The Good And Bad Of The Farm Bill The $289 billion, five-year Farm Bill, originally slated for completion in 2007, finally passed both houses of Congress by
veto-proof majorities last week, despite criticism from
environmentalists,
some advocates for the poor, and
economic conservatives. The bill is now on the cusp of a largely symbolic
presidential veto. Both the
New York Times and the
Washington Post have come out supporting the veto, while prominent congressional leaders, from
diverse states and
parties, have been vocally opposed to components of the final bill. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), a prominent farm bill reform advocate, said, "This bill was well designed to
avoid every opportunity for serious reform of wasteful, outdated subsidy programs while actually piling on additional layers of unnecessary spending." While the bill does contain some
giveaways to the powerful agro-business,
Campus Progress explains that the Farm Bill encompasses far more than just farm subsidies. "
Its influence goes far beyond agricultural policy. The bill affects public health, by shaping what Americans eat; the environment, by determining what land gets conserved and how much alternative energies are promoted; and global poverty, by playing a large part in setting U.S. crop prices."
A LITTLE FOR EVERYONE: The bill has tied together some unlikely bedfellows, making its final passage contingent on groups banding together on issues ranging from
nutrition programs to fuel efficiency regulations to labor provisions. As part of early deliberations, for example,
corn growers,
Wall Street investment firms, and
ethanol producers, worked for an
aggressive renewable fuels standard (RFS). The
California Coalition for Food and Farming brought together organic farmers, minority groups, urban food banks, and environmentalists to support a community reinvestment proposal. "
No one is thrilled with all aspects of this deal, but we understand the delicate balance it took to get it done," said David Cleavinger, National Association of Wheat Growers president." The nutrition section includes
hard-fought improvements in the rules and funding for food stamps and other programs. Though pleased with the food stamp provision,
NETWORK, a faith-based anti-poverty organization, explained that they are "disappointed that there is no significant reform of the commodity subsidies that give unfair advantage to large landowners at the expense of small farmers in the U.S. and around the world."
CONGRESSIONAL DELIBERATION: Debate in Congress forged bipartisan alliances. Republicans and Democrats banded together not so much by party, but by geographic region, local business interests, and specific issues. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) gathered a wide group of senators' signatures on a letter opposing the renewable fuel standard, citing it as an "
attack on ethanol." On the other side sat a
bipartisan group of 26 senators who lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cut this year's requirement for nine billion gallons of corn ethanol in half, they say, to ease food costs. In the end, the farm bill went so far as to make a decided shift away from corn-based ethanol towards
cellulosic ethanol production. But to pass the bill, Congress was forced to accept compromise. "This [is] the product of a consistent, bipartisan, cross-regional and bicameral effort in Congress. ... The
reality is that no member of Congress or administration official will or should get 100 percent of what he or she wants in any bill," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Agriculture Secretary
Ed Schafer noted: "If you look at what happened at the end of this bill when it became clear it wasn't going in a direction the president was going to support, they sort of put something in there for everybody. Everybody gets to take home something from the farm bill that is important to their district or their constituents. That's hard to vote against."
OIL, BIOFUEL, AND NUTRITION: The farm bill is more than agriculture subsidies. It also directly impacts,
but does little to address, what Americans are facing every day:
milk prices that have increased 21.2 percent (up to $3.80 per gallon) in the last twelve months, gas prices that are set to reach
$7.00 by 2012, and
working professionals who are forced to rely on food stamps because they've lost their jobs. And the farm bill doesn't just stop at America's borders. It influences the the manner in which foreign aid is given to victims of the hurricane in
Myanmar and the earthquake in
China. It influences World Trade Organization
Doha Round deliberations, which has been seven years in the making. The bill remains a uniquely powerful tool for finding solutions to these national and global problems. "[I]t's the system that's in place, like it or not. And if citizens don't like it they must continue to push for reform. But derailing the farm bill, which
does fund a great many vital programs that help children and struggling farmers, is not the way to bring about reform. ... But at this point the choices are limited. It is either accept or reject. The president and the people must hold their noses and accept the farm bill that has been approved -- and then they must work to reform the system," a local Washington state paper argued.

ENVIRONMENT -- CONSERVATION GROUPS SUE OVER INADEQATE POLAR BEAR RULING: After <a target="_blank" href="http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/er.aspx?s=785&lid=5310&elq=E76EDC297A6942A6955C690F533E3370">years of stalling, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne last week declared the polar bear
a "threatened" species due to global warming. However, Kempthorne declared that it would be "wholly inappropriate" to allow the ruling to "
open the door to...regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles, power plants, and other sources." Yesterday, the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and the National Resources Defense Council announced they would
seek court intervention to demand action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions to protect the polar bear. "On the one hand, he's [Kempthorne] acknowledging that global warming is impacting polar bears," said Melanie Duchin of Greenpeace in Alaska. "On the other hand, he's not willing to do anything about it. We're asking the administration to uphold the spirit and intent of the Endangered Species Act." Indeed, not only did Kempthorne rule out regulating greenhouse gases as a result of his polar bear decision, he also specifically declared that
oil drilling in Alaska, a major polar bear habitat, could continue. Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner told the
Wonk Room, "This is the regulatory equivalent of a signing statement -- only this one gets to be challenged in court."
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS -- CONSERVATIVES BREAK WITH BUSH'S 'APPEASEMENT' CLAIM: Last week, during a
speech to the Israeli parliament, President Bush said that negotiating with America's adversaries represents "
the false comfort of appeasement" and is akin to European leaders allowing Hitler to expand Germany's sphere of influence before the start of World War II. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took the exact opposite position just one day prior, saying that the U.S needs to "
sit down and talk with" Iran. But when asked by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about the contradiction yesterday during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing, Gates tried to wiggle out of the question, saying, "I don't know exactly what the president said." Referring to the President's comments, Specter stated, "
it's not appeasement, and that the analogy to [former British Prime Minister] Neville Chamberlain is wrong." Specter's view echoes a statement made by James A. Baker, Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush. During an October 2006
appearance on Fox News, Baker stated emphatically, "You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well. Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies," adding, "Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement."
SURVEILLANCE -- GOVT. MAY HAVE MASSIVE SPY PROGRAM FOR 'NATIONAL EMERGENCY,' 8 MILLION 'POTENTIAL SUSPECTS: Last year, former deputy attorney general James Comey
revealed that in 2004, he refused to "certify" the legality of certain aspects of the National Security Agency (NSA) spy program. The Center for American Progress's Peter Swire noted at the time that Comey's testimony implied that "
other programs exist for domestic spying" outside of the
NSA program. Radar's Christopher Ketcham suggests that another spy program does exist: "
Main Core," which authorizes "computer searches through massive [unspecified] electronic databases" in order to discover "potential threats" in the event of a "national emergency." According to a senior government official, "The database can identify and locate perceived 'enemies of the state' almost instantaneously."
One "knowledgeable source" claims that "8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect." But the plans "are shrouded in
extreme secrecy, effectively unregulated by Congress or the courts." Furthermore, the NSA domestic surveillance program reportedly "suppl[ies] data to Main Core." "[T]he program that caused
the flap between Comey and the White House was related to a database of Americans who might be considered potential threats in the event of a national emergency," Radar notes. Former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein observed, "To a national emergency planner, everybody looks like a danger to stability."