FARM WORKERS NEED MORE FEDERAL HELP - NOW
President Bush finally has granted some relief to the thousands of farmworkers who have been struggling to feed and house their families in the aftermath of the severe cold wave that struck California's farm areas in January. But the aid is far too little and comes far too late.
Bush's action on March 14 came after more than a month of urgent pleading by California's governor, its U.S. senators and many others. It will provide workers $17 million in food supplies and an extra six months of unemployment insurance payments.
But that's "simply not enough," as President Arturo Rodriguez of the United Farm Workers said. "Families are in a state of crisis. While food donations are critical, federal relief needs to apply toward mortgages and rental assistance and utility payments or thousands of families will lose their homes."
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger agreed. He urged the Senate Appropriations Committee to quickly approve a bill by Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein that would provide funds to help workers meet their housing costs.
The workers are victims of a devastating cold wave that plunged temperatures to the low 20s in an area ranging from the Mexican border up though central California. It destroyed at least half the citrus crop and did great harm to several other crops. Damage amounted to more than $1 billion.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to offer help to growers by designating 18 counties as ³disaster areas.² That made the 3,500 growers in those hardest hit locations eligible for low-interest loans of up to $500,000 each, providing they¹d lost at least 30 percent of their crop and could not get loans from private sources or, presumably, crop insurance payments.
In finally granting some relief to farmworkers in 12 of the counties, Bush granted more aid to growers -- $10 million to help them prune frost-damaged trees. There hadn¹t been much federal help, however, for the estimated 12,500 grower employees 5,000 harvesters and 7,500 packing house workers who were affected. Many have been jobless or working only part-time since January and aren¹t likely to find much work -- if any -- until the fall harvests begin in October.
In the meantime, they have little to live on. Farmworker¹s pay is so low few have savings to tide them over. Lacking steady work, they must rely on government aid and private charity to help them feed, clothe and house their families and cover other essentials.
Citrus worker Guadalupe Florez, a widow and mother of three cited by the United Farm Workers union as typical of those needing help, said she¹s ³started to look for work but there aren¹t any jobs. All we know is field work and there aren¹t any oranges to pick, sort or pack. I can get $118 every two weeks from unemployment benefits but it is not nearly enough to cover my $742 mortgage and the $250 in monthly gas and electric bills.²
California¹s state government has helped with unemployment insurance payments and nearly $6 million in grants to individual workers and county-run food banks.
Farmworkers can apply for that aid and other help such as health care and job counseling at ³one-stop centers² the state has set up in farming areas. Many of the needy workers are undocumented immigrants and thus not eligible for government aid, but non-governmental groups have moved in to help them as well as domestic workers.
Service clubs, churches and others have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to food banks, and utility companies have reduced their rates in some farming areas. The United Farm Workers has launched a major campaign to spread word of the workers¹ plight throughout the country, is widely soliciting donations of food and money, and is helping communities organize to take effective action. The UFW calculates that $32.5 million will be needed just to cover the workers¹ basic living costs -- $500 a month for at least 10 months for 6,500 households.
But the state and the UFW and other private groups can¹t possibly meet the enormous need by themselves. The federal government must provide much more than Bush has authorized.
Certainly the farmworkers deserve that. As the San Francisco Chronicle noted, "they are part of an economically marginal population that helps drive the state¹s economy, and allows consumers to buy fruit and vegetables at an enviably low cost.²
…………………
From the Los Angeles Times
Farm bill keeping subsidies is OKd in Senate
Taxpayer groups, environmentalists and doctors have all pledged to try to change the legislation, for different reasons. Bush has threatened a veto.
By Nicole Gaouette
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 15, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Friday approved a farm bill that would continue to funnel billions of dollars in subsidies to wealthy landowners and farmers who are earning record-breaking prices for their crops, rebuffing a concerted campaign by some senators to shift money to conservation, nutrition and deficit reduction.
The bill has drawn a veto threat from President Bush, who has criticized the subsidy payments and the creation of a $5-billion permanent disaster fund.
The White House has an unlikely set of allies in taxpayer groups, environmentalists, physicians and rural community advocates who tried vigorously to change the bill's priorities. They pledged to continue lobbying as the House and Senate now try to reconcile the differences in their respective bills.
