Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

(We can't ever count on governmental progress to sustainability)

Senate Kills Farm Bill
http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2007/11/27/news/ag_news/news20.txt

By Nicole Gaouette, Los Angeles Times



WASHINGTON - A drive to revamp the nation’s costly farm subsidies died
Friday in the Senate, leaving in place a system widely criticized for being
out of step with the modern agriculture economy for favoring crops with
minimal nutritional value and for funneling large federal payouts to
wealthy investors.

The Senate’s failure to end debate and move to a vote dashed the hopes of
a wide coalition of groups that had worked to make sure this farm bill
would improve child nutrition, increase investments in food stamp programs
and benefit taxpayers by trimming government subsidies to large corporate
farms.

The farm bill also would have significantly invested in fruits, nuts and
vegetable crops for the first time. It would have added more money for
alternative energy sources, organic farming and conservation programs. And
it would have launched a program to improve school lunch nutrition in all
50 states.

The 55-42 vote, short of the 60 votes needed, scuttled a bill that had also
drawn severe criticism for falling far short of reforms Democrats had
promised when they took over Congress.

Some lawmakers had hoped to make even deeper changes to the bill with an
amendment that would have cut billions in subsidies to a few major crops,
such as corn and wheat, and steered the funds to a free crop-insurance
program that covered all farmers.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the agriculture committee, pledged to
try to bring the bill back to the Senate floor after lawmakers return from
their two-week Thanksgiving recess.


The bill has provoked intense lobbying by agribusiness, nutrition
advocates, physicians, conservationists and even religious groups focused
on battling hunger in America.

Advocates pointed out that previous farm bills, which set the nation’s
farm policy for five-year periods, were delayed for months by filibusters
and political maneuvering, but eventually were signed into law. They added
that the impasse gives them more time to raise public awareness about farm
bill issues that affect all Americans, not just those in rural areas.

Even so, the bill’s failure to survive Friday’s procedural vote leaves
intact the long-standing system of subsidies at a time when farm incomes
are at record highs.

Friday’s procedural vote, which was called to limit debate, broke down
almost entirely along partisan lines, with only four Republicans voting to
support the bill.

Republicans depicted the failed vote as further evidence of the
Democrats’ inability to get work done.

Democrats, pointing to repeated Republican filibusters and presidential
veto threats, said the GOP was trying to score political points by blocking
Democratic achievements.

“Frankly, I worry that there is a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to
derail the farm bill,” said Harkin, who described himself as “deeply
disappointed.”

Sen. Deborah Stabenow, D-Mich., said that the farm bill had passed
unanimously out of the agriculture committee.

“This is a Republican strategy to block us from achieving anything for
the American people,” she charged.

For the past two weeks, senators had struggled to jump-start debate that
had stalled over a disagreement about amendments. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev., wanted to limit debate to amendments that he considered
relevant to the $288-billion farm bill.

Republicans -and a few Democrats -wanted to add amendments that dealt with
driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, the alternative minimum tax and
renewable fuels. Republicans bristled at the limits.

“Republicans were further disappointed that we were prevented from
improving this 1,600-page bill ... after first being told the farm bill
debate would be, wide open, as is usual in the Senate,” said Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “I am not sure how the majority defines
wide-open debate, but this no-amendments-allowed process clearly does not
meet the standard.”

Harkin countered that “some of those Republican amendments that have
cropped up ... would kill the bill.”

Mentioning the immigration amendment, he added, “that’s a hot-button
issue, everyone knows it, but they’re willing to stop the farm bill just
to have a vote on it.”

The existing farm bill expired at the end of September, but the major
programs can continue until the 2008 harvest. Subsidies would continue for
the major crops: rice, wheat, cotton, corn and soybeans. But funding for
smaller programs, including two conservation programs for wetlands and
grasslands, would run out of funds.

There is a strong incentive for lawmakers to act by 2008. If a new bill is
not passed by the 2008 harvest, funding reverts to levels set in the
“permanent law,” which was written in 1949. That would drastically
boost subsidies for crops supported at the time, such as cotton and wheat,
but crops added later, such as rice, would no longer be eligible for
support.

Some House Republicans have pushed to extend the 2002 Farm Bill, a move
that would be strenuously opposed by advocates for programs that would
receive new funds in the 2007 bill. Alternative energy, as well as fruit
and vegetable crops would receive significant funding in this year’s
bill. It would also expand the food stamp program to meet rising levels of
hunger in the United States. Physicians have strongly supported one program
that would be radically expanded to put fresh fruit and vegetables into all
elementary schools, arguing that it would help fight growing rates of
childhood obesity and diabetes.

Once the 2007 bill was on the floor, taxpayer groups and other advocates
had hoped to target the subsidies in the Senate bill, which continue at
past levels and even increase for some crops. The bill would pay about $42
billion dollars to farmers when average farm incomes are about $80,000, a
third higher than the national average.

Many now say that with the farm bill debate at a standstill, they can use
the time to drum up further awareness of the issues.

“I think a broader segment of the public has focused on the bill this
time,” said Sara Hopper, an attorney with Environmental Defense. “That
critical focus has increased significantly, editorial pages across the
country have pushed for more equitable farm policy, and I think that will
help us. We still have an opportunity.”