A Veto-Proof Vote For Contested Farm Bill

White House Opposed Bill That Includes Big Increases For Farmer Subsidies And Food Stamps

(AP)  Congress sent the White House a huge election-year farm bill Thursday that includes a boost in farm subsidies and more money for food stamps amid rising grocery prices.

Bush has threatened to veto the $290 billion bill, saying it is fiscally irresponsible and too generous to wealthy corporate farmers in a time of record crop prices.

But Congress disagreed, passing the bill by overwhelming margins in both chambers - enough to override a veto. The Senate vote was 81-15, a day after the House approved it with 318 "yes" votes.

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, a former Republican chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, voted against the bill.

"I do not believe our nation is best served by this farm bill that continues to make payments that defy common sense, snubs our trading partners, and balloons taxpayer spending," Lugar said.

About two-thirds of the bill would pay for domestic nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies, while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.

Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer again criticized the bill after Tuesday's House vote, saying it has the wrong priorities.

"It does not target help for the farmers who really need it, and it increases the size and cost of government while jeopardizing the future of legitimate farm programs by damaging the credibility of farm bills in general," he said.

Congress has only overridden one veto, on a water projects bill, during Bush's two terms.

Congressional negotiators met for weeks in an effort to come closer to the White House on the amount of money to be paid to wealthy farmers - one of the chief sticking points with the administration. But drastic cuts to subsidies were not possible, lawmakers said, because of the clout of Southern lawmakers who represent rice and cotton farms that are more expensive to run.

"This bill has reform in it," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Could we have done more? Perhaps. But if we'd done more we wouldn't have gotten a bill."

The legislation would make small cuts to direct payments that are distributed to some farmers no matter how much they grow. The farm bill also would eliminate some federal payments to individuals with more than $750,000 in annual farm income - or married farmers who make more than $1.5 million.

Individuals who make more than $500,000 or couples who make more than $1 million jointly in nonfarm income also would not be eligible for subsidies.

Under current law, there is no income limit for farmers receiving subsidies, and married couples who make less than one-fourth of their income from farming will not receive subsidies if their joint income exceeds $5 million.

The administration originally proposed a cap for those who make more than $200,000 in annual gross income, but later indicated it could accept a limit of $500,000. Previously, negotiators were considering a $950,000 income cap on farm income.

The bill also would:

• Boost nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency domestic food aid, by more than $10 billion over 10 years. It would expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren.
  
• Increase subsidies for certain crops, including fruits and vegetables excluded from previous farm bills.
  
• Extend and expand dairy programs.
  
• Increase loan rates for sugar producers.
  
• Urge the government to buy surplus sugar and sell it to ethanol producers for use in a mixture with corn.
  
• Cut a per-gallon ethanol tax credit for refiners from 51 cents to 45 cents. The credit supports the blending of fuel with the corn-based additive. More money would go to cellulosic ethanol, made from plant matter.
  
• Require that meats and other fresh foods carry labels with their country of origin.
  
• Stop allowing farmers to collect subsidies for multiple farm businesses.
  
• Reopen a major discrimination case against the Agriculture Department. Thousands of black farmers who missed a deadline would get a chance to file claims alleging they were denied loans or other subsidies.
  
• Pay farmers for weather-related farm losses from a new $3.8 billion disaster relief fund.
  
• Provide the first-ever infusion of federal farm dollars - more than $400 million - to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

The bill also includes a few home-state provisions inserted by lawmakers, including tax breaks for Kentucky racehorse owners and additional aid for salmon fishermen in the Pacific Northwest.

Despite the overwhelming vote, the bill does have some farm-state critics.

[downsteamjim]

Truly a farm bill. Lots and lots of pork.

[forthepeopl1]

ALL AND ANY BILLS THAT IS AND HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH USEING AMERICAN TAX PAYERS MONEY.

SHOULD BE VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOLPE. ITS THAT SIMPLE. THIS WAY WE THE PEOPLE HAVE A VOICE IN OUR GOVENEMNT, BECAUSE OUR ELECTED WORK FOR LOBBYEST, AND NOT FOR AMERICA, AND AMERICANS

I intend to e-mail my reps the following:

I have been reading the news on CBS and then the posts about the news afterwards, and I see a question that needs to be answered. The story was about the 290 billion farm bill subsidy that was approved by Congress and President Bush said he would veto because it is %u201Cfiscally irresponsible and too generous to wealthy corporate farmers in a time of record crop prices%u201D. I don%u2019t see anywhere where people disagree with the Pres, so why don%u2019t BOTH sides, Dems and Repub%u2019s, knowing that he is going to veto it, work (for us, the voters) to scale back the bill into something that would actually work as it should, and would get passed? You can change the bill into any of a hundred different ones over the past couple years to suit your taste, but the idea is the same. Or is it done this way just to shame and embarrass the other party? (BTW, I do not EVER see that a %u201Cspecial interest%u201D group should overpower a vote for American interest by a lawmaker!) If that is the real reason, then I guess we voters in fact do need a third or even fourth political party to offset the between lines bickering.

[my2centss]

"You folks never seem to object when the money is going to some corrupt contractor in Iraq... there is just a problem when the money helps REAL Americans huh?"

Posted by skyk at 10:07 PM : May 15, 2008

No that is not the case. It just so happens that this article is not about Iraq, and therefore I try to stick to the subject. I am against wasteful government spending no matter where.

[sjc_1]

"..saying it is fiscally irresponsible..."

What is fiscally irresponsible is adding $4 trillion to the national debt in 7 years, most of it during the 2003-2006 period when the Republicans ran Congress.

[talkingham]

I''m just glad that we are helping the millionaire race horse owners in Kentucky, they need so much help to breed pencil legged race horses.

Most fo the not to grow money goes to big corps such as Archer Daniel Midland Corp- notice big corps weren''t listed in the "capped" income group.

Corn is by far the least productive of the crops that can be mixed with alcohols to make fuels that''s why it''s subsidized and that''s why big media is always endorsing it. Glad they blame southern farmers in the article when it''s big corn who drives these absurd bills.

[usbrit-2009]

I''m all for Congress ramming a Bush veto right back into his sneering little face, but I don''t think this is the one to do it on. The dems have obviously given way too much to the GOPigs and their corporate farmer buddies just to get a bill passed. Sometimes in compromise you just wind up with the worst of both sides - not a good bill.

[mcdonaj3]

Why are we paying farmers to not grow crops. Has Congress totally lost it!

[mjvw2]

oh for joy. more of my money going to the LESS FORTUNATE.

[mcdonaj3]

Hmmm, let''s see, for the purposes of the tax rebate, rich starts at $150,000, but for farmers rich starts at $750,000. I must get a better lobbyist!