 | |  |
 |
|
|
|
Farm
Bill Plays Pivotal Role in U.S. Food Production |
Posted:11.20.07
|
|
|
The U.S. Senate last week could not agree on a new version of
the farm bill, an important piece of legislation that provides
money for farmers but is also criticized for inflating food prices
and contributing to corporate farming.
Printer-friendly version: PDF
|
|
|
|
|
 The
farm bill, which is renewed every five years, is a multi-billion
dollar piece of legislation that doles out money for food stamps,
farms and environmental conservation.
The latest version of the farm bill was passed in 2002 and without
action by the Senate, those programs could disappear. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slow going
in 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
With crop prices high and the federal government facing a deficit,
Republicans in the Senate have decided to battle the Democrats
over the cost of the bill: $286 billion.
The House of Representatives passed a version of the farm bill
in July 2007, which has to be accepted by the Senate and then
signed by the president to become law. 
President Bush has threatened to veto this version of the bill,
saying it is too expensive and pays wealthy farmers too much.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers from farm states have been
unwilling to substantially cut subsidies to farmers -- especially
wealthy landowners, who tend to be big political donors.
In the Senate, fighting began after Republicans proposed amendments
concerning taxes and immigration, which have little to do with
agriculture.
Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa who chairs the Senate Agriculture
Committee, speculated that the White House is pressuring Republicans
to stop the bill because President Bush doesn't want to veto legislation
that is so popular in farm states.
"I certainly hope the situation is not a deliberate, or orchestrated,
attempt to stop the farm bill dead in its tracks, but I'm beginning
to wonder," Harkin said, according to the Associated Press.
|
|
|
|
Crop controversy |
|
|
|
|
|
 The
most controversial part of the farm bill is the money it pays to
farmers.
According to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, just 10 percent
of all farmers, almost entirely in the Midwest, collect 62 percent
of the taxpayer dollars.
The bill favors corn, wheat, soy, rice and cotton, which is good
for big food companies, but punishes growers of healthier fruits
and vegetables, critics argue.
"Shifting money from commodity subsidies to the other programs
in the farm bill won't be easy. The farm lobby wields tremendous
power while non-farm state politicians have typically ignored this
law," Brian Halweil of Worldwatch Institute wrote in the New
York Times. |
|
|
|
History of
the farm bill |
|
|
|
|
|
Congress first required
the Department of Agriculture to provide support for U.S. farms
after the Great Depression and World War I left many farmers struggling.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 was one of the first pieces
of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. It paid
money directly to farmers not to grow certain crops so that it could
control the supply of food and set a minimum price for the food
that did come to the market.
Since then, the bill has been expanded to pay farmers to limit the
amount of food being exported to other countries, which increases
the price of the corn, wheat and other foods.
Food stamps, which appeal to politicians from urban areas, were
added in 1977, quickly becoming the most expensive item in the bill.
In the 2002 farm bill, food stamps accounted for $178 of the $271
billion total.
During the 1980s, the farm bill started to include provisions on
environmental conservation, including incentives to preserve wetlands,
other wildlife areas and to make farms more environmentally friendly. |
|
|
|
Farming in
the future |
|
|
|
|
|
While it is likely that
a new farm bill will pass eventually, the fight in Congress highlights
how the legislation and the business of farming has changed in size
and scope over the past seven decades.
--Compiled
by Quinn Bowman for NewsHour Extra
Do you have an opinion about this article? Or do you have
a personal experience related to this article that you'd like
to share with our readers? Click
here to submit your story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both performances were incredibly underwhelming, and offered no real reason for Americans to change their votes. Neither candidate seemed willing to go out on a limb to garner support.
