<b>By DAVE BLOWER JR.<br>
Farm World Editor</b> </p><p> WASHINGTON, D.C. — By a 79-14 vote, the U.S. Senate approved a $286 billion food and nutrition bill on Dec. 14. The 79 votes were the most for a farm bill since 1973.</p><p>
The proposal will now go to conference, where differences between the Senate bill and the House version – which was passed in July - will be hammered out.</p><p>
Though the Senate plan has its supporters, the Bush administration and other prominent farm-state senators, such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) believe it is a bad policy.</p><p>
“This legislation is fundamentally flawed. Unless the House and Senate can come together and craft a measure that contains real reform, we are no closer to a good farm bill than we were before today’s passage,” said Acting-USDA Commissioner Chuck Conner.</p><p>
“Farmers need a stable safety net that helps in years they need it most. And farmers deserve a farm bill that is free of budget smoke and mirrors and tax increases. The measure passed today has $22 billion in unfunded commitments and budget gimmicks, and includes $15 billion in new taxes- the first time a farm bill has relied on tax increases since 1933.”</p><p>
Lugar and Conner believe the Senate-approved plan doesn’t make necessary changes. The bill, by 2010, will ban subsidies to farmers whose adjusted gross income exceeds $750,000 and who earn less than two-thirds of their income from agriculture. Current law bans payments for those with incomes above $2.5 million and make less than three-fourths of their income from farming. Other Senate farm bill specifics:</p><p>
•Increases spending by $5.3 billion for nutrition programs, $4.4 billion for conservation programs that protect environmentally sensitive farm land, and $1 billion for renewable energy programs</p><p>
•Includes $5 billion aid package for farmers who have suffered weather-related disasters</p><p>
•Is partially paid for by penalizing companies under the “economic substance” doctrine, which holds that for a company to claim a tax deduction for a specific transaction, that transaction must yield a profit or have some other clear economic benefit separate from the tax effect.</p><p>
“This farm bill includes many positive elements in the non-crop subsidy sections, but the funding is precarious. It relies on tax and funding gimmicks that could leave nutrition programs under-funded in five years, leaving our most vulnerable Americans at greater risk,” Lugar said.</p><p>
“I will continue to work in the House-Senate farm bill conference and future debates to constructively strengthen American agriculture, nutrition, energy, and rural development for the best interests of all American taxpayers and our national security.”</p><p>
The White House has threatened to veto both this Senate farm bill and the version that the House passed in July. Iowa Farm Bureau President Craig Lang hopes the President will sign a House-Senate compromise.</p><p>
“IFBF urges the administration and lawmakers to come together and support this historic measure, which benefits many sectors of the nation beyond the farm gate industry which supplies the food, fuel and fiber for a growing world population,” Lang said.</p><p> |
