By NICOLE GAOUETTE, Los Angeles Times

Published: December 15, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday approved a farm bill that would continue to funnel billions of dollars in subsidies to wealthy landowners and farmers who are earning record-breaking prices for their crops, rebuffing a concerted campaign by some senators to shift money to conservation, nutrition and deficit reduction.

The bill has drawn a veto threat from President Bush, who has criticized the subsidy payments and the creation of a $5 billion permanent disaster fund.

The White House has an unlikely set of allies in taxpayer groups, environmentalists, physicians and rural community advocates who tried to change the bill's priorities. They pledged to continue lobbying as the House and Senate try to reconcile the differences in their respective bills.

Supporters of the Senate bill point out that it institutes significant changes, including support for biofuels and for fruit and vegetable farmers.

Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, fought for some of the changes during what he called "a hard week" of debate before the bill passed 79-14, a margin wide enough to override a presidential veto.

"We were able to work within a very strict budget allocation ... and pass a farm bill that is good for agriculture, good for rural areas and good for the health of Americans," Harkin said.

"This farm bill fails to provide the fundamental reform we need in Washington," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., who proposed a failed amendment that would have phased out subsidies and used the money for nutrition, conservation and free crop insurance for all growers.

The $288 billion farm bill sets agriculture policy for five years, but its influence extends to school lunch programs, conservation programs, alternative fuel development, food safety and the amount of help that hungry Americans receive.

About 66 percent of the farm bill deals with nutrition programs, such as food stamps, but the bill also gives billions of dollars in subsidies to farms that grow a few major crops, including corn, soybeans, cotton, rice and wheat.

The bill does establish some limits on subsidies. Currently, farmers with an adjusted gross income of $2.5 million can receive commodity payments. The bill gradually would lower that to $750,000 by 2010, except for growers for whom 67 percent of their adjusted gross income comes from a farm. Current law allows owners of former farmland that has been subdivided for residential use to continue to receive commodity payments. The bill would limit those payments.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., introduced an unsuccessful amendment that would have immediately banned subsidies for full-time farmers earning more than $750,000 a year and part-time growers earning more than $250,000.

"I believe in a safety net, but I believe it is time to move to some reform," Klobuchar said. Acknowledging the growing anger about farm spending, she said, "If we don't do the reform in the farm states, it is going to happen to us."

The section of the bill that deals with nutrition would expand a snack program Harkin created to provide fresh fruit and vegetables to the 4.5 million children in elementary schools nationwide. It also would increase food stamp benefits and ensure they keep pace with the cost of living.

The bill strengthens mandatory Country of Origin Labeling popular with consumers.

Source: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/15/na-farm-bill-passes-subsidies-and-all/

Farm bill would be bounty to Florida farmers

By LAURA LAYDEN (Contact)
Monday, December 17, 2007
Inside the bill

The Senate farm bill, approved Friday, sets aside $2.2 billion to help Florida and other specialty crop producers. It includes:

• $270 million in specialty crop block grants for research, commodity promotion, product enhancement, consumer health, food safety and other programs.

• $6.8 million in technical assistance to address barriers that threaten the export of U.S. specialty crops from 2008 to 2011.

• $225 million to expand a program that provides fresh fruit and vegetables to schoolchildren.

• $80 million for specialty crop research.

• $30 million to help establish and promote farmers markets.

• $50 million for pilot projects designed to help low-income Americans eat better. At least half must be used to encourage people to purchase fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods.

• $94 million for the Market Access program, which helps growers establish new markets overseas.

The bill also requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to purchase more than $1.9 billion in fruits, vegetables and nuts over five years for use in nutrition assistance programs and it expands conservation programs for growers.

Source: Senate Agriculture Committee; Florida Citrus Mutual.


Florida growers would reap a bounty of benefits from a $286 billion farm bill the U.S. Senate approved Friday.

The Senate overwhelming passed the bill on a 79-14 vote. "Very remarkable," said Mike Stuart, president of the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association. "It's a big win for us."

Florida Sens. Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez voted for the bill.

The Senate legislation includes $2.2 billion to help specialty crop producers, who grow the fruits and vegetables found in the local supermarket. The money is for marketing, research, technical assistance, conservation and nutrition programs.

The legislation still faces an uphill battle. Differences between the House and Senate bills must be ironed out and President Bush has threatened a veto, citing budget concerns and inadequate reforms.

