Defying threat of veto, House approves farm bill

WASHINGTON -- Ignoring a veto threat from President Bush, the House of Representatives took the first step yesterday toward renewing the backbone of the nation's farm program by approving legislation that would funnel billions of tax dollars to agriculture.

For the first time, the bill would set aside money to aid the growers of specialty crops -- various types of fruit, vegetables, and nuts grown largely in California. It also would increase funding for government nutrition programs for low-income families. And reflecting the broad reach of agriculture, it includes money for programs devoted to conservation and renewable energy.

"This farm bill is about much more than farms. It is about the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and increasingly the fuel we will use," said Representative Collin Peterson, Democrat of Minnesota, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

The $90 billion bill passed, 231 to 191. The Senate is expected to begin work on its version of the measure in September. The current farm bill expires Sept. 30.

Bush has threatened to veto the House version because it would increase taxes on some multinational corporations that operate US subsidiaries, a step included to help pay for about $4 billion in food stamp and other nutrition programs. The legislation's margin of approval left the Democrats far short of the votes they would need to sustain a veto. But Peterson, in comments after the vote, noted that no farm bill has been vetoed in more than 40 years.

Reflecting the partisan tenor of debate, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri said the House Democratic leadership took a measure, which the House Agriculture Committee had approved unanimously, "and used it as a vehicle to raise taxes -- both on foreign companies who invest capital in America and create jobs here, and domestic energy producers who explore for natural gas in the deepest waters offshore."

House majority leader Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, declared that the bill was fiscally responsible, saying it would impose "real payment limitations" that would begin reducing farm subsidies over time.

One of the most politically sensitive disputes surrounding the bill was resolved Thursday, when the House rejected a proposal intended to shift some $12 billion in crop subsidies and direct payments to farmers toward conservation, rural development, and nutrition programs that fight obesity.

The proposal, which would have marked a dramatic shift in Washington's agricultural policy, was advanced by Representative Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin, and embraced by some conservative Republicans seeking to trim federal spending. Also backing it were a coalition of Democrats representing urban and suburban districts.

Kind, who raises corn and soybeans, questioned the propriety of subsidizing grain producers in the amount of tens of billions of dollars "when they're getting near record prices." He said that two-thirds of the support goes to the top 10 percent of eligible farmers.

Although Kind's proposal failed, the bill contains new steps intended to put reins on the subsidy payments, closing a loophole that has allowed farmers to avoid limits on how much they could receive from the government by owning parts of multiple farms.

The measure includes provisions to remove environmentally sensitive land from farming. But some critics complained that it should do more to promote good environmental farming practices.

The funding intended to help growers of specialty fruit, vegetables, and nuts totals $1.6 billion. The money would pay for research programs, improved pest detection, aid to organic farming, and the promotion of farmers' markets.

The legislation also would expand production of biofuels, promote labeling of meat to disclose country of origin (a provision food retailers and meatpackers opposed), and expand economic development in rural communities. Although farm groups fought hard to protect the current subsidy system, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, forged a compromise that held together a majority that included Democratic representatives from farm states as well as urban lawmakers seeking broad changes. "This signals change and a new direction," she said.