In the final section, I'd like to talk about the politics of the Farm Bill. And I'm going to talk about how we got where we are, and how you can think about making change. And this is the politics of the Farm Bill, and it's the politics of food in farm policy in this country. And to get a sense of it, one way to think about it, is to look at the maps of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. Here's 2013-2014. What you see here, the first thing you might see when you look at that, is that a lot of it's red. Especially in the House, which makes sense because the House is dominated by Republicans. The other thing that you will notice is that a lot of it is concentrated in the mid-west, and in areas where there's lots of farming, like Michigan and California. And that makes sense because, you know, that's where the farming is happening, and so those are the people that want to get on the agriculture committees. What's also important to think about, though, is given that since two-thirds of the Farm Bill is actually SNAP, there's a need for a lot more urban legislators as well, on Farm Bill committees. So, historically, Farm Bills were driven by agriculture and agribusiness. When SNAP came in, we brought on the urban legislators, and then over time, other constituencies came in, sustainable agriculture, environment, international development, community food security, and public health, as I said, was a newcomer in the 2008 Farm Bill. And there was this ad hoc coalition that came together that I was one of the people that was organizing this coalition. And, we had identified a set of priorities. They were all relatively small pieces, of this sort of local and, and more sustainable food priorities. They were all successful. So that was really a positive and a great way to get started. APHA also weighed in, the American Public Health Association, made Farm Bill one of its top three policy priorities that year. So, there was a lot of early success. At the same time, you know, this is incremental change. It's not that sort of big change that many of us would hope. So, we started early for the 2014 Farm Bill. A number of different coalitions came together. You can see them here. And Public Health realized, I think that, we may not be able to be as effective as we might want to, if we go it alone. And we've gotta build coalition with people from a variety of different fields, who share common interest, including those in agriculture as well. And the Healthy Farms Healthy People Coalition was just that. It was bringing together public health and agriculture, to work on areas of joint interest. Another key group that shares common cause with public health is cities. And cities have a big stake in the Farm Bill. First of all because of those SNAP dollars, but for a lot of other reasons as well, and so, here's for example the Seattle Farm Bill Principles, and a number of other cities came into the fray as well. So, here's what's happened in the Farm Bill process, and I'm going to tell you this, it's a crazy story. But the pieces of it that I'm pulling out here are because they are, actually have importance for how you think about Farm Bills in the future. So, the first piece of the Farm Bill kind of effort came together in 2011-2012 with the super committee. So, that's when it started for the, and now it finally passed in early 2014. In 2012 and in 2013, the Senate passed a version of the Farm Bill. And the House Agriculture Committee passed a version of the Farm Bill, but the full House did not. Why didn't it? Mainly because of debates about SNAP, and not wanting money to go to SNAP. And the fact that it was an election year was also really important. Because especially nobody wanted to be seen, as supporting this, you know, this multi-billion dollar bill in an election. So, because the House didn't support it, the Farm Bill actually expired twice in 2012, and again, after an extension in 2013. Now, when the Farm Bill expires, you may remember that I talked about in 1949 and 1938, as some of the early Farm Bills. Those are permanent legislation. And, each subsequent Farm Bill that gets passed, is actually like a temporary fix to the 1949 and 1938 bills. So, what that means is that if you expire your bill, then we would revert to the 1949 and 1938 bills. So, all of the social differences, all of the differences in how we structure our policy, all that, would come back into play, if we actually reverted to those bills. It's, it's almost unthinkable, the level of change that would be required. And yet both times that, that expired, USDA had to invest all the money that it took, to basically make plans for reverting back to those bills. Now fortunately, both times, it was sort of like one of those nick of time interruptions, and it didn't actually go forward. The other thing that would have happened when those Farm Bills fully expired, is that there were a number of programs within the Farm Bill, that were essentially expiring, and all of those programs, until a new Farm Bill would be authorized, were basically stranded. And a lot of those programs, the ones that were expiring were, some of the newer programs, and they were expiring because you put in a program, you get it maybe for a small budget, or you get it for a temporary period of time. And then in the next Farm Bill, you push,and you make it a bigger program with a more secure budget. And so, those ones that were stranded, many of the ones were the most sort of progressive, public health, sustainability oriented types of programs within the Farm Bill. So, come to 2013, you know, people are getting serious, we've gotta do something. So, the House passes two separate bills, they pass a Farm Bill and a Nutrition Bill. And what they did, was they took SNAP out of the Farm Bill. And they said, it doesn't need to be there, it's, let's have a Farm Bill that's really about the agriculture piece, and let's put SNAP someplace else. And a lot of people would say, you know, that makes logical sense, we should do that. The reason that, that's problematic, is that one of the main things that's enabled Farm Bills to pass across recent years, is the fact that it's this coalition of anti-hunger legislators, and agriculture legislators, that have come together, recognized their shared interest, and pushed it through. And, if you split those up, both of those bills may have a very hard time passing. Those two types of communities need each other to pass those Farm Bills. So, it's pretty scary to have those be separated. And fortunately, finally those two bills were put back together, and on February 7th, 2014, that Farm Bill passed about three years after we had initially started the process. Some of the key points of contention in that process, I mentioned SNAP, the changes to the subsidy program. What happened that made them decide not to let the Farm Bill expiration go all the