Special Interest Groups

• WHAT IS ITS MISSION?
• HOW IS IT STRUCTURED?
• PRIMARY FUNCTIONS
• FAST FACTS
• PROGRAMS
• BUDGET INFORMATION
• HISTORY
• CURRENT POLITICAL ISSUES
• FUTURE DIRECTIONS
• GROUP RESOURCES
• GROUP PUBLICATIONS
• BIBLIOGRAPHY

ESTABLISHED: November 12, 1919
EMPLOYEES: 116
MEMBERS: 4.7 million families
PAC: Farm Bureau PACs are operated by state farm bureaus

Contact Information:
ADDRESS: 225 Touhy Ave. Park Ridge, IL 60068
PHONE: (847) 685-8600
FAX: (847) 685-8896
E-MAIL: joef@fb.com
URL: http://www.fb.com
PRESIDENT: Dean R. Kleckner

WHAT IS ITS MISSION?

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF or simply "Farm Bureau") is a national affiliation of the more than 2,800 county farm bureaus in the United States. As such, it considers itself to be "the voice of agriculture at the national level." Through their participation in the AFBF, farmers work together to secure the benefits of this united effort—to make the business of farming more profitable; to make agricultural communities better places to live; and to maintain as much autonomy as possible in farming and ranching enterprises.

HOW IS IT STRUCTURED?

The programs and policies of the Farm Bureau begin at the local level, with the members of the county bureaus. County members vote on policies which are then sent to state bureaus, which in turn discuss and vote on the issues and ultimately send delegates to the national meeting of the AFBF. Once these national polices are established, putting them into action is the task of the board and officers of the national Farm Bureau organization.

The president, vice president, and members of the AFBF's board of directors are active farmers or ranchers who are elected at the annual meetings. The president is responsible for directing the daily operations of the Farm Bureau and for acting as the organization's national spokesperson. The board is made up of 22 state farm bureau presidents, who are elected to the board for two-year terms. Four national officers are appointed by the board: the administrator, who directs the staff; the treasurer; the secretary; and the general counsel. In addition to acting as the legal representative of the AFBF, the general counsel's office also serves the important function of pursuing agricultural policy issues in the courts and before government agencies. For example, the general counsel may lead the AFBF's legal challenge to regulations it considers unfair, or defend the labor practices in certain farming sectors.

The staff of the AFBF is generally divided between two offices: a general headquarters in Park Ridge, Illinois, and an office in Washington, D.C., which naturally focuses on government relations and public information. The Governmental Relations Division is staffed mostly by registered lobbyists who are specialists on agricultural issues, and who maintain daily contact with Congress and the regulatory agencies to advocate the interests of farmers and ranchers.

Much of the AFBF's mission is carried out by the Organization Division, which coordinates the bureau's membership activities and policy development process. This is the division which most directly reaches out to local farmers, and which coordinates and operates most of the Farm Bureau's educational and legislative programs. The Organization Division also coordinates national and regional meetings, and provides training for members and staff.

Another important office, the Public Policy Division, provides research, education, and policy support for the AFBF and state farm bureaus. This division is not so much involved in operating programs as in researching and analyzing information that might influence the way in which programs are carried out or policies are adopted.

The AFBF operates two affiliate organizations: the American Farm Bureau Research Foundation and the American Agricultural Insurance Company. The Research Foundation, financed by contributions from individual members and state and county bureaus, is a funding agency which supports private research on important agricultural issues such as pesticide use and livestock nutrient management. The American Agricultural Insurance Company is a reinsurance agency which provides added security to state Farm Bureau casualty and property insurance companies.

PRIMARY FUNCTIONS

The Farm Bureau's mission—making life and business better for farmers—is a simple one, but it involves several areas of operation. To keep its members equipped to take advantage of the increasing technological, economic and legislative changes influencing U.S. agriculture, the Farm Bureau seeks to educate and train its members in areas such as marketing, animal and plant breeding and nutrition, agricultural machinery, and care of the environment. These efforts focus not only on practicing farmers, but also on young people in the farming community.