In a statement Friday, acting U.S. Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner called the legislation "fundamentally flawed," saying it included no "real reform."

He said farmers deserved "a farm bill that is free of budget smoke and mirrors and tax increases." The measure includes $22 billion in unfunded commitments and "budget gimmicks," he said, and has $15 billion in new taxes.

This is the first time specialty producers, who grow everything from citrus to tomatoes and nursery plants, have been included in the farm bill in a substantial way. Traditionally, the bill has benefitted larger growers of commodity crops, such as corn and cotton.

"This farm bill is the best farm bill that Florida has ever had the opportunity to get," said Robert Coker, a senior vice president for U.S. Sugar Corp. and Southern Gardens Citrus in Clewiston.

"We are proud of the fact that this is not really a subsidy program, but a program that helps us improve the production of our commodities. This gives us the opportunity to invest a little bit more in research and development," said Mark Wheeler, chief financial officer for Wheeler Farms Inc., a Florida citrus grower with groves in Glades and Hendry counties.

The Senate version includes $270 million in block grants to support research, commodity promotion, product enhancement and other programs. It has been estimated that Florida could receive $20 million in grants under this program over the next five years.

The states with the highest valued specialty crops would get the most money, Stuart explained.

"We are the No. 2 specialty crop state in the country. So we are going to get a considerable investment from the block grants coming back to Florida," he said.

Florida is only behind California as a producer of fruits and vegetables. "We do about $7 billion a year in ag sales at the farm level, and 90 percent or more of that is fruits and vegetables," said Terry McElroy, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The block grants will be key for the industry in Florida, but there are many other benefits for the state's producers in the Senate bill, such as more trade assistance and the expansion of a school snack program, he said.

The bill includes $225 million a year to provide free fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren throughout the day. Florida could get $8.5 million a year, enough to serve about 170,000 low-income elementary school students.

The vote on the farm bill comes at a critical time for the citrus industry, as it faces threats from such diseases as canker and greening.

Canker mars fruit. Greening is fatal to citrus and there's no known cure.

The Senate bill creates the Specialty Crop Research Initiative. It would provide $80 million over five years for research on plant breeding, genetics, genomics, invasive species, mechanization and food safety.

"It's certainly historic. There have been farm bills ever since the Great Depression and this is the first time specialty crops are significantly singled out, recognized with mandatory funds. That is a huge win for us," said Casey Welch, congressional affairs director for Florida Citrus Mutual.

Greening research is a top priority for the industry, he said. The disease has now spread to 26 counties, including Collier, Lee and Hendry. The number of infected trees isn't known.

Dana Brooks, national affairs coordinator for the Florida Farm Bureau, said the House and Senate bills are very similar when it comes to specialty crops.

"I think the House bill is probably the better of the two for us," she said. "The specialty crop funds that are in the House bill are a little less restrictive to where the money could go. So our state can decide what is the best use for it."

The House bill, passed in July, included $1.6 billion for specialty crop growers. Though it's less money, the programs it would go to would be more beneficial for Florida farmers, Brooks said.

The Senate bill sets aside more money for conservation, while the House version has more money for nutrition programs, said Coker, with U.S. Sugar.

"I think everybody has their own particular favorite," he said. "But I think right now you've got two fairly balanced bills."

The Senate vote Friday ended a six-week impasse on the farm bill. At one point, more than 250 amendments were proposed, making passage seem unlikely.

Florida growers fretted when senators started talking about extending the current bill, which some say provides them with very little support.

The deadlock ended after Senators agreed to whittle down the amendments to 20 on each side, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

She said negotiations have already started between the House and Senate agricultural committees. The next step is to appoint a conference committee to resolve the disagreements.

There's hope that a compromise will be reached in January after Congress returns from a holiday recess. Florida growers will be watching closely.

"I'm optimistic about the progress made," said Wheeler. "But I'm realistic that we have an uphill battle on our hands."

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 2:30 PM EST
Florida Citrus Mutual praises Senate farm bill
Orlando Business Journal


The U.S. Senate on Friday passed its version of the 2007 farm bill that provides more than $2 billion in funding for the fruit and vegetable industry, something Florida Citrus Mutual says will benefit Florida.

The $286 billion bill, passed 79-14 but still a work in progress, includes mandatory funding for fruit and vegetable marketing, crop research and increased federal nutrition programs that encourage children to eat healthier.

