• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Limits vote fails

Sandhusker

Well-known member
WASHINGTON — Efforts to put new limits on federal farm subsidies were turned aside again Thursday as the Senate moved toward finishing its version of the farm bill.

The bill is the five-year, $286 billion re-authorization of federal agriculture programs that pay subsidies to growers, provide food aid to the poor and fund rural development efforts.

Backers were hoping for a final vote on the bill late Thursday or today.

The farm bill has been at the center of debate about the government's distribution of crop subsidies, including criticism that the payments funnel too much money to large agribusinesses, foster farm consolidation and drive up land prices.

Still, the latest farm bill appeared destined to preserve the status quo in many of those areas.

A key Senate vote was taken Thursday on a proposal to cap annual subsidy payments at $250,000 per farming family, down from the current $360,000.

Offered by Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., the proposal would have tightened existing restrictions to make sure subsidy recipients were actively farming.

The fight over the issue broke down along regional lines.

Midwestern senators have a more favorable view toward limiting payments than those from the South, where rice and cotton growers manage larger, more expensive operations.

The Grassley-Dorgan amendment received unanimous support from Nebraska and Iowa senators, yet garnered only 56 votes overall. That was four short of the 60 needed to add an amendment to the bill.

Grassley vowed to continue pushing for payment limits.

"The underlying bill is not real reform," Grassley said. "There are loopholes that you can drive a 9630 John Deere tractor through."

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., noted that the Environmental Working Group, which analyzes federal farm programs, found only about a dozen farms in Nebraska that receive more than the upper limit in the Grassley-Dorgan proposal, $250,000 a year.

"The Senate missed an opportunity to enact real reform and ensure that mega-payments stop going to mega-farms," Nelson said.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., warned, "If I don't see a farm bill that essentially reforms the system . . . I'll vote against it."

Other proposed amendments also failed Thursday, including one from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. It would have denied commodity subsidies to part-time farmers making more than $250,000 a year after expenses and to full-time farmers making more than $750,000 a year after expenses. The vote was 48-47, short of the 60 needed for approval.

Harkin, Grassley and Nelson supported Klobuchar's amendment. Hagel opposed it because he disagrees with the approach of denying farm payments based on income.

The House passed its version of the farm bill in July.
 

Latest posts

Top