The Farm Bureau's legislative programs serve the overall objective of protecting farmers and ranchers from as many regulatory burdens as possible. Farm Bureau staff monitor pending legislation, consult with government representatives, and keep members informed about the content and probable impact of certain laws and regulations. The Farm Bureau usually publicizes its opinions about certain legislation, and in some cases it may present a legal challenge to laws or regulations which it considers to be unfair to farmers.

On occasion, the Farm Bureau may form a task force to look into certain issues. The organization conducts its own research and analysis on current issues, in order to provide timely support to its members, and it also funds private research on issues which have long-term implications for American farmers.

An important Farm Bureau function is the dissemination of information to its members and the public. AFBF provides news releases, commentaries and reports to newspapers and national and regional news organizations; it publishes background materials on agricultural issues; and it develops brochures and other materials for members and interested public citizens. One of the AFBF's most significant services to farmers is its effort to promote the two-way transfer of information between the national organization and individual farmers.

PROGRAMS

Although most Farm Bureau programs are operated at the local level, they are often variations or subsidiaries of initiatives formed at the national level. For example, most state farm bureaus carry out a program called Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC), as part of a nationwide

program for educating school children—from kindergarten through 12th grade—about agriculture. Another AFBF education program, the I Care Program, is a nationally-organized effort to promote the understanding of how animals function in agriculture, and to promote their humane and ethical treatment on farms. I Care instructs young people in proper husbandry and showmanship practices, and then requires them to fill out a pledge card outlining their intention to treat their animals with respect and compassion.

Most state farm bureaus operate some kind of program for teaching farmers about the marketing of certain commodities. Market Master, AFBF's national marketing education program, provides the basic structure for many state programs. Many of the AFBF's educational programs target non-farmers. The Adopt-A-Scientist program, for example, is an effort to bring agricultural scientists face-to-face with the daily operations of a working farm. In bringing scientists on to farms, the AFBF seeks to provide those scientists who develop agricultural products—fertilizers, pesticides, and plant cultivars—with the information they need to better understand the population to whom these products are marketed.

The core of the AFBF's legislative initiative is the National Legislative Action Program (NLAP), a nationwide effort to focus and coordinate the Farm Bureau's bid to educate and influence the makers of national agriculture policy. Although the lobbyists of the Governmental Relations Division play a major role in this program, NLAP relies heavily on local volunteers, who contact members of Congress and regulatory agencies about issues that concern them. Part of NLAP's success is this link between Congress and actual constituents.

One of the most exciting Farm Bureau programs is ACRES, a computerized marketing, news, and weather system available to Farm Bureau member-subscribers. For a fee, ACRES delivers information via satellite to a personal computer in the farmer's home. Another communications initiative, the Farm Bureau Advantage Skynet Satellite Network, provides a data link between the AFBF and state farm bureaus.

BUDGET INFORMATION

Not made available.

HISTORY

The move toward the local organization of farmers began in the early twentieth century, and these local units rapidly expanded to form state groups. In 1919, representatives from 30 states gathered in Chicago and founded the American Farm Bureau Federation, with a primary goal of promoting the economic welfare of commercial farmers. The Farm Bureau's first president was James R. Howard of Iowa, who was instrumental in bringing together farmers from all over the country to formulate a single coherent policy platform to present to the government and the American public.

Because of the structure of the farming industry at the time, the AFBF's early efforts focused on representing the interests of the small family farm. The AFBF initially favored government intervention on behalf of the farmer, especially after the troubles brought on by the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl crisis of the 1930s. After helping to form a powerful bipartisan bloc in Congress, the AFBF was instrumental in influencing the farm policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal Program. In particular, the AFBF helped formulate the landmark Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which gave the federal government responsibility for administering direct economic assistance to farmers. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, created by this legislation, established the state and county administrative structures used by most present-day farm programs.