Florida Citrus Mutual, the state's largest growers' organization with nearly 8,000 members, says the bill will provide funds to research canker citrus greening and other threats to the $9 billion industry.

The Senate and House versions of the farm bill still must be reconciled in a conference committee and passed again before the president gets a chance to sign or veto the legislation.

President George W. Bush has threatened to veto the bill, and suggested limiting farm payments to producers with an adjusted gross income of $200,000 a year or less. Under both the House and Senate bills, farms earning $1 million or less would qualify for subsidies during 2009. Under the Senate bill, the income limit would drop to $750,000. The current income limit is $2.5 million a year.

Among other things, the bill also provides a new disaster title to assist growers in dealing with natural disasters, guarantees revenue for grain, cotton and soybean growers starting in 2010, and shuttles millions of dollars toward bio-refinery development and biomass research.

The agriculture industry contributes $87.5 billion to Florida's economy, placing the state 10th in the nation in agriculture receipts.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2007/12/17/daily6.html

Yowzer . . . How about a engineering subsidy? I make less than $200,000 per year. My poor family is wasting away (except for the 2 pound box of Sees candy I just got, the birthday dinner we had tonight for my mom at BJ's, and the chocolate chunk dessert that we had afterwards). My poor family . . .

Phillip

There is a lot of benefit and a lot of waste in every farm bill. However without a farm bill, much of middle America would dry up and move to the citires.

Farmers are much like the rest of society. There are a few rich farmers, and a few really poor farmers, with the majority of farmers somewhere in the middle. With out subsidies, I can tell you for certain there would be no profit in commodities such as wheat, barley, millet, sorghum and the rest of the grain crops. JUST with the recent and continuous rise in the price of diesel fuel, the farmer's cost has risen to $100.00 to farm just one acre per crop year. Most all of my neighbors would stop production quickly if subsidies where withdrawn, and middle America would dry up. Corn, has become profitable due to the silly manufacturing of ethanol. The manufacturing of Ethanol from corn requires just about the same amount of energy derived from fossil fuels as the amount of energy ethanol creates. Making fuel out of ones food supply is not very smart. Lastly, the government can either give subsidies to the relatively few American farmers still in the business, and keep the price of the country's food supply the cheapest in the world, or withdraw subsidies and let the price of food rise for the 300 million Americans who eat. Look what has happened to the price of food and manufactured products, from the rise in price of just one of the commodities (corn), due to the manufacturing of ethanol. When the total cost to the American people is added up, the most expensive fuel to use, by a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE margin, is ethanol, imported oil is cheap in comparison. There are untold millions of ways to earn a lot more money in America over one's life time than by farming. I know a few rich farmers, and I know a lot of middle class and slightly lower middle class farmers, and a some that are just hanging on.

Hey, don't take away my subsidies!

Yeah, I do get some small sugsidies because I have wheat and corn base acreage but payments are quite small at current commodity prices but did require some conservation practices in return. They do help ensure a viable agricultural industry so that we can furnish our own food supply. That is an important part of national security, FWIW. When commodity prices are lower subsidies are higher. My payments amount to about $35/acre...nothing to get excited about.

I don't agree completely with comments about ethanol production from corn being bad. Dairymen and beef cattle operators complain about it but they would like cheap feed but would like high prices for their own products. The worse thing about the ethanol production is that subsidies had been established when oil prices were lower and they are no longer needed to make ethanol a viable alternative/replacement to oil, but the big ethanol producers are still getting those subsidies. Hopefully, that will be changed soon, if it hasn't already. There has also been talk about the inefficiency of ethanol production from corn. It's been a while, but I read what seemed to be a reliable report (which was critical of the scheme) that said it took the equivalent of 7 barrels of oil to make 10 barrels of ethanol (or maybe a bit more because I think it was in energy equivalent). What's bad with that? That's like putting 7 tons of steel into a factory but cranking out 10 tons of steel products. We have plenty of capacity to grow the corn for such purposes and I'd rather see the corn stay here at home in the form of ethanol than be exported for feed to other countries. A worse use of the corn is probably the feed itself to satisfy our huge appetite for meats (I am not a vegarian but am aware that I probably eat too much meat).

I don't think the subsidy programs are wonderful, but they definitely aren't the worse program we've got in this country. The last time I heard, consumers in the USA still pay a lower percentage of their income for food than just about any other country.