Senators split over support for farm bill

Published Friday, May 16, 2008

  • Print story
  • E-mail story
  • Comments
  • Digg Digg
  • del.icio.us del.icio.us
  • Facebook Facebook
  • Add to Mixx! Mixx
  • Reddit Reddit
  • Stumble It!

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a $290 billion farm bill Thursday that includes a number of provisions beneficial to Alaska. But the state’s congressional delegation split over whether to support the final version of the bill.

Sen. Ted Stevens joined 80 of his colleagues in voting to reauthorize the farm bill, which sets agricultural subsidies for the next five years. Sen. Lisa Murkowski did not, saying she disagreed with the spending priorities in the measure.

Murkowski called the legislation “bloated” and said it spent too much money on corn-based ethanol production at a time when food prices around the world are escalating.

The bill does shift funding for biofuels from food-based feedstocks to cellulosic, or nonfood, crops.

The bill would provide a production tax credit of up to $1 per gallon of cellulosic ethanol through 2012. It also cuts 6 cents from the current 51 cents per gallon credit for corn-based ethanol.

Murkowski said it falls short of doing enough to shift the country’s production of biofuels away from food-based feedstocks.

Murkowski pointed to $320 million in spending for biofuel refineries that included facilities that use corn in the production of ethanol. She also questioned the need for a new $45 per-ton subsidy to farmers to produce biomass, such as switchgrass and corn stover, given current crop prices.

A Senate and House conference committee wrestled for more than a week to try to cut the amount of pork in the bill to avoid a threatened veto by President Bush.

Senate and House conferees axed several provisions sought by Stevens and Murkowski, including language that would have allowed commercial fishermen to receive federal loans to cover operating costs. Stevens argued that providing the loans would help Alaska’s commercial fishermen compete against large fish farms.

“Alaska, like every other state, lost some provisions when the conference committee pared down the bill. But the final version passed today is still a win for our state,” Stevens said.

Murkowski, among her concerns, expressed frustration over the decision to remove a provision that would have benefited the plaintiffs involved in civil litigation with Exxon Mobil over the 1989 Valdez oil spill. Congressional negotiators dropped an amendment by Murkowski that would have allowed plaintiffs in the Valdez oil spill lawsuit to spread federal tax payments over three years on income awarded by the court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule sometime next month on whether Exxon Mobil should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages.

Murkowski noted that the final bill did not include a provision that would have provided a 30 percent tax credit for rural residents who install wind turbines to generate their own electricity.

Murkowski also complained that Alaska dairy farmers, along with those in Hawaii and Puerto Rico dairies, would have to pay tax for the first time on milk produced for commercial use.

Also removed was a Stevens-sponsored grant program to assist rural residents with the switch to digital television.

Nearly two-thirds of the bill would pay for domestic nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. It would expand a program to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren and provide about $1 billion for food banks across the country.

“There a lot of provisions in this farm bill that will benefit Alaska, but that aren’t Alaska specific, especially the nutrition portion of the bill,” said Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for Stevens.

Rep. Don Young also chose to support the bill when the House approved by a vote of 318 to 106 on Wednesday.

Young said the “good outweighed the bad,” including increases in funding for food stamps and food programs to help low-income families deal with rising grocery prices.

“The agreement that was reached was a decent compromise that will ensure food security and increase funding for nutrition programs by over $10 billion,” Young said in a prepared statement.

The farm bill also includes about $30 billion for conservation programs, as well as increased funding for renewable energy development, supported by Young.

The bill would reauthorize the Rural Alaska Village Grant program for five years and provide up to $30 million annually for water and sewer projects.

Bush has threatened to veto the bill for not doing enough to curb subsidies to wealthy corporate farmers. But the measure passed both chambers with more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.

Bush is expected to veto the bill when he returns next week from his trip to the Middle East.

Additional Alaska provisions in the bill include the following:

• Gives Barrow’s Ilisagvik College land grant status, allowing it to apply for U.S. Department of Agriculture grants.

• Provides $1.5 million to the Denali Commission for solid waste projects.

• Allows Alaska to use certain grants to put broadband service in communities that have dial-up Internet service.

• Reauthorizes through 2013 a program that helps Alaska and Hawaii Natives attend university.

• Provides funding for Alaska and Hawaii farmers to cover the additional cost of getting their products to distant markets.

Community Discussion

Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.

  1. joy_Fairbanks
    5/16/2008, 1:02 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    Bye, bye Don Young, Ted Stevens & maybe Lisa Murkowski! We are all tired of you all supporting special interest groups. On the Bill Moyers program on Channel 9 several weeks ago, it investigated multi-millionaires receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars not to plant their fields and fraud from hundreds of farmers receiving thousands of dollars due to drought, when there was no drought; fraud in claims due to pollution from the Challenger disintegrating and polluting their farmlands and were hundreds of miles away--the “good outweighed the bad,” Rep. Young. We need new legislators that are fiscally responsible and more in touch with the real world; maybe when you have to donate your paychecks, give up your cushy pensions and pay for these PORK projects yourselves, we'll have you voting a little differently.

  2. mrderik
    5/16/2008, 8:18 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    >Nearly two-thirds of the bill would pay for domestic nutrition programs, including food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy.

    So, we subsidize fuel production from grain crops thereby raising food prices, and to counteract that, subsidize the food costs. Somebody is getting rich off this and it ain't me, joe taxpayer. Congrats Murkowski for have the Balls... no wait, the intelligence, (not a word normally associated with the Murkowski name) for seeing through this thing as simply a bloated, bad idea.

    O.K., so that was a low blow on the Murki name, but lets face it, the former Murki (Young and Stevens) never voted against a bad idea, so long as Alaskans got their fair share of pork out of it.

  3. MEL1776
    5/16/2008, 9:22 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    This bill passed by a veto proof majority so our representatives are not the only ones to be blamed.

    Given that the wild fish stocks are in trouble because of dramatic over fishing I am disgusted that Stevens and Murkowski sought language that would have allowed commercial fishermen to receive federal loans to cover operating costs. Fish farms are needed in order to preserve out natural fish stocks and to allow them to recover. If anything we should introduce a federal consumption tax on troubled wild fish stocks and subsidize fish farms.

    For a change Bush was right to complain that so much money will be given to wealthy corporate farmers; especially as it will be given to them not to grow food when food prices are rising. And farm subsidies in wealthy nations hurt undeveloped nations as well. Still Europe’s farm subsidies are much worse.

  4. fishtales
    5/16/2008, 10 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    I think if we are going to fund a subsity for biomass it should only be given if farmers use crp land and the subsity for the crp land should be droped. Also we need to drop all money used to subsidize food crop based ethanol. Do we have any common sense by either party in congress?

  5. mrderik
    5/16/2008, 11:44 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    >This bill passed by a veto proof majority....

    Why do I suddenly feel nauseous? Oh ya, because they just saddled my young daughter with another Trillion dollars in debt.

  6. MEL1776
    5/16/2008, 11:54 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    By "our" I meant Alaska.

Post a comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

Also inside
Today's news / Photos / Local / Alaska / Sports / Opinion
Features
Sundays / Health / Food / Outdoors / Latitude 65 / Youth / Business
newsminer.com
Archives / About / Feedback / Privacy Policy / User Agreement / Staff / Jobs / Contact / Feeds
Submit
Letters to the Editor / Events / Obituaries