.
After finishing graduate school, Schafer went to work for his father’s business, Gold Seal Company, a successful marketer of nationally-known consumer products, including “Mr. Bubble” bubble bath, “Glass Wax” glass cleaner and “Snowy Bleach.” Schafer held a series of management positions with the company before becoming president in 1978. Under his leadership, Gold Seal’s sales climbed to $50 million through acquisitions and new product introductions and its net worth tripled. It was sold in 1986. Schafer then went on to launch several new businesses, including a commercial real estate development company, a fish farm and a classic car dealership.
Schafer’s first run at public office came in 1990, when he challenged Democratic Congressman Byron Dorgan for his North Dakota House seat and lost. Two years later he successfully ran for governor of North Dakota and was re-elected in 1996, serving a total of eight years until 2000. While serving as governor, Schafer was elected chair of the Western Governors Association. In 2000 he was elected chair of the Republican Governors Association and that same year he co-founded and co-chaired the Governors Biotechnology Partnership to increase public understanding and support for the benefits of agricultural biotechnology.
After leaving office in 2000, Schafer co-founded Extend America, a venture capital-backed company, to provide wireless voice and high-speed data services to commercial and residential customers in five rural Midwestern states.
Shortly after taking over as Secretary of Agriculture, Schafer got into a war of words with the Humane Society over video footage that the organization shot of mistreated cattle at the Hallmark Meat Packing Co. plant in Chino, CA. Schafer complained that the Humane Society should have alerted the USDA sooner about its findings, claiming that the animal rights activists contributed to the cows’ suffering.
“The Humane Society, since late October, has been willing to let animals suffer out there,” rather than notify USDA immediately of the abuses, Schafer told the media. Humane Society president and CEO Wayne Pacelle called Schafer’s statement, “an outrageous and astonishing comment.”
“It’s USDA’s responsibility to prevent this abuse,” Pacelle said. “USDA personnel were on site and they are the ones who are paid with American tax dollars to prevent this appalling cruelty.”
|
|
|
|