Government programs proved effective in restabilizing an agricultural system that had been hit hard by a reduction in both supply and demand. The economic boom that occurred after World War II, however, created a new problem for American farmers—a production surplus. As prices fell, farmers who had relied on government support found themselves in trouble. The overproduction of certain commodities threatened to cause dramatic drops in farm income levels. The food needs of war-torn countries in Europe helped absorb some of the surplus, but oversupply continued to be a problem.

The AFBF responded by calling for more a more flexible system that imposed less government control over agricultural production. During the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower, the AFBF argued for a free market system, rather than continued federal subsidies that involved the control of production. Under agricultural secretary Ezra Taft Benson, the government began to lower its price supports, but the later administrations of Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson reversed this trend, over the objections of the AFBF.

Government administrations throughout most of the 1970s, at the urging of the AFBF, began to move government policy in a different direction, not only relaxing government control but also attempting to expand agricultural exports—although neither of these efforts was as complete as the AFBF would have liked. The government still had far to go in adapting to the changed conditions of the world's agricultural markets.

The Farm Crisis and the Remaking of Government Agricultural Policy

Throughout the 1980s it was made clear that government policies were not enabling American farmers to compete in international markets. Due to a number of complex factors—including a surplus that caused grain prices to fall and farmers to default on federal loans—the U.S. agricultural industry fell into what is now referred to as the Farm Crisis of the 1980s. Foreclosure was forced upon many families who had been farming the same land for generations. It was clear to the AFBF, if not other agricultural advocacy groups, that Depression-era policies would do little to help American farmers gain access in an increasingly competitive global market.

Federal legislation and trade agreements negotiated in the early 1990s gave farmers some relief and helped to secure greater access to international export markets. But many crippling farm policies remained in place. The main problem, according to the AFBF and other organizations, was that for 60 years the government s efforts had been focused on managing the supply of agricultural commodities, rather than allowing producers themselves to manage production.

For once, the government appeared to be listening. The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996, supported by the AFBF, did away with many of these policies. By allowing producers more flexibility in planting and the opportunity to respond to market signals, the law returned much of the management of agricultural production to the farm community. The FAIR Act replaced Depression-era price supports with fixed-payment Agricultural Market Transition Payments to farmers who were having difficulty adjusting to fewer regulations.

In early 1999, U.S. agriculture hit a rough spot which caused many farmers to call for a repeal of the FAIR Act and a return to the more certain price-support system. The decline of Asian economies, among other factors, was shrinking foreign agricultural markets, and farmers were reminded of the conditions that precipitated the farm crisis of the 1980s. The AFBF, however, publicly urged Congress to stay the course on the FAIR Act and to fulfill the promises made when the FAIR Act was passed—specifically, in exchange for the AFBF's support of the FAIR Act, Congress had agreed to look into farmers' concerns about trade issues affecting market development, regulatory reform, taxes, and risk management. While uncertain about the future of the international agricultural market, the AFBF was reluctant to return control of production to the federal government.

CURRENT POLITICAL ISSUES

Since the Depression era, farming has been the subject of much government involvement, and the range of issues that affect agriculture reflects this fact. Every year, it seems, the AFBF, as the largest farm organization in the country, publicizes its position on a number of issues, from taxation to exports to crop insurance. It also serves as a major force in debating regulations involving such things as environmental quality, food quality, labor and wage practices, and commodity marketing. Often, the Farm Bureau is able to work out a compromise with legislators on certain issues, presenting facts and figures suggesting that a certain law regulatory burden may be too costly to farmers. On rare occasions, the AFBF is able to mount a successful legal challenge to federal actions it considers to be unlawful, or at least unfair to farmers.