way through? One of the biggest things that happened was concern about what would happen to the dairy industry. And how that would affect dairy prices for consumers. And the threats about how bad that would be, were so severe, that I think that was one of the main things that made things change. Now, in that Farm Bill there was another kind of shift from past Farm Bills. So, typically, in agriculture committees, the two agriculture committees have to work out bills among themselves, and then they bring it to the full House, where the full Senate then makes a decision. And there's a lot of public input, and a lot of advocates, and a lot of lobbyists, and everything else. There's a lot of non-transparency within this process. And it started in 2012 with the super committee that was trying to avert sequestration, and the agriculture committee leaderships basically got together, and in the space of about two weeks, developed a farm bill and submitted it, which is, you know, normally this is a multi-year process. And they just put it together really quickly. Now that failed, so, okay. But then in 2012, they said, you know, we need a Farm Bill extension. We've got this expired Farm Bill, so the Senate minority leader, and the Vice President, got together and developed a Farm Bill extension, and they did it without the agriculture committees all together, which as you can imagine, made those committees furious, and again, no public input into the process. And then finally, when it all came down to the wire. When it really seemed like, okay, something's going to happen in 2014. Once again, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees negotiators got together, they reached an agreement. And in the end game, there was very little opportunity for public input. So, hopefully, they had heard advocates in the past, and heard their concerns, but in the end, it was kind of done behind closed doors. So, finally, once we had that Farm Bill, let's take a step back and say, we've got a lot of things in there, but what's missing? And the number one thing that I think is missing. There's, there's pieces in there on climate change to be sure, but given the magnitude of the threat that we face, there's space for there to have been so much more to address climate change within that Farm Bill. IFAP, again, it's in there in some little tiny pieces. And there's ways in which the Farm Bill effects IFAP. But what a difference if the Farm Bill could actually address IFAP in a more concerted way. There was change, but there still wasn't true commodity program reform in, in a really deep and meaningful way. Very little in there to address competition, even though, again, that was in there. And issues such as farm worker health, basically, pretty much not there, almost off the table. So, and then there are a lot of pieces that are in there but need expansion, and it's support for farmers that are doing things outside the main stream commodity crops. Healthy foods, local and regional, reasearch to support, more broadly, a healthier and more sustainable food system. As I described, that's all in there. But when we look at the big picture of what we as a society are supporting, is that the food system that we want to have and need to move towards. Finally, I want to talk about what happens after the Farm Bill, and what you can do. So, after the Farm Bill, it's not over. Every single year, there's an appropriations process, and they have to allocate money to the things that they said they were going to support in the Farm Bill. So, advocates need to be in there watching that process, year after year. There's rulemaking, so sometimes the farm bill will say, USDA should make a rule, or do something about x. Well, how's that actually going to play out within USDA? And we did a report following up on the 2008 Farm Bill, that walked through some of how that implementation was occurring. And there's a need to keep on watching that. Stay vigilant, and start early, to prepare for the next Farm Bill. With things, like what research would be needed to potentially convince somebody to make a particular change? What pilot program could be developed now, that could then be scaled up nationally? And it's a need for a continuous organizing effort as well. And most importantly, we need really a long term vision about we could use the Farm Bill to create the food system that we want to see. So, what can you do? And basically, it's the same kind of things you could do on any policy. You can help raise awareness, build coalitions, engage with your food policy council in the area where you live, if there is one. Address campaign finance and transparency issues, so that the people of the country have more power to effect what Farm Bill we see. Visit with, write letters to your legislatures, op-eds, letters to the editor. Educate yourself, and stay tuned for when advocates are calling for your support. Whatever view you have about the Farm Bill, and whatever aspect of this you support, stay tuned for the ability to weigh in to advance that view. I want to turn back from the very beginning, I showed you these two slides talking about the policies affecting food, and the policies affecting agriculture. And one of the key messages that came through this, was that the Farm Bill is one of many policies. And given all that happened in this farm bill process, a lot of advocates are turning away from the Farm Bill, and turning towards looking more closely at all these other policies, and the change that we can make through using them. And, I would encourage you to put your eyes on them as well, and to really think more broadly than the Farm Bill. But at the same, time we can't walk away from the Farm Bill, because, if advocates for public health and sustainable food systems walk away from the Farm Bill, advocates for the status quo, and for agribusiness, are not walking away from the Farm Bill. So, we need to keep ourselves in that mix as well. So, in conclusion, the Farm Bill's a behemoth, it's dominated by politics and budgetary challenges. It has powerful and myriad effects on the entire food system, and on the nation's health. Public health has a really important role to play, both as itself, and as a partner with those who share common interests. B,u,t we shouldn't put all our eggs in that Farm Bill basket. Farm Bill's an opportunity. We need to take a long term view about food system change, and about the Farm Bill. We've been in a really strange place over the recent years, in terms of how this process unfolded. We've been in a really strange place in terms of where our food system is, at this point in time. There's been a great deal of flux, and a great deal of risk, to public health, to farmers, and to livelihoods. So, policy is a real opportunity to look at what we've got and where we are, and to push for where we need to go. And thank you for listening to my talk.