Supporters of the Senate bill point out that it institutes significant changes, including support for biofuels and for fruit and vegetable farmers, who make up the bulk of California growers. "California is well-served by this farm bill," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "It contains a number of reforms, which are a step in the right direction."
Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) fought for some of the reform measures during what he called "a hard week" of debate before the bill passed 79 to 14, a margin wide enough to override a presidential veto.
"We were able to work within a very strict budget allocation . . . and pass a farm bill that is good for agriculture, good for rural areas and good for the health of Americans," he said.
But other lawmakers pointed out that the bill did not significantly alter the subsidy system, which allows one resident of the Beverly Hills 90210 ZIP Code to receive $1 million in farm subsidy payments. "This farm bill fails to provide the fundamental reform we need in Washington," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who proposed a failed amendment that would have phased out subsidies and used the money for nutrition, conservation and free crop insurance for all growers.
The administration noted that the Senate and House farm bills would approve the creation of $22.4 billion in new taxes while failing to do much to limit subsidies. "Congress has refused to significantly limit farm income subsidies for the wealthiest Americans," the White House said in a statement. The $288-billion farm bill sets agriculture policy for five years, but its influence extends to school lunch programs, conservation programs, alternative fuel development, food safety and the amount of help that hungry Americans receive.
About 66% of the farm bill deals with nutrition programs, such as food stamps, but the bill also gives billions of dollars in subsidies to farms that grow a few major crops, including corn, soybeans, cotton, rice and wheat. Activists and some lawmakers say that the subsidies contribute to diet-driven epidemics such as childhood obesity and diabetes, cause pollution and squeeze small-scale farmers out of business.
The bill does establish some limits on subsidies. Currently, farmers with an adjusted gross income of $2.5 million can receive commodity payments. The bill would gradually lower that to $750,000 by 2010, except for growers for whom 67% of their adjusted gross income comes from a farm. Current law allows owners of former farmland that has been subdivided for residential use to continue to receive commodity payments. The bill would limit those payments.
But four major efforts to change the bill's subsidy system and to shift dollars into conservation and nutrition programs failed as a bipartisan group of senators from the Midwest and South banded together to defeat them.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) introduced an unsuccessful amendment that would have immediately banned subsidies for full-time farmers earning more than $750,000 a year and part-time growers earning more than $250,000. "I believe in a safety net, but I believe it is time to move to some reform," said Klobuchar. Acknowledging growing anger about farm spending, she said: "If we don't do the reform in the farm states, it is going to happen to us."
The 1,360-page bill adds $4 billion more than the 2002 farm bill for conservation programs that include wetlands and grasslands, Harkin said.
The energy section of the bill would give farmers money to grow crops that can be used to make alternative fuels, and supports the construction of refineries to process biofuels.
The section of the bill that deals with nutrition would expand a snack program Harkin created to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to the 4.5 million children in elementary schools nationwide. It would also increase food stamp benefits and ensure they keep pace with the cost of living. The bill strengthens mandatory country-of-origin labeling popular with consumers. It also provides more than $100 million to help farmers transition to organic agriculture, collect data on organic crops and conduct research.
For California growers, the most significant impact comes with more than $2 billion in funding for research and marketing for specialty crops, which include fruits, nuts and vegetables. "This is monumental in that from this point on, specialty crops will always be a significant part of any farm bill," said Tom Nassif, president of the Irvine-based Western Growers.
Advocacy groups believed Congress could have done more and said much of the blame rested with the Senate's Democratic leadership. Senate leaders agreed to a 60-vote threshold for some amendments that would have trimmed subsidies after Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who supports subsidies, threatened a filibuster.
Because of that decision, an amendment by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) that would have capped annual payments to farmers at $250,000, down from $360,000, was defeated even though it garnered 56 votes. Klobuchar's amendment also gained a 48-47 majority.
"Those two amendments would have passed but for backroom shenanigans," said David Beckman of Bread for the World, a hunger advocacy group.
He and other advocates said they think they still have a chance to shape the final bill as the House and Senate reconcile their versions in a conference committee, particularly if the administration also applies pressure.
There are some significant differences between the bills, including the Senate's $5-billion permanent disaster fund, which is not in the House version.
"This thing is far from done. The abuses in the farm bill are well-understood," Beckman said. "We have an opportunity to win in the conference."
No comments:
Post a Comment