Washington – Colorado’s House delegation split along party lines on Friday’s vote on a $286 billion farm bill, which sets agriculture policies for five years.
The bill is estimated to bring $388 million in subsidies to Colorado crop growers and creates a fund of $1.6 billion that farmers of fruits and vegetables nationwide can apply to share.
It passed the House on a 231-191 vote but faces a veto threat by President Bush. All but 19 Republicans opposed it, leaving Democrats well short of the margin they would need to override a veto.
The bill devotes more money to conservation, renewable energy, nutrition and specialty crop programs than in the past but leaves in place – and in some cases increases – subsidies to producers of major crops such as corn and soybeans at a time of record-high prices.
It reflected a delicate straddle for Democrats writing their first farm bill in more than a decade, who struggled to balance the needs of first- term, farm-state lawmakers against the demands of liberals seeking more money for environmental and nutrition programs.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the measure “signals change and shows a new direction in our farm policy,” but it fell well short of the changes many in her party had demanded.
Democratic Reps. Diana DeGette of Denver, Mark Udall of Eldorado Springs, John Salazar of Manassa and Ed Perlmutter of Golden voted for the bill.
Republicans Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs and Marilyn Musgrave of Fort Morgan voted against it.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Littleton Republican, missed the vote. He was traveling to Iowa for a speech and fundraiser, part of his presidential campaign.
Musgrave and Salazar sit on the Agriculture Committee that wrote the bill
The Environmental Working Group, which opposes subsidies, last week pointed out that the congressional districts represented by the Agriculture Committee from 2003 to 2005 got a combined 42 percent of the benefits from the 2002 farm bill.
From 2003 to 2005, Musgrave’s district received $330 million in benefits, or 0.9 percent of the total, the Environmental Working Group analysis said.
Salazar’s district gained $24 million, or 0.1 percent.
Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., led committee members in term of district subsidies, with $1.7 billion, or 5 percent of the total.
Musgrave supported the bill in committee but opposed a tax provision added before the bill came to the floor.
She said Democrats “hijacked the bill” by adding that tax provision. Democrats said they were closing a tax loophole that allowed foreign companies that operate in the U.S. to seek tax-free havens. Republicans called it a threat to U.S.-based workers.
“This (tax) hike would directly impact companies in Colorado that employ over 70,000 residents and places current federal farm policies at risk of running out as the 2002 Farm Bill is set to expire in September,” Musgrave said. “This stealthy tax hike is a show-stopper for me. Spending offsets are by far better ways to pay for the farm bill’s increases, and that’s why I’ve spent the entire summer introducing amendments to reduce federal spending by $1.85 billion.”
Salazar said the bill “protects family farmers and agriculture in America in a fiscally responsible way. Ultimately, it is a win for our consumers who reap the benefits of safe, healthy and inexpensive food that is produced in America.
“Portions of the farm bill will be paid for with revenue generated from cracking down on some foreign companies that use loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying taxes that every American-owned business must pay,” Salazar said. “In fact, the president’s 2008 budget suggests that some foreign companies are inappropriately avoiding taxes by using this loophole.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