Case Study: The Short-Lived Reintroduction of the Yellowstone Wolves

In 1994 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched a plan to gradually reintroduce gray wolves—animals once native to Yellowstone Park but virtually extinct since the 1920s—into the park and a nearby wilderness area in central Idaho. The wolves were to be trapped from wild areas in Canada. Environmentalists and other proponents of the plan argued that it was the right thing to do, since sheep and cattle ranchers had in the past essentially exterminated gray wolves in these areas. The wolves were natural predators of the deer, elk, and moose populations which, without any natural controls, had reached an all-time high in Yellowstone.

Ranchers in the surrounding area were strongly opposed to the wolf-recovery program. There was no fence around these vast areas, they argued, and it was only a matter of time before the wolves strayed from the park or wilderness, killed sheep or livestock, and perhaps even spread diseases such as rabies or brucellosis. The government recognized this concern and allowed two important concessions: ranchers would be financially compensated for any livestock lost to wolves, and they would be allowed to shoot any tagged wolves (the small native wolf population was protected under the Endangered Species Act), which were actually caught in the act of preying on domestic animals.

But these assurances weren't enough for the ranchers. Before the wolf-recovery plan was under way, the AFBF, in conjunction with the state bureaus of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order against the government's plan. The restraining order was denied by a Wyoming judge, and the first wolves were reintroduced in early 1995.

The wolves were welcomed by much of the American public, but not by many ranchers. By 1997, 12 of the immigrant wolves had been shot, and the Farm Bureau's lawsuit had taken a new turn. A federal district judge in Wyoming found the means by which the wolves had been reintroduced to be unlawful, and ordered the Department of the Interior, the parent agency of the Fish and Wildlife Service, to recapture and remove them from the region. The judge also, however, suspended the enforcement of this order until his decision could be appealed. By 1999, as the appeals process dragged on, immigrant wolves remained in and around Yellowstone and central Idaho.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In the coming years, the Farm Bureau's efforts will be focused primarily on the further expansion of exports into foreign agricultural markets. In his 1998 annual address, AFBF President Dean Kleckner pointed out that of the more than 30 bilateral and regional trade agreements operating in the Western Hemisphere, the United States is involved in only one, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). "As we debate and deliberate on the merits of just talking with other nations," Kleckner argued, "European and Japanese competitors are signing sweetheart deals with our trading partners in South America." (AFBF press release, January 12, 1998) The AFBF pledges to pursue fast-track negotiating authority for the U.S. president—an authority that has recently been denied by a federal court—in order to speed the process of boosting agricultural exports.

The AFBF also intends to continue lobbying against what it perceives to be unfair burdens on American farmers. A particularly troubling problem in recent years, as land values in many regions of the United States have skyrocketed, is the estate tax levied against families who inherit the assets of deceased parent. Since 99 percent of U.S. farms are owned by individuals, families, or family-owned corporations, the estate tax, which can be as high as 55 percent, hits farmers particularly hard, in many cases forcing the heirs to sell off an entire farm just to meet their tax burden. The AFBF has supported Congress' effort to reduce the estate tax burden in recent years, and argues for the gradual elimination of this death tax.

GROUP RESOURCES

The Farm Bureau's award-winning site on the World Wide Web (http://www.fb.com) is probably the best place to start for information on the national organization. In addition to descriptions of the Farm Bureau's mission and basic functions, the site contains numerous position statements on agricultural issues; a collection of facts about American agriculture; links to other agriculture-related sites; and links to each of the state farm bureaus. For further information about the AFBF, contact the public relations office at (847) 685-8750.

GROUP PUBLICATIONS

In addition to numerous news releases and issue papers, many of which can be viewed on the AFBF's Web site, the AFBF publishes short information brochures such as This is the Farm Bureau and Working for You. AFBF's Information and Public Relations Division also releases two significant periodicals, Executive News Watch, a newsletter providing daily updates on important agricultural issues, and a weekly publication, the Farm Bureau News, which is intended to provide county and state leaders with updates on Farm Bureau activities. The Farm Bureau News can be reached by E-mail at fbnews@fb.com.